Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:57:33.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choix d'imposition et interactions spatiales entre collectivités locales : un test sur les départements français

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Matthieu Leprince ,
Sonia Paty  and
Emmanuelle Reulier
Matthieu Leprince
Affiliation:
CREM (UMR CNRS 6211), Université de Rennes 1
Sonia Paty
Affiliation:
MEDEE, IFRESI-CNRS, Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille
Emmanuelle Reulier
Affiliation:
CREM (UMR CNRS 6211), Université de Rennes 1
Get access

Résumé

L'objectif de cet article est de tester économétriquement l'existence d'interactions spatiales entre les choix d'imposition des départements français de métropole. Pour cela, un modèle de choix fiscal avec autorégression spatiale est spécifié pour estimer la pente de la fonction de meilleure réponse qui relie le taux d'impôt d'un département aux taux votés par les départements voisins pour le même impôt. Nous montrons que pour l'année 1999, l'hypothèse d'interactions fiscales horizontales ne peut être rejetée pour trois des quatre impôts départementaux étudiés, notamment pour la taxe professionnelle qui pèse uniquement sur les entreprises. À l'inverse, la fixation du taux départemental de la taxe d'habitation, qui pèse uniquement sur les ménages, ne semble pas gouvernée par les décisions des départements concurrents. Ces résultats sont compatibles à la fois avec les modèles de concurrence fiscale à la Wildasin (1988) et ceux de concurrence par comparaison à la Besley et Case (1995a).

Summary

Summary

This article provides an empirical test for the existence of spatial tax interactions among French sub-national jurisdictions at the département level. We estimate a spatial model of interdependent tax choices on a 1999 data set of the four main taxes and the usual socio-economic variables. We find evidence of significant horizontal tax interactions for all taxes except for the tax on housing levied on households. Therefore, we conclude that empirical evidence is in favor of the hypothesis that jurisdictions at the département level compete for economic activities, but not for households. We demonstrate that this conclusion is in line either with yardstick competition models à la Besley and Case (1995a) or with tax competition models à la Wildasin (1988).

Keywords

fiscal competitionyardstick competitionlocal taxationH71H73concurrence fiscaleconcurrence par comparaisonimpôts locauxH71H73
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , 2005 , pp. 67 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2005 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

(*)

Nous remercions les deux rapporteurs anonymes ainsi que Lars Feld, Alain Guengant, Hakim Hammadou et Sophie Larribeau pour leurs conseils et suggestions. Nous remercions également la direction de la prévision du ministère de l'économie et des finances pour son soutien. Toutefois, nous restons seuls responsables des erreurs éventuelles.

References

Références bibliographiques

Anderson, J.E. et Wassmer, R.W. (1995), “The decision to bid for business : Municipal behavior in granting property tax abatements”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 25, pp. 739–757.Google Scholar
Anselin, L. (1988), Spatial econometrics : Methods and models, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, et al. (eds).Google Scholar
Besley, T. et Case, A. (1995a), “Incumbent behavior : Vote seeking, tax setting and yardstick competition”, American Economic Review, 85, pp. 25–45.Google Scholar
Besley, T. et Case, A. (1995b), “Does electoral accountability affect economic policy choices ? Evidence from gubernatorial term limits”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 150, pp. 769–798.Google Scholar
Besley, T. et Rosen, H. (1998), “Vertical externalities in tax setting:Evidence from gasoline and cigarettes”, Journal of Public Economics, 70, pp. 383–398.Google Scholar
Bordignon, M., Cerniglia, F. et Revelli, F. (2003), “In search of yardstick competition : A spatial analysis of Italian municipality property tax setting”, Journal of Urban Economics, 54, pp. 199–217.Google Scholar
Brett, C. et Pinske, J., (2000), “The determinants of municipal tax rates in British Columbia”, Canadian Journal of Economics, 33, pp. 695–714.Google Scholar
Brueckner, J.K. (1996), “Testing for strategic interaction among local governments : The case of growth controls”, Journal of Urban Economics, 44, pp. 438–467.Google Scholar
Brueckner, J.K. et Saavedra, L. (2001), “Do local governments engage in strategic property-tax competition?”, National Tax Journal, 54, pp. 203–229.Google Scholar
Brueckner, J.K. (2001), Strategic interaction among governments : An overview of empirical studies, mimeo. Google Scholar
Buettner, T. (2001), “Local capital income taxation and competition for capital : The choice of the tax rate”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 31, pp. 215–245.Google Scholar
Case, A.C. (1993), “Interstate tax competition after TRA86”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12, pp. 136–48.Google Scholar
Case, A.C., Rosen, H.S. et Hines, J.R. (1993), “Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence : Evidence from the states”, Journal of Public Economics, 52, pp. 285–307.Google Scholar
Cliff, A. et Ord, J. (1973), Spatial autocorrelation, London, Pion.Google Scholar
Conseil des impôts, (1997), Quinzième rapport au Président de la République relatif à la taxe professionnelle, Paris, Journal Officiel de la République Française.Google Scholar
Esteller-Moré, A. et Solé-Ollé, A. (2001), “Vertical income tax externalities and fiscal interdépendance : evidence from the US”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 31, pp. 247–272.Google Scholar
Feld, L. (2000), “Tax competition and income redistribution : An empirical analysis for Switzerland”, Public Choice, 105, pp. 125–164.Google Scholar
Feld, L., Josselin, J.M. et Rocaboy, Y. (2002), «Le mimétisme fiscal : une application aux régions françaises», Économie et Prévision, 156, pp. 43–49.Google Scholar
Feld, L. et Kirchgässner, G. (2001), “Income tax competition at the state and local level in Switzerland”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 31, pp. 181–213.Google Scholar
Feld, L. et Kirchgässner, G. (2003), “The impact of corporate and personal income taxes on the location of firms and on employment : Some panel evidence for the Swiss cantons”, Journal of Public Economics, 87, pp. 129–155.Google Scholar
Feld, L. et Reulier, E. (2002), Strategic tax competition in Switzerland: Evidence from a panel of the Swiss Cantons, mimeo. Google Scholar
Figlio, D.N., Kolpin, V.W. et Reid, W.E. (1999), “Do states play welfare games ?”, Journal of Urban Economics, 46, pp. 437–454.Google Scholar
Geary, R. (1954), “The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping”, The Incorporated, 5, pp. 115–145.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. et Rocaboy, Y. (1996), “Local public spending in France : The case of welfare programs at the département level”, in Pola, G., France, G. et Levaggi, R. (eds), Developments in local government finance : Theory and policy, Edward Elgar, pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
Goodspeed, T.J. (1999), Tax competition and tax structure in open federal economies : Evidence from OECD countries with implications for the European Union, mimeo. Google Scholar
Goodspeed, T.J. (2000), “Tax structure in federation”, Journal of Public Economics, 75, pp. 493–506.Google Scholar
Guengant, A. (1992), Taxe professionnelle et intercommunalité, LGDJ, Paris.Google Scholar
Hayashi, M. et Boadway, R. (2001), “An empirical analysis of intergouvern-mental tax interaction : The case of business income taxes in Canada”, Canadian Journal of Economies, 34, pp. 481–503.Google Scholar
Heyndels, B. et Vuchelen, J. (1998), “Tax mimicking among belgian municipalities”, National Tax Journal, 51, pp. 89–101.Google Scholar
Houdebine, M. et Schneider, J.L. (1998), «Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la localisation des entreprises», Économie et Prévision, 131, pp. 47–64.Google Scholar
Jayet, H. (1993), Analyse spatiale quantitative : une introduction, Bibliothèque de Science Régionale, Economica.Google Scholar
Jayet, H. (2001), «Économétrie et données spatiales : une introduction à la pratique», Cahiers d'économie et sociologies rurales, 58/59, pp. 105–129.Google Scholar
Kelejian, H.H. et Prucha, I.R., (1998), “A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 17, pp. 99–121.Google Scholar
Kelejian, H.H. et Robinson, D.P. (1993), “A suggested method of estimation for spatial interdependent models with autocorrelated errors and an application to a county expenditure model”, Papers in Regional Science, 72, pp. 297–312.Google Scholar
Ladd, H.F. (1992), “Mimicking of local tax burdens among neighboring countries”, Public Finance Quaterly, 20, pp. 450–67.Google Scholar
Laussel, D. et Le Breton, M. (1998), “Existence of Nash equilibria in fiscal competition models”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 28, pp. 283–296.Google Scholar
Leprince, M. et Guengant, A. (2002), «Interactions fiscales verticales et réaction des communes à la coopération intercommunale», Revue économique, 53, pp. 125–135.Google Scholar
Mintz, J. et Tulkens, H. (1986), “Commodity tax competition between member states of a federation : Equilibrium and efficiency”, Journal of Public Economics, 29, pp. 133–172.Google Scholar
Moran, P. (1948), “The interpretation of statistical map”, Journal of the Royal Statistical B, 10, pp. 243–251.Google Scholar
Paty, S., Jayet, H. et Pentel, A. (2002), “Existe-t-il des interactions fiscales stratégiques entre les collectivités locales ?”, Économie et Prévision, 3, pp. 95–106.Google Scholar
Revelli, F. (2001), “Spatial patterns in local taxation:tax mimicking or error mimicking?”, Applied Economics, 33, pp. 1101–1107.Google Scholar
Richard, J.F., Tulkens, H. et Verdonc, M., (2002), «Dynamiques des interactions fiscales entre les communes belges 1984-1997», Économie et Prévision, vol. 156 (5), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Rubinfeld, D. (1987), “The economics of the local public sector”, in Auerbach, A. et Feldstein, M. (eds.), Handbook of Public Economies, Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp. 571–645.Google Scholar
Saavedra, L.A. (1999), “A model of welfare competition with evidence from AFDC”, Journal of Urban Economics, 47, pp. 248–279.Google Scholar
Salmon, P. (1987), “Decentralisation as an incentive scheme”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 3, pp. 24–43.Google Scholar
Shleifer, A. (1985), “A theory of yardstick competition”, Rand Journal of Economics, 16, pp. 319–327.Google Scholar
Shröder, M. (1996), “Games the states don't play : Welfare benefits and the theory of fiscal federalism”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, pp. 183–191.Google Scholar
Smith, M.W. (1997), “State welfare benefits : The political economy of spatial spillovers”, Working paper, Yale University.Google Scholar
Solé-Ollé, A. (2003), “Electoral accountability and tax mimicking : The effects of electoral margins, coalition government, and ideology”, European Journal of Political Economy, 19, pp. 685–713.Google Scholar
Tiebout, C.M. (1956), “A pure theory of local expenditures”, Journal of Political Economy, 64, pp. 416–424.Google Scholar
Verdonck, M. (2000), Fiscal competition : A survey of the empirical literature, dans Concurrence fiscale en matière d'IPP, étude sous la direction d'H. Tulkens, CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Wildasin, D.E. (1988), “Nash equilibria in models of fiscal competition”, Journal of Public Economics, 35, pp. 229–240.Google Scholar
Wildasin, D.E. (1989), “Interjurisdictional capital mobility : Fiscal externality and a corrective subsidy”, Journal of Urban Economics, 25, pp. 193–212.Google Scholar
Wildasin, D.E. (1991), “Some rudimentary «duopolity» theory”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 21, pp. 393–421.Google Scholar
Wilson, J.D. (1986), “A theory of interregional tax competition”, Journal of Urban Economics, 19, pp. 296–315.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1999), “Theories of tax competition”, National Tax Journal, 52, pp. 269–304.Google Scholar
Zodrow, G.R. et Mieszkowski, P. (1986), “Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation, and the underprovision of local public goods”, Journal of Urban Economics, 19, pp. 356–370.Google Scholar