Flat earth economics and the 'Tesco tax'

In the last week or two there have been calls for taxes on large supermarkets such as Tesco. Twenty local authorities have asked the government for formal powers to tax retailers and such taxes already exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Let us be absolutely clear what such a tax implies – it is a form of municipal protectionism. It will damage the residents of the cities that impose it and, if all cities impose such a tax, it will have exactly the same effect as widespread tariffs imposed by nations against each other. Economists are unified against protectionism for a reason – it kills wealth creation and damages the poor.

The tax has been proposed because, apparently, when people buy products from supermarkets, less of the money circulates within the city and more is spent outside by the supermarket than when the people buy products from small shops.

Let us illustrate this by considering two towns – Hull and Carlisle. Hull is surrounded by pig farming areas and Carlisle by sheep farming areas. Both areas have a strong natural relative advantage in rearing the respective animals. Assume that, in both Hull and Carlisle, small shops buy lamb and pork from local areas because of the cost of sourcing on a non-local basis, and also assume that large shops in both towns buy pork from East Yorkshire and lamb from the Lake District. For the purposes of illustration, let’s say that an acre of land in East Yorkshire can husband 200 pigs or 100 sheep and, in the Lake District, 90 sheep can be reared on an acre or 50 pigs. In other words, East Yorkshire has a strong comparative advantage in pigs and the Lake District in sheep – though East Yorkshire is better at producing both.

If there is a Tesco established in both Carlisle and Hull, it does both areas a great favour by sourcing lamb and pork from the cheapest place. An acre under pasture in both places, with the pigs being reared in East Yorkshire and the sheep in the Lake District will yield the two shops 200 pigs and 90 sheep to share between the residents of Hull and Carlisle.

Now, let us assume that the modern-day protectionists come along and impose a tax on Tesco, purely on the ground that it is not buying local produce and let us assume that such a tax does, indeed, lead to the Tesco being replaced by local butchers who buy everything locally because the expense of setting up a national buying network is too great. From each acre of Lake District land we are now able to obtain 45 sheep and 25 pigs (or other combination as appropriate) and, from each acre of East Yorkshire land, the Hull butchers will obtain 100 pigs and 50 sheep. The total production of pigs has fallen by 75 although 5 more sheep are produced. It is impossible for the 5 sheep to be worth more than the 75 pigs given the rate at which pigs and sheep can be exchanged for each other in the production process.[1] There is a huge potential welfare loss here.

Of course, things will not work out exactly as suggested in this stylised example, but the effect will be the same. The council in Derby (one of the towns that wants the tax) will tax Tesco because it spends money on produce from Oxford (another of the towns that wants the tax) and vice versa. A classic tariff on goods going from Oxford to Derby and in the other direction would reduce trade and force people to produce things they were less efficient at producing. This proposal is slightly different because the tax will not vary with the actual amount of goods imported by Tesco from Oxford to Derby – it is merely levied because supermarkets tend to import goods from where they can be produced most efficiently. As such, the effect will be different from that of a tariff but detrimental in similar ways. The tax will raise the cost of operation for large shops and thus make it less likely that large and efficient shops that use large and efficient distribution networks will establish themselves. If the tax reduces the number of large shops, it will not help the local economy – it will simply lead the local economy to produce things less efficiently.

If the tax does not reduce the number of large shops, it simply redistributes money from shoppers in large shops to the local authority.

These proposals are essentially based on the economic reasoning of the early eighteenth century. It is assumed that it is better if we all buy locally rather than buy things from where we prefer to buy after taking into account the explicit costs and the subjective benefit of buying from a local trader. If we are all forced to buy locally (or taxed into such a decision), it reduces specialisation and trade. Instead of working as an academic, I should really be growing turnips for my own personal consumption whilst turnip farmers teach their children actuarial mathematics at home. In other words, we should all go back to a subsistence economy.

When people teach creationism in schools (or if people were to try to teach that the earth is flat) they are publicly ridiculed. However, the very same chattering classes who do the ridiculing wish to enshrine flat-earth economics into public policy.

[1] The welfare loss can be illustrated by assuming that, in East Yorkshire, 110 pigs and 45 sheep are produced. The total production of pigs has fallen by 65 and the total production of sheep is now the same.


Comments (3)
The other argument which is often made is that "Mom and Pop" shops mean that the profits stay 'within the community', rather than going to some 'souless corporation'. This myth also needs dispelling, as once you factor in the lower supply and running costs (due to their greater bargaining power), and greater reliance on medium-low paid employees (typically from the local area), as opposed to owners whose profits need to be re-invested or end up being eaten up by costs, there is a good argument that the total amount taken home by local residents is actually higher per square foot than it would have been if used by an 'independent' retailer.
When people teach creationism in schools (or if people were to try to teach that the earth is flat) they are publicly ridiculed. However, the very same chattering classes who do the ridiculing wish to enshrine flat-earth economics into public policy. I've been asking why this is for 20 years. I think this persists because "conservatives" and even "libertarians" fail to understand these basic economic concepts. They cave to crony protectionism every time it affects their own backyards.
@Dominic - also, there is nothing especially good about the profits staying within the community. If I did not own a mom and pop store, I might have savings in the bank or shares in a pension fund. I then get the profits from activities that go on in other communities just as other communities get the profits from activities that go on in mine. We can simply carry on shrinking the definition of the community and ensure that all profits go to the household and that all money is spent by the household on the production of the household - essentially we can do this by returning to the lifestyle of the middle ages.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

As in all IEA publications, the views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff.

Previous blog posts


Philip Booth
31 July 2014

There is no shortage of concern about the UK’s large balance of payments deficit. Many in the government are trying to solve it by cajoling British companies to export more with lots of new...
Kristian Niemietz
30 July 2014
1 comment

One of the standard arguments against allowing private providers into the health sector is that these would cherry-pick the healthiest, easiest-to-treat patients, leaving behind a sicker patient...
Ryan Bourne
29 July 2014
1 comment

‘The UK is becoming a low-skilled, low-pay economy, and ordinary workers aren’t sharing in the proceeds of growth.’ How often do we hear this? Those who articulate these views,...
Colin Robinson
28 July 2014

Friends of the IEA will be saddened to hear of the death last month of Marjorie Seldon. Marjorie, who was 94, was the wife of Arthur Seldon, who was the first Editorial Director of the IEA for about...
Ryan Bourne
25 July 2014

Don’t you miss Jeremy Paxman already? On Newsnight he would ask persistently the question that politicians were trying to obfuscate on, to try to obtain a straight answer. This clarity helped...
Carlo Stagnaro
24 July 2014
1 comment

The UK - once a champion of competition in electricity and natural gas markets - is about to take another move towards greater centralisation and state control. On 16 July 2014, Energy Secretary Ed...
Steve Davies
23 July 2014

With the passing yesterday of John Blundell, the movement for freedom and economic liberty on both sides of the Atlantic has lost one of its leading figures. John was for many years at the centre of...
Razeen Sally
22 July 2014

It is commonplace to think, as Adam Smith did, of the wealth of nations. Now we should also focus on ‘cities and the wealth of nations’. More than ever, cities are the lifeblood of the...
Len Shackleton
21 July 2014

A few years ago, a Civitas report estimated that around 73 per cent of the population have ‘protected’ status, in that they may be able to claim that they are discriminated against in...
Ryan Bourne
18 July 2014

As the discussion regarding the future of the BBC licence fee rumbles on ahead of the 2016 Charter Review, the BBC’s Director of Policy James Heath has helpfully laid out in two separate blog...
Stephen Michael MacLean
17 July 2014
1 comment

During Prime Minister’s Questions this week, David Cameron batted back Labour criticism of the government’s economic policy by quoting the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister: ‘I think...
Christopher Snowdon
16 July 2014

Recently, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation released an updated version of its Minimum Income Standard (MIS) which looks at what modern Britons need to achieve an ‘acceptable standard of living...
Ryan Bourne
15 July 2014

The row between former chancellor Lord Lawson and the BBC has escalated over the past week. In a letter to a green activist, the head of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, Fraser Steel, has...
Stefan Kolev
14 July 2014

Does liberty need a constitution? Or, what might at first glance sound even more paradoxical, does it need a framework of rules for a free society to be established and to flourish? F. A. Hayek...
Kristian Niemietz
11 July 2014

Commentators who celebrated the Commonwealth Fund’s health system rankings, in which the NHS came out as the best system in the world, did not fail to point out that most other countries in the...
Philip Booth
10 July 2014

  Scott Sumner produced an excellent blog post on Piketty recently. It begins by quoting Piketty: ‘In my view, there is absolutely no doubt that the increase of inequality in United States...
Ryan Bourne
9 July 2014
1 comment

You can often tell where someone is coming from in public policy debates by their use of language. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, for example, Thomas Piketty uses the word ‘claimed...
Ryan Bourne
8 July 2014

With Monty Python at the O2 arena and ongoing coverage of the NHS, I was reminded last week of the Python sketch showing a lady giving birth. Unfortunately for her, the doctors played by John Cleese...
Philip Booth
7 July 2014

This book[1] has some interesting conclusions. Like all work in political economy, they are debatable. What is unique about this book is the way in which the author has such intellectual confidence...