Abstract
The standard microeconomic analysis of taxation suggests that excise taxes on goods with a price-inelastic demand are more efficient in that they lead to a lower deadweight loss than taxes on goods with price-elastic demand. This argument ignores secondary effects on the rest of the economy. By narrowly focusing on the primary effects on the market where the tax is raised, the overall deadweight loss is underestimated when demand is price-inelastic. Moreover, it is overestimated when demand is price-elastic. This puts into question the validity of the standard textbook argument. In this paper we address this issue by considering how taxes affect consumer behavior in other markets. From this we can clearly see how the impact of an excise tax is not limited to one market in isolation, but is spread over all markets and affects the demand for cash balances. We suggest a simple way to incorporate this important insight into a standard textbook exposition.
References
Alchian, A. A., and W. R. Allen. 1983. Exchange & Production: Competition, Coordination, & Control, 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen v. 1930. The Positive Theory of Capital. New York: G. E. Stechert and Co.Search in Google Scholar
Cowen, T., and A. Tabarrok. 2021. Modern Principles: Microeconomics, 5th ed. New York: Worth Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Diamond, Peter A., and James A. Mirrlees. 1971a. “Optimal Taxation and Public Production I: Production Efficiency.” The American Economic Review 61 (1): 8–27.Search in Google Scholar
Diamond, Peter A., and James A. Mirrlees. 1971b. “Optimal Taxation and Public Production II: Tax Rules.” The American Economic Review 61 (3): 261–78.Search in Google Scholar
Ekelund, R., and R. Hébert. 1999. Secrets Origins of Microeconomics: Dupuit and the Engineers. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ekelund, R., and R. Hébert. 2002. “Retrospectives: The Origins of Neoclassical Microeconomics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (3): 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533002760278785.Search in Google Scholar
Fullerton, Don, and Chi L. Ta. 2017. “Public Finance in a Nutshell: A Cobb Douglas Teaching Tool for General Equilibrium Tax Incidence and Excess Burden.” National Tax Journal 70 (1): 155–70. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2017.1.06.Search in Google Scholar
George, Henry. 1935. Progress and Poverty. New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.Search in Google Scholar
Goulder, Lawrence H., and Roberton C. WilliamsIII. 2003. “The Substantial Bias from Ignoring General Equilibrium Effects in Estimating Excess Burden, and a Practical Solution.” Journal of Political Economy 111 (4): 898–927. https://doi.org/10.1086/375378.Search in Google Scholar
Gwartney, James D., Richard L. Stroup, Russell S. Sobel, and David A. Macpherson. 2017. Economics: Private and Public Choice. Boston: Cengage Learning.Search in Google Scholar
Harberger, Arnold C. 1964. “Taxation, Resource Allocation, and Welfare.” In The Role of Direct and Indirect Taxes in the Federal System. Princeton: Princeton University Press for NBER.10.1515/9781400875931-003Search in Google Scholar
Hotelling, Harold. 1938. “The General Welfare in Relation to Problems of Taxation and of Railway and Utility Rates.” Econometrica 6 (3): 242–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907054.Search in Google Scholar
Israel, K.-F. 2018. “The Income Effect Reconsidered.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 21 (4): 375–97. https://doi.org/10.35297/qjae.010003.Search in Google Scholar
Israel, K.-F. 2020. “Income and Substitution Effects: A Rejoinder to Professor Joseph Salerno.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 23 (2): 192–211. https://doi.org/10.35297/qjae.010066.Search in Google Scholar
Israel, K.-F. Forthcoming. “The Expenditure Approach to Income and Substitution Effects.” Economics Bulletin.Search in Google Scholar
Mankiw, N. G. 2015. Principles of Microeconomics. Stamford: Cengage Learning.Search in Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1920. Principles of Economics [1890], 8th ed. London: Macmillan & Co.Search in Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig v. 1998. Human Action [1949]. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Pigou, A. C. 1904. “Monopoly and Consumers’ Surplus.” Economic Journal 14 (55): 388–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2221361.Search in Google Scholar
Pigou, A. C. 1932. The Economics of Welfare [1920], 4th ed. London: Macmillan & Co.Search in Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank P. 1927. “A Contribution to the Theory of Taxation.” Economic Journal 37 (145): 47–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/2222721.Search in Google Scholar
Rothbard, M. N. 1981. “The Myth of Neutral Taxation.” The Cato Journal 1: 519–64.Search in Google Scholar
Rothbard, M. N. 1997. “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics.” In The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School, 211–55. London: Edward Elgar.Search in Google Scholar
Rothbard, M. N. 2009. Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles – With Power and Market: Government and the Economy [1962], The Scholar’s ed. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Rothbard, M. N. 2011. “The Single Tax: Economic and Moral Implications.” In Reprinted in Economic Controversies. Chapter 29. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Salerno, Joseph T. 2010. “Menger’s Causal-Realist Analysis in Modern Economics.” The Review of Austrian Economics 23 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-009-0096-2.Search in Google Scholar
Salin, P. 2014. La Tyrannie Fiscale. Paris: Odile Jacob.Search in Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1952. “The Transfer Problem and Transport Costs: The Terms of Trade When Impediments Are Absent.” Economic Journal 62 (246): 278–304. https://doi.org/10.2307/2227005.Search in Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1960. “Harold Hotelling as Mathematical Economist.” American Statistician 14 (3): 21–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/2682168.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer, Herbert. 1851. Social Statics. London: George Woodfall and Son.Search in Google Scholar
Varian, Hal R. 2010. Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
