|
on Public Finance |
|
Issue of 2009‒03‒14
three papers chosen by |
| By: | Martin Peitz; Markus Reisinger (Department of Economics, University of Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim, Germany; Department of Economics, University of Munich, Kaulbachstr. 45, 80539 Munich, Germany) |
| Abstract: | This paper analyzes the effects of specific and ad valorem taxation in an industry with downstream and upstream oligopoly. We find that in the short run, i.e. when the number of firms in both markets is exogenous, the results concerning tax incidence tend to be qualitatively similar to models where the upstream market is perfectly competitive. However, both over- and undershifting are more pronounced, potentially to a very large extent. Instead, in the long run under endogenous entry and exit overshifting of both taxes is more likely to occur and is more pronounced under upstream oligopoly. As a result of this, a tax increase is more likely to be welfare reducing. We also demonstrate that downstream and upstream taxation are equivalent in the short run while this is not true for the ad valorem tax in the long run. We show that it is normally more efficient to tax downstream. |
| Keywords: | Specific Tax, Ad Valorem Tax, Value-Added Tax, Tax Incidence, Tax Efficiency, Indirect Taxation, Imperfect Competition, Vertical Oligopoly. |
| JEL: | H22 H32 |
| Date: | 2009–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:trf:wpaper:255&r=pub |
| By: | Eduardo Engel; Ronald Fischer; Alexander Galetovic |
| Abstract: | When are public-private partnerships (PPPs) better than conventional provision and regulated privatization? And should PPP contracts be structured and governed when this is the case?. We show that the defining features of a PPP are (i) bundling of construction and operation, (ii) private but temporary ownership of assets and (iii) intertemporal risk sharingwith the public sector. Thus some characteristics of PPPs are akin to privatization while others are similar to conventional provision. Since incentives for efficient building and management are related to bundling, PPPs are closer to privatization in this regard. As the discounted government budget under a PPP is similar to that under conventional provision, PPPs are closer to conventional provision when it comes to budgetary accounting. We also show that avoiding distortionary taxation and relieving strained government budgets are weak arguments for PPPs. We examine the institutional requirements for a successful PPP program and emphasize the need for an independent supervisor of PPPs (and in general of all public works) and a Committee of Experts to award when conflicts or the need for renegotiation arises. Lack of rule of law alters the choice between conventional provision and PPPs in favor of the former, as there is less risk of regulatory takings in a short termconstruction contract than in a long lived PPP. In the case where quality service is contractible, the the PPP contract that optimally balances demand risk, user-fee distortions and the opportunity cost of public funds, features a minimum revenue guarantee and a revenue cap that differ from those observed in practice. This contract can be implemented via a competitive auction with realistic informational requirements. |
| Date: | 2009 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:edj:ceauch:257&r=pub |
| By: | Julio Davila (Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne. Paris School of Economics); Jan Eeckhout (Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania); Cesar Martinelli (Centro de Investigacion Economica (CIE), Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico (ITAM)) |
| Abstract: | In a simple public good economy, we propose a natural bargaining procedure whose equilibria converge to Lindahl allocations as the cost of bargaining vanishes. The procedure splits the decision over the allocation in a decision about personalized prices and a decision about output levels for the public good. Since this procedure does not assume price-taking behavior, it provides a strategic foundation for the personalized taxes inherent to the Lindahl solution to the public goods problem. |
| Date: | 2009–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cie:wpaper:0901&r=pub |