Proof of Proposition 2
A higher probability to commit leads to more tax-farming since
∂ff∙ = - s - 1 ,2(1 - f)⅞⅛ a
(35)
∂λ sλ — λ + 1 (1 + δ) φ2
where φ > 0.
The official’s profit is increased because
dπNPV (1 + δ) (s - 1) (n+1 ) (1 - c ) n+19 T ∩ ∕ofi∖
=32π > 0. (36)
∂λ φ3
The CA’s profit is reduced as
d∏Npv = - (1 - c) (s - 1) (1 - c - n+ι (1 + δ) ,sλ - λ + 1)) 2πτ < о
∂λ (1 + δ)(sλ — λ + 1)2 √2 π
(37)
where 1 — ∣ — n-ɪ (1 + δ) (sλ — λ + 1) > 0 for θ > 0.
The debt, finally, is reduced since
∂Debt
∂λ
_ ∂θ* a — 2θ*(1 —
= ∂λ( 2b
λ+λs) ) — β∙θ∙(s
1) < 0.
(38)
28