A Theoretical Analysis of Taxation Diplomacy and Double Taxation Agreements: An Approach from a Game Theory Perspective

Öz

This study draws on the fundamental theories of international relations to examine the complex structure of taxation diplomacy and to create an eclectic theoretical framework in this area. The paper specifically analyzes double taxation agreements which were developed as a solution to the “race to the bottom” problem in the taxation of multinational corporations' profits from a game theory perspective.When theoretical approaches are examined the Liberal Institutionalism approach evaluates these agreements as beneficial mechanisms that foster cooperation by reducing transaction costs and providing absolute gains. In contrast, the theories of Realism and Critical International Political Economy define tax competition as a zero-sum game arguing that double taxation agreements can lead to tax avoidance through mechanisms like “treaty shopping” which can result in a Pareto-inefficient Nash equilibrium. The study states that double taxation agreements represent a repeated game and present two Nash equilibria: “Cooperate, Cooperate” and “Compete, Compete”. In this context, double taxation agreements function as an institutional mechanism that enables states to choose a cooperative strategy thereby keeping themselves and other players in the higher-gain cooperative equilibrium and helping them to avoid a suboptimal competitive equilibrium. This multifaceted analysis reveals the dynamic nature of taxation diplomacy and its need for continuous adaptation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Taxation Diplomacy
• Double Taxation Treaties
• Prisoner
• Liberalism
• Neoliberal Institutionalism.

Vergi Diplomasisi ve Çifte Vergilendirme Anlaşmalarının Teorik Analizi: Oyun Teorisi Perspektifinden Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Bu çalışmada vergilendirme diplomasisinin karmaşık yapısını incelemek ve bu alanda eklektik bir teorik çerçeve oluşturmak amacıyla uluslararası ilişkilerin temel teorilerinden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmada özellikle çokuluslu şirketlerin kârlarının vergilendirilmesinde ortaya çıkan “dibe doğru vergi yarışı” sorununa çözüm olarak geliştirilen çifte vergilendirmeyi önleme antlaşmalarını oyun teorisi perspektifinden analiz etmektedir. Teorik yaklaşımlar incelendiğinde, Liberal Kurumsalcılık yaklaşımı bu anlaşmaları işlem maliyetlerini düşürerek ve mutlak kazançlar sağlayarak işbirliğini teşvik eden faydalı mekanizmalar olarak değerlendirmektedir. Buna karşılık Realizm ve Eleştirel Uluslararası Politik Ekonomi teorileri, vergi rekabetini sıfır toplamlı bir oyun olarak tanımlayarak çifte vergilendirmeyi önleme antlaşmalarının “treaty shopping” gibi mekanizmalar aracılığıyla vergi kaçınmasına yol açabileceğini ve pareto etkin olmayan bir nash dengesi doğurabileceğini savunmaktadır. Çalışma, çifte vergilendirmeyi önleme antlaşmalarının tekrarlı bir oyun olduğunu ve “İşbirliği, İşbirliği” ile “Rekabet, Rekabet” olmak üzere iki Nash dengesi sunduğunu belirtmektedir. Bu bağlamda çifte vergilendirmeyi önleme antlaşmaları, devletleri daha yüksek kazançlı işbirliği dengesinde tutan ve suboptimal rekabet dengesinden kaçınmalarını sağlayan kurumsal bir mekanizma işlevi görmektedir. Bu çok yönlü analiz, vergilendirme diplomasisinin dinamik doğasını ve sürekli adaptasyon gereksinimini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Vergi Diplomasisi,
• Çifte vergilendirmeyi Önleme Antlaşmaları
• Mahkumlar Çıkmazı
• Liberalizm
• Neoliberal Kurumsalcılık

Kaynakça

1. ActionAid. (2016). Mistreated: The tax treaties that are depriving the world’s poorest countries of vital revenue. ActionAid International.
2. Aktuğ, M ve Öz, E. (2021). Küresel Vergi Şeffaflığının Artirilmasinda Uluslararasi Bilgi Paylaşımının Rolü, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 17(1), 115-148. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.902215
3. Andrade, J. (2018). The role of tax treaties in the attraction of foreign direct investment. European Journal of Government and Economics, 7(2), 170–192.
4. Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2007). International tax law: The state of the art. Tax Law Review, 60(1), 159-223.
5. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books.
6. Berger, H., & Nitsch, V. (2008). Tax Treaties and Foreign Direct Investment: A German Perspective. ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 08-011.
7. BMGK. (2022). Uluslararası vergi işbirliğinin güçlendirilmesi için kapsayıcı ve etkili bir BM çerçevesi oluşturulması kararı. A/RES/77/244.
8. Brauner, Y. (2013). What the BEPS? Florida Tax Review, 15(3), 103-195.

9. Carr, E. H. (1939). The twenty years’ crisis, 1919-1939: An introduction to the study of international relations.
10. Christians, A. (2010). How Does a Country’s Tax System Affect Foreign Investment? Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 33(4), 1–32.
11. Clausing, K. A. (2011). The effect of multinational activity on U.S. corporate tax revenues. Tax Law Review, 64(4), 481-520.
12. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.
13. Dean, S. A. (2008). The incomplete global market for tax information. Boston College Law Review, 49(3), 605-672.
14. Devereux, M. P., & Sørensen, P. B. (2006). The corporate income tax: International trends and policy issues. Fiscal Studies, 27(1), 3–38.
15. Egger, P., & Egger, M. (2006). The impact of tax treaties on FDI in developing countries. International Tax and Public Finance, 13(1), 71–87.
16. Egger, P., Larch, M., & Pfaffermayr, P. (2008). The impact of tax treaties on foreign direct investment: a gravity approach. International Tax and Public Finance, 15(4), 481–500.
17. Frank, A. G. (1966). The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 18(4), 17-30.
18. Ecer, K., & Güner, O. (2019). Avrupa Birliği’nde ekonomik diplomasinin kurumsal boyutuna genel bir bakış. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 16(63), 89-104.
19. Gibbons, R. (1992). A primer in game theory. Pearson Education.
20. Gill, S. (1995). The global Panopticon? The neoliberal state, economic governance, and power in the international political economy. Alternatives, 20(1), 1-50.
21. Gill, S. (2008). The contemporary crisis of world order and the challenge of critical theory. International Affairs, 84(2), 263–281.
22. Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.
23. Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, J. M. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press.
24. Jackson, R., & Sørensen, G. (2016). Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford University Press.
25. Janeba, E., & Wilson, J. D. (2008). Tax competition and foreign direct investment: The effects of firm-level attributes. International Tax and Public Finance, 15(4), 461–478.
26. Karavar, H. (2021). Ekonomik Diplomasi Perspektifinden II. Wilhelm ve Theodor Heuss’un Türkiye Ziyaretlerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Cilt 18, No 72, 2021, s. 87-102, DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.954772, 45-62.
27. Keen, M., & Mintz, J. (2004). The optimal threshold for a fiscal union. Journal of Public Economics, 88(3-4), 211-235.
28. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
29. Kobetsky, M. (2011) International Taxation of Permanent Establishments: Principles and Policy. Cambridge Law Series. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Köse, Y. (2022). Uluslararası Vergileme İş Birliğinde Güncel Eğilimler. InTraders International Trade Academic Journal, 5 (2) 250-275. DOI: 10.55065/intraders.1199696
31. Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Knopf.
32. Oatley, T. (2019). International political economy: Interests and institutions in the global economy. Routledge.
33. OECD (1963). A draft double taxation convention on income and capital. Erişim Tarihi: 10.12.2019.
34. OECD. (2012). Model Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters: Condensed Version 2012. OECD Publishing.
35. OECD. (2015). Base erosion and profit shifting project: Explanatory statement. Paris: OECD Publishing.
36. OECD. (2017). Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2017. OECD Publishing.
37. Oxfam. (2020). Leaking money: The tax agreement between Uganda and the Netherlands. Oxfam International.
38. Palan, R. (2003). The offshore world: Sovereign markets, virtual places, and the global corporate economy. Cornell University Press.
39. Picciotto, S. (2017). The UN Tax Committee and the International Tax Regime: A Global Public Interest. Transnational Corporations, 24(1), 1–19.
40. Picciotto, S. (2012). The International Tax Regime and Development: Towards a More Just and Equitable System. Tax Justice Network.
41. Ryu, E. (2025). The role of the United Nations in ensuring equitable tax policies for developing countries. Journal of International Economic Law, jgae051.
42. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press.
43. Shubert, E. (2015). Illicit financial flows, tax and human rights. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.
44. Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge University Press.
45. Turgutoğlu, A. (2020). Ekonomik Diplomasinin Ekonomik Güvenliğe Etkisi: Çin-Afrika İlişkileri Analizi, The Journal of Diplomatic Research-Diplomasi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 75-97.
46. Vann, R. (2017). Tax treaties after BEPS. British Tax Review, 1, 33–51.
47. Wilson, J. D. (1999). Theories of tax competition. National Tax Journal, 52(2), 269–302.
48. Yenigül, H. (2022). İkili ekonomik işbirliğinin kurumsal mekanizmalarının değerlendirilmesi ve Türkiye için öneriler. Ankara: T.C. Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı.
49. Zodrow, G. R. (2003). Tax competition and tax coordination in the European Union. International Tax and Public Finance, 10(6), 651–671.
50. Zucman, G. (2015). The hidden wealth of nations: The scourge of tax havens. University of Chicago Press.