Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Conditional tax competition in American states

  • Vincent Arel-Bundock (a1) and Srinivas Parinandi (a2)

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.

Hide All
AnandB. N. and SensingR. (2000) The Weighting Game: Formula Apportionment as an Instrument of Public Policy. National Tax Journal 53(2): 183199.
Avi-YonahR. S., ClausingK. A. and DurstM. C. (2008) Allocating Business Profits for Tax Purposes: A Proposal to Adopt a Formulary Profit Split. Florida Tax Review 9: 497.
BeckN., GleditschK. S. and BeardsleyK. (2006) Space is More Than Geography: Using Spatial Econometrics in the Study of Political Economy. International Studies Quarterly 50(1): 2744.
BerryS. F. and BerryW. D. (1990) State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. American Political Science Review 84(2): 395415.
BerryW. D. and BaybeckB. (2005) Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition. American Political Science Review 99(4): 505519.
BerryW. D., FordingR. C., RingquistE. J, HansonR. L. and KlarnerC. (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.
BousheyG. (2010) Policy Diffusion Dynamics in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
CarterL. E. and LaPlantJ. T. (1997) Diffusion of Health Care Policy Innovation in the United States. State & Local Government Review 29(1): 1726.
CaseA. C., RosenH. S. and HinesJ. R. (1993) Budget Spillovers and Fiscal Policy Interdependence: Evidence From the States. Journal of Public Economics 52(3): 285307.
ClausingKimberly A. (2016) The U.S. state experience under formulary apportionment: are there lessons for international reform? National Tax Journal 69(2): 353.
DesmaraisB. A., HardenJ. J. and BoehmkeF. J. (2015) Persistent Policy Pathways: Inferring Diffusion Networks in the American States. American Political Science Review 109(2): 392406.
DietschP. (2015) Catching Capital: The Ethics of Tax Competition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
DietschP. and RixenT. (2016) Global Tax Governance: What’s Wrong, and How to Fix It. Colchester, United Kingdom. ECPR Press.
EdmistonK. D. (2002) Strategic Apportionment of the State Corporate Income Tax: An Applied General Equilibrium Analysis. National Tax Journal LV(2): 239262.
FranzeseR. J. and HaysJ. C. (2007) Spatial Econometric Models of Cross-Sectional Interdependence in Political Science Panel and Time-Series-Cross-Section Data. Political Analysis 15(2): 140164.
GoolsbeeA. and MaydewE. L. (2000) Coveting thy Neighbor’s Manufacturing: The Dilemma of State Income Apportionment. Journal of Public Economics 75(1): 125143.
GordonR. and WilsonJ. D. (1986) An Examination of Multijurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation Under Formula Apportionment. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 54(6): 13571373.
GuptaS., MooreJ., GramlichJ. and HofmannM. A. (2009) Empirical Evidence on the Revenue Effects of State Corporate Income Tax Policies. National Tax Journal LXII(2): 237267.
GuptaS. and HofmannM. 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.
HallR. L and DeardorffA. V. (2006) Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy. American Political Science Review 100(1): 6984.
HannahJ. (2006) Ohio, Indiana Vying to Lure Honda, (accessed 30 September 2016).
HinesJ. R.Jr., (2010) Income Misattribution Under Formula Apportionment. European Economic Review 54(1): 108120.
Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission (2002) Illinois’ Corporate Income Tax. Technical Report, State of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois. (accessed 30 September 2016).
Joint Committee on Taxation (2010) Present Law and Background Related to Possible Income Shifting and Transfer Pricing, (accessed 19 June 2017).
KlassenK. J. and ShackelfordD. A. (1998) State and Provincial Corporate Tax Planning: Income Shifting and Sales Apportionment Factor Management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 25(3): 385406.
KousserT. and PhillipsJ. 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.
KrauseG. A. and MeluskyB. F. (2012) Concentrated Powers: Unilateral Executive Authority and Fiscal Policymaking in the American States. The Journal of Politics 74(1): 98112.
KrchnivaK. (2014) Comparison of European, Canadian and U.S. Formula Apportionment on Real Data. Procedia Economics and Finance 12: 309318.
KrugmanP. (1991) Increasing Returns and Economic Geography. The Journal of Political Economy 99(3): 483499.
MaynardM. (2006) Indiana Wins the Bidding for New Honda Assembly Plant – New York Times, (accessed 30 September 2016).
McCoyD. (1999) Opposition to House bill 11. Annapolis, Maryland: Prepared on Behalf of Kraft-Philip Morris.
McLureC. 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.
Michigan House Fiscal Agency (2017) About Us, 15 January 2017).
Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency (2017a) About Us, http://www.senate. (accessed 15 January 2017).
Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency (2017b) Organizational Chart, http://www. (accessed 15 January 2017).
MossbergerK. (2000) The Politics of Ideas and the Spread of Enterprise Zones. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
NeumayerE. and PlümperT. (2012) Conditional Spatial Policy Dependence Theory and Model Specification. Comparative Political Studies 45(7): 819849.
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).
OmerT. C. and ShelleyM. K. (2004) Competitive, Political, and Economic Factors Influencing State Tax Policy Changes. Journal of the American Taxation Association 26(s-1): 103126.
PachecoJ. (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.
PetersonP. E. and RomM. C. (1990). Welfare Magnets: A Case for a National Welfare Standard. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
PintoS. M. (2007) Corporate Profit Tax, Capital Mobility, and Formula Apportionment. Journal of Urban Economics 62(1): 76102.
PlümperT., TroegerV. E. and WinnerH. (2009) Why is There No Race to the Bottom in Capital Taxation? International Studies Quarterly 53(3): 761786.
PorterMichael E. (1998) Clusters and Competition: New Agendas for Companies, Governments, and Institutions. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 98-080, March 1998.
RiedelN. and RunkelM. (2007) Company Tax Reform With a Water’s Edge. Journal of Public Economics 91(7): 15331554.
RomM. C., PetersonP. E. and ScheveK. F. (1998) Interstate Competition and Welfare Policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 28(3): 1737.
ShipanC. and VoldenC. (2006) Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies From U.S. Cities to States. American Journal of Political Science 50(4): 825843.
ShipanC. and VoldenC. (2008) The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 840857.
ShipanC. and VoldenC. (2014) When the Smoke Clears: Expertise, Learning and Policy Diffusion. Journal of Public Policy 34(3): 357387.
SquireP. (2007) Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7(2): 211227.
US Census Bureau (2007) 2007 Commodity Flow Survey. Shipment Characteristics by origin Geography by NAICS by Commodity, (accessed 29 December 2015).
VoldenC. (2002) The Politics of Competitive Federalism: A Race to the Bottom in Welfare Benefits? American Journal of Political Science 46(2): 352363.
VoldenC. (2006) States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children’s Health Insurance Program. American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 294312.
WalkerJ. L. (1969) The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States. American Political Science Review 63(3): 880899.
WeinerJ. 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.
WellischD. (2004) Taxation Under Formula Apportionment-Tax Competition, Tax Incidence, and the Choice of Apportionment Factors. FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis 60(1): 2441.
ZucmanG. (2015) The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Public Policy
  • ISSN: 0143-814X
  • EISSN: 1469-7815
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-public-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Arel-Bundock and Parinandi supplementary material
Tables A1-A5

 PDF (25 KB)
25 KB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 16 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 190 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 3rd July 2017 - 24th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.