International Corporate Taxation and U.S. Multinationals’ Behavior: an Integrated Approach

Using data from the International Revenue Service, this paper explores the effcts of corporate taxation on U.S. capital invested abroad and on tax planning practices (dividend payments, income shifting, and passive investment). The econometric analysis first indicates that investment is strongly influenced by average tax rates, with a magnified impact for particularly low-tax rates implying that the attractiveness of low-tax countries is not weakened by anti-deferral rules and cross-crediting limitations. Further explorations suggest that firms report higher profit and are less likely to repatriate dividends when they are located in low-tax jurisdictions. Firms also report higher Subpart F income in countries in which they shift their profit, suggesting that cross-crediting provides an incentive to shift passive income in low-tax countries and that passive investment can be an alternative strategy to minimize taxes when active investment opportunities are lacking. Finally, the paper estimates the role of effective transfer pricing regulation on income shifting activities using the quality of host countries' law enforcement. It appears that low degrees of law enforcement are associated with higher income-shifting.

Is the consumption-income ratio stationary? Evidence from linear and nonlinear panel unit root tests for OECD and non-OECD countries

This paper applies recently developed heterogeneous nonlinear and linear panel unit root tests that account for cross-sectional dependence to 24 OECD and 33 non-OECD countries’ consumption-income ratios over the period 1951–2003. We apply a recently developed methodology that facilitates the use of panel tests to identify which individual cross-sectional units are stationary and which are nonstationary. This extends evidence provided in the recent literature to consider both linear and nonlinear adjustment in panel unit root tests, to address the issue of cross-sectional dependence, and to substantially expand both time-series and cross sectional dimensions of the data analysed. We find that the majority (65%) of the series are nonstationary with slightly fewer OECD countries’ (61%) series exhibiting a unit root than non-OECD countries (68%).

Revealed cardinal preference

I prove that as long as we allow the marginal utility for money (lambda) to vary between purchases (similarly to the budget) then the quasi-linear and the ordinal budget-constrained models rationalize the same data. However, we know that lambda is approximately constant. I provide a simple constructive proof for the necessary and sufficient condition for the constant lambda rationalization, which I argue should replace the Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference in empirical studies of consumer behavior. 'Go Cardinals!' It is the minimal requirement of any scientifi c theory that it is consistent with the data it is trying to explain. In the case of (Hicksian) consumer theory it was revealed preference -introduced by Samuelson (1938,1948) - that provided an empirical test to satisfy this need. At that time most of economic reasoning was done in terms of a competitive general equilibrium, a concept abstract enough so that it can be built on the ordinal preferences over baskets of goods - even if the extremely specialized ones of Arrow and Debreu. However, starting in the sixties, economics has moved beyond the 'invisible hand' explanation of how -even competitive- markets operate. A seemingly unavoidable step of this 'revolution' was that ever since, most economic research has been carried out in a partial equilibrium context. Now, the partial equilibrium approach does not mean that the rest of the markets are ignored, rather that they are held constant. In other words, there is a special commodity -call it money - that reflects the trade-offs of moving purchasing power across markets. As a result, the basic building block of consumer behavior in partial equilibrium is no longer the consumer's preferences over goods, rather her valuation of them, in terms of money. This new paradigm necessitates a new theory of revealed preference.

Experimental evidence of a sunk–cost paradox: a study of pricing behavior in Bertrand–Edgeworth duopoly

A well–known implication of microeconomic theory is that sunk costs should have no effect on decision making. We test this hypothesis with a human–subjects experiment. Students recruited from graduate business courses, with an average of over six years of work experience, played the role of firms in a repeated price–setting duopoly game in which both firms had identical capacity constraints and costs, including a sunk cost that varied across experimental sessions over six different values. We find, contrary to the prediction of microeconomic theory, that subjects’ pricing decisions show sizable differences across treatments. The effect of the sunk cost is non–monotonic: as it increases from low to medium levels, average prices decrease, but as it increases from medium to high levels, average prices increase. These effects are not apparent initially, but develop quickly and persist throughout the game. Cachon and Camerer’s (1996) loss avoidance is consistent with both effects, while cost–based pricing predicts only the latter effect, and is inconsistent with the former.