Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-27T10:46:39.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conditional tax competition in American states

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2017

Vincent Arel-Bundock
Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal, Canada E-mail:
Srinivas Parinandi
Department of Political Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA E-mail:


Cross-border commercial activity raises issues in federations where multiple jurisdictions can claim the right to tax the same income. In the United States, this coordination problem is resolved by splitting the tax base according to the geographic distribution of firms’ sales, capital and labour. The weight of each factor is determined on a state-by-state basis, which opens room for competitive legislative behaviour. In this complex issue area, however, policymakers must invest lot of resources to monitor competitors, evaluate policy alternatives and shepherd tax reform through the legislative process. This implies that highly professional legislatures should be more responsive to the policies of nearby states. We consider data on most American states over the period from 1986 to 2013 and find strong evidence of conditional spatial dependence. Our findings suggest that policy diffusion may often be moderated by institutional and political factors.

Research Article
© Cambridge University Press, 2017 

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.)


Anand, B. N. and Sensing, R. (2000) The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy. National Tax Journal 53(2): 183199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avi-Yonah, R. S., Clausing, K. A. and Durst, M. C. (2008) Allocating Business Profits for Tax Purposes: A Proposal to Adopt a Formulary Profit Split. Florida Tax Review 9: 497.Google Scholar
Beck, N., Gleditsch, K. S. and Beardsley, K. (2006) Space is More Than Geography: Using Spatial Econometrics in the Study of Political Economy. International Studies Quarterly 50(1): 2744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, S. F. and Berry, W. D. (1990) State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. American Political Science Review 84(2): 395415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, W. D. and Baybeck, B. (2005) Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition. American Political Science Review 99(4): 505519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, W. D., Fording, R. C., Ringquist, E. J, Hanson, R. L. and Klarner, C. (2013) A New Measure of State Government Ideology, and Evidence that Both the New Measure and An Old Measure are Valid. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13(2): 164182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boushey, G. (2010) Policy Diffusion Dynamics in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, L. E. and LaPlant, J. T. (1997) Diffusion of Health Care Policy Innovation in the United States. State & Local Government Review 29(1): 1726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, A. C., Rosen, H. S. and Hines, J. R. (1993) Budget Spillovers and Fiscal Policy Interdependence: Evidence From the States. Journal of Public Economics 52(3): 285307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausing, Kimberly A. (2016) The U.S. state experience under formulary apportionment: are there lessons for international reform? National Tax Journal 69(2): 353.Google Scholar
Desmarais, B. A., Harden, J. J. and Boehmke, F. J. (2015) Persistent Policy Pathways: Inferring Diffusion Networks in the American States. American Political Science Review 109(2): 392406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietsch, P. (2015) Catching Capital: The Ethics of Tax Competition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietsch, P. and Rixen, T. (2016) Global Tax Governance: What’s Wrong, and How to Fix It. Colchester, United Kingdom. ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Edmiston, K. D. (2002) Strategic Apportionment of the State Corporate Income Tax: An Applied General Equilibrium Analysis. National Tax Journal LV(2): 239262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzese, R. J. and Hays, J. C. (2007) Spatial Econometric Models of Cross-Sectional Interdependence in Political Science Panel and Time-Series-Cross-Section Data. Political Analysis 15(2): 140164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goolsbee, A. and Maydew, E. L. (2000) Coveting thy Neighbor’s Manufacturing: The Dilemma of State Income Apportionment. Journal of Public Economics 75(1): 125143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, R. and Wilson, J. D. (1986) An Examination of Multijurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation Under Formula Apportionment. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 54(6): 13571373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, S., Moore, J., Gramlich, J. and Hofmann, M. A. (2009) Empirical Evidence on the Revenue Effects of State Corporate Income Tax Policies. National Tax Journal LXII(2): 237267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, S. and Hofmann, M. A. (2003) The Effect of State Income Tax Apportionment and Tax Incentives on New Capital Expenditures. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 25(s-1): 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. L and Deardorff, A. V. (2006) Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy. American Political Science Review 100(1): 6984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah, J. (2006) Ohio, Indiana Vying to Lure Honda, (accessed 30 September 2016).Google Scholar
Hines, J. R. Jr., (2010) Income Misattribution Under Formula Apportionment. European Economic Review 54(1): 108120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission (2002) Illinois’ Corporate Income Tax. Technical Report, State of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois. (accessed 30 September 2016).Google Scholar
Joint Committee on Taxation (2010) Present Law and Background Related to Possible Income Shifting and Transfer Pricing, (accessed 19 June 2017).Google Scholar
Klassen, K. J. and Shackelford, D. A. (1998) State and Provincial Corporate Tax Planning: Income Shifting and Sales Apportionment Factor Management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 25(3): 385406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousser, T. and Phillips, J. H. (2012) The Power of American Governors: Winning on Budgets and Losing on Policy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kousser, Thad. Term Limits and Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge University Press, 2005. New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, G. A. and Melusky, B. F. (2012) Concentrated Powers: Unilateral Executive Authority and Fiscal Policymaking in the American States. The Journal of Politics 74(1): 98112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krchniva, K. (2014) Comparison of European, Canadian and U.S. Formula Apportionment on Real Data. Procedia Economics and Finance 12: 309318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, P. (1991) Increasing Returns and Economic Geography. The Journal of Political Economy 99(3): 483499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, M. (2006) Indiana Wins the Bidding for New Honda Assembly Plant – New York Times, (accessed 30 September 2016).Google Scholar
McCoy, D. (1999) Opposition to House bill 11. Annapolis, Maryland: Prepared on Behalf of Kraft-Philip Morris.Google Scholar
McLure, C. E. Jr. (1980) The State Corporate Income Tax: Lambs in Wolves’ Clothing. In Aaron H. and Boskin M. J. (eds.), The Economics of Taxation. The Brookings Institution: Washington DC, 327346.Google Scholar
Michigan House Fiscal Agency (2017) About Us, 15 January 2017).Google Scholar
Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency (2017a) About Us, http://www.senate. (accessed 15 January 2017).Google Scholar
Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency (2017b) Organizational Chart, http://www. (accessed 15 January 2017).Google Scholar
Mossberger, K. (2000) The Politics of Ideas and the Spread of Enterprise Zones. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayer, E. and Plümper, T. (2012) Conditional Spatial Policy Dependence Theory and Model Specification. Comparative Political Studies 45(7): 819849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (2014) Sourcing of Sales Apportionment Factor of the New Hampshire Business Profits Tax. Presentation to the House Ways and Means Committee, Presented on January 14, 2014 (accessed 15 January 2017).Google Scholar
Omer, T. C. and Shelley, M. K. (2004) Competitive, Political, and Economic Factors Influencing State Tax Policy Changes. Journal of the American Taxation Association 26(s-1): 103126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacheco, J. (2012) The Social Contagion Model: Exploring the Role of Public Opinion on the Diffusion of Antismoking Legislation Across the American States. The Journal of Politics 74(1): 187202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, P. E. and Rom, M. C. (1990). Welfare Magnets: A Case for a National Welfare Standard. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Pinto, S. M. (2007) Corporate Profit Tax, Capital Mobility, and Formula Apportionment. Journal of Urban Economics 62(1): 76102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plümper, T., Troeger, V. E. and Winner, H. (2009) Why is There No Race to the Bottom in Capital Taxation? International Studies Quarterly 53(3): 761786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, Michael E. (1998) Clusters and Competition: New Agendas for Companies, Governments, and Institutions. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 98-080, March 1998.Google Scholar
Riedel, N. and Runkel, M. (2007) Company Tax Reform With a Water’s Edge. Journal of Public Economics 91(7): 15331554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rom, M. C., Peterson, P. E. and Scheve, K. F. (1998) Interstate Competition and Welfare Policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 28(3): 1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, C. and Volden, C. (2006) Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies From U.S. Cities to States. American Journal of Political Science 50(4): 825843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, C. and Volden, C. (2008) The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 840857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, C. and Volden, C. (2014) When the Smoke Clears: Expertise, Learning and Policy Diffusion. Journal of Public Policy 34(3): 357387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, P. (2007) Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7(2): 211227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Census Bureau (2007) 2007 Commodity Flow Survey. Shipment Characteristics by origin Geography by NAICS by Commodity, (accessed 29 December 2015).Google Scholar
Volden, C. (2002) The Politics of Competitive Federalism: A Race to the Bottom in Welfare Benefits? American Journal of Political Science 46(2): 352363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, C. (2006) States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children’s Health Insurance Program. American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 294312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. L. (1969) The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States. American Political Science Review 63(3): 880899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. M. (1999) Using the Experience in the U.S. States to Evaluate Issues in Implementing Formula Apportionment at the International Level. US Department of the Treasury, OTA paper No. 83.Google Scholar
Wellisch, D. (2004) Taxation Under Formula Apportionment-Tax Competition, Tax Incidence, and the Choice of Apportionment Factors. FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis 60(1): 2441.Google Scholar
Zucman, G. (2015) The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Arel-Bundock and Parinandi supplementary material

Tables A1-A5

Download Arel-Bundock and Parinandi supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 24.8 KB