學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 租稅競爭與民營化程度之關聯
On the Tax Competition and Privatization作者 石恩銘
Shi, En Ming貢獻者 翁堃嵐
Weng, Kun Lan
石恩銘
Shi, En Ming關鍵詞 租稅競爭
民營化效果
釋股比例
利潤移轉效果日期 2015 上傳時間 3-Feb-2016 11:16:42 (UTC+8) 摘要 傳統探討利潤移轉的租稅競爭模式之文獻中，對於廠商的設定大多採取私營廠商的模式進行，然而，即使在當代貿易自由化以及公營企業民營化的思維下，公部門對整個經濟體系的影響還是相當深遠，也使得在混合寡占市場下探討租稅競爭的議題顯得相當重要。實際上目前有許多開發中國家以及已開發國部分產業仍維持國營的或半民營化的型態，而在現今開放經濟體系中租稅競爭越來越受到重視，自不能將這些廠商排除在外。而自1980年代以來各國陸陸續續在開啟民營化事業，更凸顯出民營化議題與租稅競爭的重要性。是以本文建立一個包含民營化廠商的租稅競爭模型，分別在古諾納徐 (Cournot-Nash) 的數量競爭以及柏川德 (Bertrand-Nash) 價格競爭兩種模式下，探討民營化程度對租稅競爭的影響，文中有幾點重要的發現：首先，不論是在數量競爭或價格競爭模式下，當民營化程度高於某一水準時，所獲致的結果趨近於Lai (2006) 的結論，但是民營化效果的存在將緩和租稅競爭所導致的公共財低度提供的問題；其次，當民營化程度低於某一水準時，所獲致的結論在兩種競爭模型下皆明顯異於Lai (2006) 的結論。最後，數學模擬分析的結果顯示：不論是在數量競爭或是在價格競爭的模式下，民營化程度地提高將使得均衡下本國的稅率下降，而外國的稅率之影響方向則不明確地結論。 參考文獻 翁永和，羅鈺珊與劉碧珍 (2003)，〈市場結構與最適民營化政策〉，《經濟論文》，第31卷第2期，頁149-169。邱俊榮與黃鴻 (2006)，〈公營廠商民營化的最適釋股比例分析〉，《經濟論文叢刊》，第34卷第2期，頁246-259。郭虹瑩(2011)，〈租稅競爭、公共財提供與廠商家數〉，《經濟研究》，第47卷第1期，頁27-44。Brander, J.A., and Spencer, B. J. (1985), “Export Subsidies and International Market rivalry,” Journal of International Economics, 18, 83-100.Chang, W.W. (2005), “Optimal Trade and Privatization Policies in an International Duopoly with Cost Asymmetry,” Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 14, 19-42.Chao, C., and Yu, E. S. (2006), “Partial Privatization, Foreign Competition, and Optimum Tariff,” Review of International Economics, 14, 87-92.De Fraja, G., and Delbono, F. (1989), “Alternative Strategies of a Public Enterprise in Oligopoly,” Oxford Economic Papers, 41, 302-311.Dadpay, A., and Heywood, J. S. (2006), “Mixed Oligopoly in a Single International Market,” Australian Economic Papers, 45, 269–280.George, K., and La Manna, M. M. (1996), “Mixed duopoly, inefficiency, and public ownership”, Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 853-860.Helpman Elhanan, and Paul R. Krugman (1989), Trade Policy and Market Structure, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Haufler Andreas, Guttorm Schjelderup, and Frank Stahler (2000), “Commodity Taxation and International Trade in Impectect Market,” SNF REPORT, NO. 48.Hong Qing, and Michael Smart (2009), “In praise of tax havens: International tax planning and foreign direct investment,” European Economic Review, 54(1), 82-95.Ishikawa Jota, and Spencer, B. J. (1996), “Rent-shifting export subsidies with an imported intermediate product,” Journal of International Economics, 48(2), 199–232.Krautheim, S., and Schmidt-Eisenlohr, T. (2011), “Heterogeneous Firms, ‘Profit Shifting’ FDI and International Tax Competition,” Journal of Public Economics, 95, 122–133.Lai, Y. B. (2006), “Capital Tax Competition in the Presence of Rent-Shifting Incentives,” Taipei Economic Inquiry, 42 (1), 1-24.Matsumura, T. (1998): ‘‘Partial Privatization in Mixed Duopoly.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 70, 473–83.Han, L., and Ogawa, H. (2008), “Economic Integration and Strategic Privatization in an International Mixed Oligopoly,” Public Finance Analysis, 64, 352-363.Oates, W. (1972), Fiscal Federalism (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York).Pal, D., and White, M. D. (1998), “Mixed Oligopoly, Privatization, and Strategic Trade Policy,” Southern Economics Journal 65, 264-281.Pal, D., and White, M. D. (2003), “Intra-industry Trade and Strategic Trade Policy in the Presence of Public Firms,” International Economic Journal, 17, 29-41.Samuelson Paul A. (1986), “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387-389.Slemroda Joel, and John D. Wilsonb (2009), “Tax competition with parasitic tax havens,” Journal of Public Economics, 93(11-12), 1261-1270.Tiebout, C.M. (1956), “The Pure Theory of Local Expenditure,” Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416-424.Wilson, J. D. (1986), “A Theory of Interregional Tax Competition,” Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 296-315.Wilson, J. D. (1999), “Theories of Tax Competition,” National Tax Journal, 52, 269-304.Wellisch, D. (2000), “Theory of Public Finance in a Federal State,” Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Zodrow, G. R., and Mieszkowski, P. (1986), “Pigou, Tiebout, Property Taxation, and the Underprovision of Local Public Goods,” Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 356-370. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
財政學系
102255005資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102255005 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 翁堃嵐 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Weng, Kun Lan en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 石恩銘 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Shi, En Ming en_US dc.creator (作者) 石恩銘 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Shi, En Ming en_US dc.date (日期) 2015 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Feb-2016 11:16:42 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Feb-2016 11:16:42 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Feb-2016 11:16:42 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0102255005 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81108 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 財政學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102255005 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 傳統探討利潤移轉的租稅競爭模式之文獻中，對於廠商的設定大多採取私營廠商的模式進行，然而，即使在當代貿易自由化以及公營企業民營化的思維下，公部門對整個經濟體系的影響還是相當深遠，也使得在混合寡占市場下探討租稅競爭的議題顯得相當重要。實際上目前有許多開發中國家以及已開發國部分產業仍維持國營的或半民營化的型態，而在現今開放經濟體系中租稅競爭越來越受到重視，自不能將這些廠商排除在外。而自1980年代以來各國陸陸續續在開啟民營化事業，更凸顯出民營化議題與租稅競爭的重要性。是以本文建立一個包含民營化廠商的租稅競爭模型，分別在古諾納徐 (Cournot-Nash) 的數量競爭以及柏川德 (Bertrand-Nash) 價格競爭兩種模式下，探討民營化程度對租稅競爭的影響，文中有幾點重要的發現：首先，不論是在數量競爭或價格競爭模式下，當民營化程度高於某一水準時，所獲致的結果趨近於Lai (2006) 的結論，但是民營化效果的存在將緩和租稅競爭所導致的公共財低度提供的問題；其次，當民營化程度低於某一水準時，所獲致的結論在兩種競爭模型下皆明顯異於Lai (2006) 的結論。最後，數學模擬分析的結果顯示：不論是在數量競爭或是在價格競爭的模式下，民營化程度地提高將使得均衡下本國的稅率下降，而外國的稅率之影響方向則不明確地結論。 zh_TW dc.description.tableofcontents 1 緒論...................................32 文獻回顧................................53 基本模型3.1.1 Cournot模型........................83.1.2 數學模擬分析一.....................143.2.1 Bertrand模型......................183.2.2 數學模擬分析二.....................224 結論..................................255 參考文獻..............................28 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1173467 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102255005 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 租稅競爭 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 民營化效果 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 釋股比例 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 利潤移轉效果 zh_TW dc.title (題名) 租稅競爭與民營化程度之關聯 zh_TW dc.title (題名) On the Tax Competition and Privatization en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 翁永和，羅鈺珊與劉碧珍 (2003)，〈市場結構與最適民營化政策〉，《經濟論文》，第31卷第2期，頁149-169。邱俊榮與黃鴻 (2006)，〈公營廠商民營化的最適釋股比例分析〉，《經濟論文叢刊》，第34卷第2期，頁246-259。郭虹瑩(2011)，〈租稅競爭、公共財提供與廠商家數〉，《經濟研究》，第47卷第1期，頁27-44。Brander, J.A., and Spencer, B. J. (1985), “Export Subsidies and International Market rivalry,” Journal of International Economics, 18, 83-100.Chang, W.W. (2005), “Optimal Trade and Privatization Policies in an International Duopoly with Cost Asymmetry,” Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 14, 19-42.Chao, C., and Yu, E. S. (2006), “Partial Privatization, Foreign Competition, and Optimum Tariff,” Review of International Economics, 14, 87-92.De Fraja, G., and Delbono, F. (1989), “Alternative Strategies of a Public Enterprise in Oligopoly,” Oxford Economic Papers, 41, 302-311.Dadpay, A., and Heywood, J. S. (2006), “Mixed Oligopoly in a Single International Market,” Australian Economic Papers, 45, 269–280.George, K., and La Manna, M. M. (1996), “Mixed duopoly, inefficiency, and public ownership”, Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 853-860.Helpman Elhanan, and Paul R. Krugman (1989), Trade Policy and Market Structure, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Haufler Andreas, Guttorm Schjelderup, and Frank Stahler (2000), “Commodity Taxation and International Trade in Impectect Market,” SNF REPORT, NO. 48.Hong Qing, and Michael Smart (2009), “In praise of tax havens: International tax planning and foreign direct investment,” European Economic Review, 54(1), 82-95.Ishikawa Jota, and Spencer, B. J. (1996), “Rent-shifting export subsidies with an imported intermediate product,” Journal of International Economics, 48(2), 199–232.Krautheim, S., and Schmidt-Eisenlohr, T. (2011), “Heterogeneous Firms, ‘Profit Shifting’ FDI and International Tax Competition,” Journal of Public Economics, 95, 122–133.Lai, Y. B. (2006), “Capital Tax Competition in the Presence of Rent-Shifting Incentives,” Taipei Economic Inquiry, 42 (1), 1-24.Matsumura, T. (1998): ‘‘Partial Privatization in Mixed Duopoly.’’ Journal of Public Economics, 70, 473–83.Han, L., and Ogawa, H. (2008), “Economic Integration and Strategic Privatization in an International Mixed Oligopoly,” Public Finance Analysis, 64, 352-363.Oates, W. (1972), Fiscal Federalism (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York).Pal, D., and White, M. D. (1998), “Mixed Oligopoly, Privatization, and Strategic Trade Policy,” Southern Economics Journal 65, 264-281.Pal, D., and White, M. D. (2003), “Intra-industry Trade and Strategic Trade Policy in the Presence of Public Firms,” International Economic Journal, 17, 29-41.Samuelson Paul A. (1986), “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387-389.Slemroda Joel, and John D. Wilsonb (2009), “Tax competition with parasitic tax havens,” Journal of Public Economics, 93(11-12), 1261-1270.Tiebout, C.M. (1956), “The Pure Theory of Local Expenditure,” Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416-424.Wilson, J. D. (1986), “A Theory of Interregional Tax Competition,” Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 296-315.Wilson, J. D. (1999), “Theories of Tax Competition,” National Tax Journal, 52, 269-304.Wellisch, D. (2000), “Theory of Public Finance in a Federal State,” Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Zodrow, G. R., and Mieszkowski, P. (1986), “Pigou, Tiebout, Property Taxation, and the Underprovision of Local Public Goods,” Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 356-370. zh_TW
