Back Matter

Author(s):
International Monetary Fund. Fiscal Affairs Dept.
Published Date:
October 2013
    Share
    • ShareShare
    Show Summary Details

    Acronyms

    ACT

    Arab country in transition

    CAB

    cyclically adjusted balance

    CAPB

    cyclically adjusted primary balance

    CDF

    cumulative distribution function

    CFC

    controlled foreign corporation

    CIS

    Commonwealth of Independent States (WEO classification)

    GDP

    gross domestic product

    GFSM

    Government Finance Statistics Manual

    GFSR

    Global Financial Stability Report

    LAC

    Latin America and the Caribbean

    LIC

    low-income country

    MENA

    Middle East and North Africa

    OECD

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

    VAT

    value-added tax

    WEO

    World Economic Outlook

    Country Abbreviations

    Code

    Country name

    AFG

    Afghanistan

    AGO

    Angola

    ALB

    Albania

    ARE

    United Arab Emirates

    ARG

    Argentina

    ARM

    Armenia

    ATG

    Antigua and Barbuda

    AUS

    Australia

    AUT

    Austria

    AZE

    Azerbaijan

    BDI

    Burundi

    BEL

    Belgium

    BEN

    Benin

    BFA

    Burkina Faso

    BGD

    Bangladesh

    BGR

    Bulgaria

    BHR

    Bahrain

    BHS

    Bahamas, The

    BIH

    Bosnia and Herzegovina

    BLR

    Belarus

    BLZ

    Belize

    BOL

    Bolivia

    BRA

    Brazil

    BRB

    Barbados

    BRN

    Brunei Darussalam

    BTN

    Bhutan

    BWA

    Botswana

    CAF

    Central African Republic

    CAN

    Canada

    CHE

    Switzerland

    CHL

    Chile

    CHN

    China

    CIV

    Côte d’Ivoire

    CMR

    Cameroon

    COD

    Congo, Democratic Republic of the

    COG

    Congo, Republic of

    COL

    Colombia

    COM

    Comoros

    CPV

    Cape Verde

    CRI

    Costa Rica

    CYP

    Cyprus

    CZE

    Czech Republic

    DEU

    Germany

    DJI

    Djibouti

    DMA

    Dominica

    DNK

    Denmark

    DOM

    Dominican Republic

    DZA

    Algeria

    ECU

    Ecuador

    EGY

    Egypt

    ERI

    Eritrea

    ESP

    Spain

    EST

    Estonia

    ETH

    Ethiopia

    FIN

    Finland

    FJI

    Fiji

    FRA

    France

    FSM

    Micronesia, Federated States of

    GAB

    Gabon

    GBR

    United Kingdom

    GEO

    Georgia

    GHA

    Ghana

    GIN

    Guinea

    GMB

    Gambia, The

    GNB

    Guinea-Bissau

    GNQ

    Equatorial Guinea

    GRC

    Greece

    GRD

    Grenada

    GTM

    Guatemala

    GUY

    Guyana

    HKG

    Hong Kong SAR

    HND

    Honduras

    HRV

    Croatia

    HTI

    Haiti

    HUN

    Hungary

    IDN

    Indonesia

    IND

    India

    IRL

    Ireland

    IRN

    Iran

    IRQ

    Iraq

    ISL

    Iceland

    ISR

    Israel

    ITA

    Italy

    JAM

    Jamaica

    JOR

    Jordan

    JPN

    Japan

    KAZ

    Kazakhstan

    KEN

    Kenya

    KGZ

    Kyrgyz Republic

    KHM

    Cambodia

    KIR

    Kiribati

    KNA

    Saint Kitts and Nevis

    KOR

    Korea

    KWT

    Kuwait

    LAO

    Lao P.D.R.

    LBN

    Lebanon

    LBR

    Liberia

    LBY

    Libya

    LCA

    Saint Lucia

    LKA

    Sri Lanka

    LSO

    Lesotho

    LTU

    Lithuania

    LUX

    Luxembourg

    LVA

    Latvia

    MAR

    Morocco

    MDA

    Moldova

    MDG

    Madagascar

    MDV

    Maldives

    MEX

    Mexico

    MHL

    Marshall Islands

    MKD

    Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of

    MLI

    Mali

    MLT

    Malta

    MMR

    Myanmar

    MNE

    Montenegro

    MNG

    Mongolia

    MOZ

    Mozambique

    MRT

    Mauritania

    MUS

    Mauritius

    MWI

    Malawi

    MYS

    Malaysia

    NAM

    Namibia

    NER

    Niger

    NGA

    Nigeria

    NIC

    Nicaragua

    NLD

    Netherlands

    NOR

    Norway

    NPL

    Nepal

    NZL

    New Zealand

    OMN

    Oman

    PAK

    Pakistan

    PAN

    Panama

    PER

    Peru

    PHL

    Philippines

    PLW

    Palau

    PNG

    Papua New Guinea

    POL

    Poland

    PRT

    Portugal

    PRY

    Paraguay

    QAT

    Qatar

    ROU

    Romania

    RUS

    Russia

    RWA

    Rwanda

    SAU

    Saudi Arabia

    SDN

    Sudan

    SEN

    Senegal

    SGP

    Singapore

    SLB

    Solomon Islands

    SLE

    Sierra Leone

    SLV

    El Salvador

    SMR

    San Marino

    SOM

    Somalia

    SRB

    Serbia

    STP

    São Tomé and Príncipe

    SUR

    Suriname

    SVK

    Slovak Republic

    SVN

    Slovenia

    SWE

    Sweden

    SWZ

    Swaziland

    SYC

    Seychelles

    SYR

    Syria

    TCD

    Chad

    TGO

    Togo

    THA

    Thailand

    TJK

    Tajikistan

    TKM

    Turkmenistan

    TLS

    Timor-Leste

    TON

    Tonga

    TTO

    Trinidad and Tobago

    TUN

    Tunisia

    TUR

    Turkey

    TUV

    Tuvalu

    TWN

    Taiwan Province of China

    TZA

    Tanzania

    UGA

    Uganda

    UKR

    Ukraine

    URY

    Uruguay

    USA

    United States

    UZB

    Uzbekistan

    VCT

    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

    VEN

    Venezuela

    VNM

    Vietnam

    VUT

    Vanuatu

    WSM

    Samoa

    YEM

    Yemen

    ZAF

    South Africa

    ZMB

    Zambia

    ZWE

    Zimbabwe

    Glossary

    Term

    Definition

    Automatic stabilizers

    Budgetary measures that dampen fluctuation in real GDP, automatically triggered by the tax code and by spending rules.

    C-efficiency

    Revenue from the value-added tax divided by the product of the standard rate and aggregate private consumption.

    Contingent liabilities

    Obligations of a government whose timing and magnitude depend on the occurrence of some uncertain future event outside the government’s control. Can be explicit (obligations based on contracts, laws, or clear policy commitments) or implicit (political or moral obligations) and sometimes arise from expectations that government will intervene in the event of a crisis or a disaster, or when the opportunity cost of not intervening is considered to be unacceptable.

    Cyclical balance

    Cyclical component of the overall fiscal balance, computed as the difference between cyclical revenues and cyclical expenditures. The latter are typically computed using country-specific elasticities of aggregate revenue and expenditure series with respect to the output gap. Where unavailable, standard elasticities (0, 1) are assumed for expenditure and revenue, respectively.

    Cyclically adjusted balance (CAB)

    Difference between the overall balance and the automatic stabilizers; equivalently, an estimate of the fiscal balance that would apply under current policies if output were equal to potential.

    Cyclically adjusted (CA) expenditure and revenue

    Revenue and expenditure adjusted for temporary effects associated with the deviation of actual from potential output (i.e., net of automatic stabilizers).

    Cyclically adjusted primary balance (CAPB)

    Cyclically adjusted balance excluding net interest payments.

    Expenditure elasticity

    Elasticity of expenditure with respect to the output gap.

    Fiscal devaluation

    A revenue-neutral shift from employers’ social contributions toward value-added tax.

    Fiscal multiplier

    The ratio of a change in output to an exogenous and temporary change in the fiscal deficit with respect to their respective baselines.

    Fiscal stimulus

    Discretionary fiscal policy actions (including revenue reductions and spending increases) adopted in response to the financial crisis.

    General government

    All government units and all nonmarket, nonprofit institutions that are controlled and mainly financed by government units comprising the central, state, and local governments; does not include public corporations or quasi-corporations.

    Gross debt

    All liabilities that require future payment of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor. This includes debt liabilities in the form of special drawing rights, currency, and deposits; debt securities; loans; insurance, pension, and standardized guarantee schemes; and other accounts payable. (See the 2001 edition of the IMF’s Government Financial Statistics Manual and the Public Sector Debt Statistics Manual). The term “public debt” is used in the Fiscal Monitor, for simplicity, as synonymous with gross debt of the general government, unless otherwise specified. (Strictly speaking, the term “public debt” refers to the debt of the public sector as a whole, which includes financial and nonfinancial public enterprises and the central bank.)

    Gross financing needs (also gross financing requirements)

    Overall new borrowing requirement plus debt maturing during the year.

    Interest rate–growth differential

    Effective interest rate (r, defined as the ratio of interest payments over the debt of the preceding period) minus nominal GDP growth (g), divided by 1 plus nominal GDP growth: (r – g)/(1 + g).

    Net debt

    Gross debt minus financial assets, including those held by the broader public sector: for example, social security funds held by the relevant component of the public sector, in some cases.

    Nonfinancial public sector

    General government plus nonfinancial public corporations.

    Output gap

    Deviation of actual from potential GDP, in percent of potential GDP.

    Overall fiscal balance (also “headline” fiscal balance)

    Net lending/borrowing, defined as the difference between revenue and total expenditure, using the 2001 edition of the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics Manual (GFSM 2001). Does not include policy lending. For some countries, the overall balance continues to be based on GFSM 1986, in which it is defined as total revenue and grants minus total expenditure and net lending.

    Policy lending

    Transactions in financial assets that are deemed to be for public policy purposes but are not part of the overall balance.

    Primary balance

    Overall balance excluding net interest payment (interest expenditure minus interest revenue).

    Public debt

    See Gross debt.

    Public sector

    The general government sector plus government-controlled entities, known as public corporations, whose primary activity is to engage in commercial activities.

    Revenue elasticity

    Elasticity of revenue with respect to the output gap.

    Stock-flow adjustment

    Change in the gross debt explained by factors other than the overall fiscal balance (for example, valuation changes).

    Structural fiscal balance

    Difference between the cyclically adjusted balance and other nonrecurrent effects that go beyond the cycle, such as one-time operations and other factors whose cyclical fluctuations do not coincide with the output cycle (for instance, asset and commodity prices and output composition effects).

    Tax expenditures

    Government revenues that are forgone as a result of preferential tax treatments to specific sectors, activities, regions, or economic agents.

    References

      Accessing Global Knowledge (AGN) International, 2011, “Tax Surveys” (London), available at www.agn-europe.org/tax/index.html.

      Acemoglu, D., and J.Robinson, 2008, “Persistence of Power, Elites and Institutions,American Economic Review, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 26793.

      Acosta-Ormachea, S., M.Keen, and J.Yoo, 2013, “Growth and the VAT” (unpublished; Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Acosta-Ormachea, S., and J.Yoo, 2012, “Tax Composition and Economic Growth,IMF Working Paper 12/257 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Afonso, J.R.R., J.M.Soares, and K.P.de Castro, 2013, “Avaliação da Estrutura e do Desempenho do Sistema Tributário Brasileiro: Livro Branco da Tributação Brasileira,Working Paper No. IDB-DP-265 (Washington: Inter-American Development Bank, Institutions for Development).

      Alesina, A., 2000, “The Political Economy of the Budget Surplus in the United States,Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 319.

      Alesina, A., and A.Drazen, 1991, “Why Are Stabilizations Delayed?American Economic Review, Vol. 81, pp. 117088.

      Alvaredo, F., T.Atkinson, T.Piketty, and E.Saez, 2013, “The World Top Incomes Database,”available at http://topincomes.g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/.

      Anderson, D., B.Hunt, M.Kortelainen, M.Kumhof, D.Laxton, D.Muir, S.Mursula, and S.Snudden, 2013, “Getting to Know GIMF: The Simulation Properties of the Global Integrated Monetary and Fiscal Model,IMF Working Paper 13/55 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Apps, P., and R.Rees, 2013, “Raise Top Tax Rates, Not the GST,” Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13/45 (Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney).

      Arin, K.P., P.H.Helles, and O.F.M.Reich, 2010, “Should We Care about the Composition of Tax-Based Stimulus Packages? An Empirical Investigation,presentation at the 20th meeting of the New Zealand Econometric Study Group, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, February2627.

      Arnold, J., B.Brys, C.Heady, Å.Johansson, C.Schwellnus, and L.Vartia, 2011, “Tax Policy for Economic Recovery and Growth,Economic Journal, Vol. 121, pp. 5980.

      Atkinson, A.B., T.Piketty, and E.Saez, 2011, “Top Incomes in the Long Run of History,Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 49, pp. 371.

      Bach, S., 2012, “Capital Levies—A Step towards Improving Public Finances in Europe,DIW Economic Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 8, pp. 311.

      Baldacci, E., J.McHugh, and I.Petrova, 2011, “Measuring Fiscal Vulnerability and Fiscal Stress: A Proposed Set of Indicators,IMF Working Paper 11/94 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Ball, L., D.Furceri, D.Leigh, and P.Loungani, 2013, “The Distributional Effects of Fiscal Austerity,IMF Working Paper 13/151 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Barreix, A., M.Bès, S.de Sarralde, and F.Velayos, 2013, “Value Added Tax: Let It Be,” pp. 15975in More than Revenue, ed. A.Corbacho, V. F.Cibils, and E.Lora (ed) (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

      Benedek, D., E.Crivelli, S.Gupta, and P.Muthoora, 2013, “Foreign Aid and Revenue: Still a Crowding Out Effect?” forthcoming in Finanz Archiv: Public Finance Analysis.

      Boadway, R., E.Chamberlain, and C.Emmerson, 2010, “Taxation of Wealth and Wealth Transfers,” pp. 737814in Dimensions of Tax Design: The Mirrlees Review, ed. J.Mirrlees, S.Adam, T.Besley, R.Blundell, S.Bond, R.Chote, M.Gammie, P.Johnson, G.Myles, and J.Poterba (ed) (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Institute for Fiscal Studies).

      Bornhorst, F., S.Gupta, and J.Thornton, 2009, “Natural Resource Endowment and the Domestic Revenue Effort,European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 25, pp. 43946.

      Brondolo, J., 2009, “Collecting Taxes During an Economic Crisis: Challenges and Policy Options,IMF Staff Discussion Note 09/17 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Brys, B., 2011, “Making Fundamental Tax Reform Happen,OECD Taxation Working Papers No. 3 (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg3h0v54g34-en.

      Clements, B.J., D.Coady, F.Eich, S.Gupta, A.Kangur, B.Shang, and M.Soto, 2013, The Challenge of Public Pension Reform in Advanced and Emerging Market Economies, IMF Occasional Paper No. 275 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Clements, B.J., D.Coady, S.Fabrizio, S.Gupta, T.Alleyne, and C.Sdralevich, eds., 2013, Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Clements, B.J., D.Coady and S.Gupta, eds., 2012, The Economics of Public Health Care Spending in Advanced and Emerging Economies (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Cnossen, S., 2003, “Is the VAT’s Sixth Directive Becoming an Anachronism?European Taxation, Vol. 43, No. 12, pp. 43442.

      Cnossen, S., 2013, “Preparing the Way for a Modern GST in India,International Tax and Public Finance, Vol. 20, pp. 71523.

      Crawford, I., M.J.Keen, and S.Smith, 2010, “VAT and Excises,” pp. 275362in Dimensions of Tax Design: The Mirrlees Review, ed. J.Mirrlees, S.Adam, T.Besley, R.Blundell, S.Bond, R.Chote, M.Gammie, P.Johnson, G.Myles, and J.Poterba (ed) (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Institute for Fiscal Studies).

      Cutler, D.M., and N.R.Sahni, 2013, “If Slow Rate of Health Care Spending Growth Persists, Projections May Be Off by $770 Billion,Health Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 84150.

      Cyan, M., J.Martinez-Vasquez, and V.Vulovic, 2013, “Measuring Tax Effort: Does the Estimation Approach Matter and Should Effort Be Linked to Expenditure Goals?International Center for Public Policy Working Paper No. 13-08 (Atlanta: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University).

      Daniel, P., M.Keen, and C.McPherson, 2010, The Taxation of Petroleum and Minerals: Principles, Problems and Practice (London: Routledge).

      de Mooij, R., 2011, “Tax Biases to Debt Finance: Assessing the Problem, Finding Solutions,IMF Staff Discussion Note No. 11/11 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      de Mooij, R., and M.J.Keen, 2012, “Debt, Taxes and Banks,IMF Working Paper 12/48 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      de Mooij, R., and M.J.Keen, 2013, “‘Fiscal Devaluation,’ Fiscal Consolidation: The VAT in Troubled Times,” pp. 44385in Fiscal Policy after the Crisis, ed. A.Alesina and F.Giavazzi (ed) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

      de Mooij, R., M.Keen, and M.Orihara, 2013, “Taxation, Bank Leverage and Financial Crises,” in Taxation and Regulation of the Financial Sector, ed. R.de Mooij and G.Nicodeme (ed) (forthcoming; Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

      De Souza, S., 2013, “The Political Economy of Tax Reform in Latin America: A Critical Review,Woodrow Wilson Center Update on the Americas, February (Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center).

      Desai, M.A., C.F.Foley, and J.R.HinesJr., 2006, “The Demand for Tax Haven Operations,Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 90, No. 3, pp. 51331.

      Devereux, M., N.Johannesen, and J.Vella, 2013, “Can Taxes Tame the Banks? Capital Structure Responses to the Postcrisis Bank Levies” (unpublished; Oxford, U.K.: Centre for Business Taxation, University of Oxford).

      Dewatripont, M., and G.Roland, 1995, “The Design of Reform Packages under Uncertainty,American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp. 120723.

      Ebrill, L., M.Keen, J. P.Bodin, and V.Summers, 2001, The Modern VAT (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Eichengreen, B., 1990, “The Capital Levy in Theory and Practice,” pp. 191220in Public Debt Management: Theory and History, ed. R.Dornbusch and M.Draghi (ed) (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

      European Commission, 2010, “Public Finances in EMU—2010,” European Economy No. 4/2010 (Brussels: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission).

      European Commission, 2013, “Report on Public Finances in EMU—2013,” European Economy No. 4/2013 (Brussels: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission).

      Fahri, E., and I.Werning, 2010, “Progressive Estate Taxation,Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 125, pp. 63573.

      Gemmell, N., R.Kneller, and I.Sanz, 2011, “The Timing and Persistence of Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries,Economic Journal, Vol. 121, No. 550, pp. F33F58.

      Gorodnichenko, Y., J.Martinez-Vasquez, and K.S.Peter, 2009, “Myth and Reality of Flat Tax Reform: Micro Estimates of Tax Evasion Response and Welfare Effects in Russia,Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 117, pp. 50454.

      Gravelle, J.G., 2013, Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (Washington: Congressional Research Service).

      Grigoli, F., and P.Muthoora, 2013, “How Far Can We Go? Measuring Tax System Inefficiency and Policy Mis(Design)IMF Working Paper (forthcoming; Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Hemmelgarn, T., and D.Teichmann, 2013, “Tax Reforms and the Capital Structure of Banks” (Brussels: European Commission).

      Household Finance and Consumption Network, 2013, first wave of the Eurosystem’s Household Finance and Consumption Survey, available at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/html/researcher_hfcn.en.html.

      Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), 2013, EUROMOD Statistics on Distribution and Decomposition of Disposable Income (Essex, U.K.: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Wessex), available at http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/euromod/index/statistics/.

      Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), 2013, Recaudar no basta: los impuestos como instrumentos de desarrollo, Development in the Americas (Washington: Inter-American Development Bank).

      International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2010a, “From Stimulus to Consolidation: Revenue and Expenditure Policies in Advanced and Emerging Economies” (Washington).

      International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2010b, “Strategies for Fiscal Consolidation in the Postcrisis World” (Washington), available at www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2010/020410a.pdf

      International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2011, “Revenue Mobilization in Developing Countries” (Washington).

      International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2012, “Fiscal Regimes for Extractive Industries: Design and Implementation.” (Washington), available at www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2012/081512.pdf.

      International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2013a, “Issues in International Taxation and the Role of the IMF” (Washington).

      International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2013b, “People’s Republic of China: 2013 Article IV Consultation” (Washington), available at www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=40786.0.

      International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2013c, “Risky Business: The Uncertainty in U.S. Health Care Spending,in United States: 2012 Article IV Consultation—Selected Issues, IMF Country Report No. 13/237 (Washington).

      Ivanova, A., M.J.Keen, and A.Klemm, 2005, “The Russian ‘Flat Tax’ Reform,Economic Policy, Vol. 20, pp. 397444.

      Johannesen, N., and G.Zucman, 2013, “The End of Bank Secrecy? An Evaluation of the G20 Tax Haven Crackdown,” forthcoming in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.

      Jones, B., and M.Keen, 2011, “Climate Policy in Crisis and Recovery,Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 10319.

      Keen, M., 2013, “The Anatomy of the VAT,National Tax Journal, Vol. 66, pp. 42346.

      Keen, M., and K.Konrad, 2013, “The Theory of International Tax Competition and Coordination,in Handbook of Public Economics, Vol. 5, ed. A.Auerbach, R.Chetty, M.Feldstein, and E.Saez (ed) (forthcoming; Amsterdam: North Holland).

      Kinda, T.2013, “The Quest for Non-Resource-Based FDI: Do Taxes Matter?IMF Working Paper (forthcoming; Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Kleinbard, E., 2013, “Through a Latte, Darkly: Starbuck’s Stateless Income Planning,Tax Notes, June24, pp. 151535.

      Klemm, A., and S.van Parys, 2009, “Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Tax Incentives,International Tax and Public Finance, Vol. 19, pp. 393423.

      Kleven, H., C.Landais, and E.Saez, 2010, “Taxation and International Migration of Superstars: Evidence from the European Football Market,NBER Working Paper No. 16545 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

      Kopczuk, W., 2013, “Taxation of Intergenerational Transfers and Wealth,in Handbook of Public Economics, Vol. 5, ed. A.Auerbach, R.Chetty, M.Feldstein, and E.Saez (ed) (Amsterdam: North Holland).

      Kopczuk, W., and J.Slemrod, 2003, “Dying to Save Taxes: Evidence from Estate Tax Returns on the Death Elasticity,Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 85, pp. 25665.

      Laeven, L., and F.Valencia, 2010, “Resolution of Banking Crises: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,IMF Working Paper 10/146 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Le, T. M., B.Moreno-Dodson, and N.Bayraktar, 2012, “Tax Capacity and Tax Effort: Extended Cross-Country Analysis from 1994 to 2009,Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 6252 (Washington: World Bank).

      Martinelli, C., and M.Tommasi, 1997, “Sequencing of Economic Reforms in the Presence of Political Constraints,Economics and Politics, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 11531.

      Martinez-Vazquez, J., and R.McNab, 2000, “The Tax Reform Experiment in Transitional Countries,International Center for Public Policy Working Paper No. 00-1 (Atlanta: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University).

      Matheson, T., 2012, “Security Transaction Taxes: Issues and Evidence,International Tax and Public Finance, Vol. 19, pp. 884912.

      Mauro, P., ed., 2011, Chipping Away at Public Debt: Sources of Failure and Keys to Success in Fiscal Adjustment (London: Wiley).

      Mauro, P., R.Romeu, A.Binder, and A.Zaman, 2013, “A Modern History of Fiscal Prudence and Profligacy,IMF Working Paper 13/05 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Melo, M.A., C.Pereira, and S.Souza, 2010, “The Political Economy of Fiscal Reform in Brazil: The Rationale for the Suboptimal Equilibrium,Working Paper No. 117 (Washington: Inter-American Development Bank).

      Meltzer, A.H., and S.F.Richard, 1981, “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government,Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 91427.

      Mertens, K., 2013, “Marginal Tax Rates and Income: New Time Series Evidence,NBER Working Paper No. 19171 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

      Mertens, K., and M.O.Ravn, 2013, “The Dynamic Effects of Personal and Corporate Income Taxes in the United States,American Economic Review, Vol. 101, pp. 121247.

      Mladovsky, P., D.Srivastava, J.Cylus, M.Karanikolos, T.Evetovits, S.Thomson, and M.McKee, 2012, “Health Policy Responses to the Financial Crisis in Europe,” Policy Summary No. 5 (Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, and Health Evidence Network).

      Morgan, D., and R.Astolfi, 2013, “Health Spending Growth at Zero,Health Working Paper No. 60 (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

      Moss, T., G.Pettersson, and N.van de Walle, 2006, “An Aid-Institutions Paradox? A Review Essay on Aid Dependency and State Building in Sub-Saharan Africa,Working Paper No. 74 (Washington: Center for Global Development).

      Mullins, P., 2006, “Moving to Territoriality? Implications for the US and the Rest of the World,Tax Notes International, Vol. 43, pp. 83953.

      Norregaard, J., 2013, “Taxing Immovable Property: Revenue Potential and Implementation Challenges,IMF Working Paper 13/129 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2008, Consumption Tax Trends 2008 (Paris).

      Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2010a, Making Reform Happen: Lessons from OECD Countries (Paris).

      Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2010b, Tax Policy Reform and Economic Growth, Tax Policy Study No. 20 (Paris).

      Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2011, Taxing Wages 2011 (Paris).

      Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2013a, “Note on Financial Sector Taxation” (unpublished; Paris).

      Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2013b, “Choosing Fiscal Consolidation Instruments Compatible with Growth and Equity,” Economic Policy Papers No. 07 (Paris).

      Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2013c, “Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” (Paris).

      Panizza, U., and A.F.Presbitero, 2012, “Public Debt and Economic Growth: Is There a Causal Effect?Working Paper No. 168 (Alessandria, Italy: Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice [POLIS]).

      Paulus, A., F.Figari, M.Matsaganis, and H.Sutherland, 2012, “The Design and Distributional Effect of Fiscal Consolidation Measures in the European Union” (unpublished; Essex, U.K.: University of Essex).

      Perry, V., 2010., “International Experience in Implementing VATs in Federal Jurisdictions: A Summary,Tax Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 62338.

      Perry, V., T.Matheson, and D.Veung, 2013, “Territorial vs. Worldwide Corporate Taxation: Implications for Developing Countries?” (unpublished).

      Pescatori, A., D.Sandri, and J.Simon, 2013, “Debt and Growth: Is There a Magic Threshold?IMF Working Paper (forthcoming; Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Pessino, C., and R.Fenochietto, 2010, “Determining Countries’ Tax Effort,Hacienda Pública Española/Revista de Economía Pública, Vol. 195, No. 4, pp. 6587.

      Peter, K.S., S.Buttrick, and D.Duncan, 2010, “Global Reform of Personal Income Taxation, 1981–2005,National Tax Journal, Vol. 63, pp. 44778.

      Piketty, T., and E.Saez, 2006, “The Evolution of Top Incomes: A Historical and International Perspective,American Economic Review, Vol. 96, pp. 2005.

      Piketty, T., and E.Saez, , 2012, “A Theory of Optimal Capital Taxation,NBER Working Paper No. 17989 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

      Piketty, T., E.Saez, and S.Stantcheva, 2011, “Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities,NBER Working Paper No. 17616 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

      Piketty, T., and G.Zucman, 2013, “Capital Is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries 1700–2010” (unpublished; Paris: Paris School of Economics).

      Poghosyan, T., 2012, “Long-Run and Short-Run Determinants of Sovereign Bond Yields in Advanced Economies,IMF Working Paper 12/271 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Reckon LLP, 2009, Study to Quantify and Analyze the VAT Gap in the EU-25 Member States, Taxation Studies No. 29 (Brussels: Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission).

      Riera-Crichton, R., C.Veigh, and G.Vultein, 2012, “Tax Multipliers: Pitfalls in Measurement and Identification,NBER Working Paper No. 18497 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).

      Rodrik, D., 1998, “Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 106, pp. 9971032.

      Rogoff, K., and A.Sibert, 1988, “Elections and Macroeconomic Policy Cycles,Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 116.

      Ryu, A.J., T.B.Gibson, M.R.McKellar, and M.Chernew, 2013, “The Slowdown in Health Care Spending in 2009–11 Reflected Factors Other than the Weak Economy and Thus May Persist,Health Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 83540.

      Saez, E., 2001, “Using Elasticities to Derive Optimal Income Tax Rates,Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 20529.

      Saez, E., , 2012, “The Elasticity of Taxable Income with Respect to Marginal Tax Rates: A Critical Review,Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 50, pp. 350.

      Sankaran, H., M.Saxena, and C.A.Erickson, 2011, “Average Conditional Volatility: A Measure of Systemic Risk for Commercial Banks,Journal of Business and Economic Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 7994.

      Schwab, K., ed., 2012, The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013 (Geneva: World Economic Forum), available at http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2012-2013/#=.

      Shaviro, D., 2012, “The Financial Transactions Tax versus (?) the Financial Activities Tax,Tax Notes, Vol. 135, p. 453.

      Tait, A., and P.S.Heller, 1982, International Comparisons of Government Expenditure, IMF Occasional Paper No. 10 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      Tanzi, V., 1992, “Structural Factors and Tax Revenue in Developing Countries: A Decade of Evidence,” in Open Economies: Structural Adjustment and Agriculture, ed. I.Goldin and L.A.Winters (ed) (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

      Torres, J.L., 2013, “Revenue and Expenditure Gaps and Fiscal Consolidation: A Cross-Country Analysis,IMF Working Paper (forthcoming; Washington: International Monetary Fund).

      U.S. Congressional Budget Office, 2012, “The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook” (Washington: Congressional Budget Office).

      U.S. Congressional Budget Office, 2013, “Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Year 2013–2023” (Washington: Congressional Budget Office).

      U.S. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IAWG), 2013, Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866, Technical Support Document (Washington), available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf.

      van Ommeren, J., and M.van Leuvensteijn, 2005, “New Evidence of the Effect of Transaction Costs on Residential Mobility,Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 681702.

      van Parys, S., and S.James, 2010, “The Effectiveness of Tax Incentives in Attracting FDI: Evidence from the Tourism Sector in the Caribbean,Working Paper No. 10/675 (Ghent, Belgium: Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University).

      Weingast, B., K.Shepsle, and C.Johnsen, 1981, “The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics,Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 64264.

      Xing, J., 2012, “Tax Structure and Growth: How Robust Is the Empirical Evidence?Economics Letters, Vol. 117, pp. 37982.

      Zucman, G., 2013, “The Missing Wealth of Nations: Are Europe and the U.S. Net Debtors or Net Creditors?Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 128, No. 3, pp. 132164.

    Some of the revenue strength likely reflects one-off factors—such as shifting of tax payments in anticipation of higher marginal rates from January 2013—that are not captured by the cyclical-adjustment procedure. If so, the decline in the measured cyclically adjusted deficit overestimates the actual degree of tightening.

    The structural balance excludes the clearance of capital expenditure arrears in 2013.

    Future issues of the Fiscal Monitor will discuss spending reform options.

    The issue of how much high debt hampers growth—and whether there is a “threshold”—remains quite controversial. However, with few exceptions (including Panizza and Presbitero, 2012), most studies concur that the effect on potential growth is not trivial. That being said, the desirable level of debt need not be the same for all countries, as factors such as the investor base, volatility in the interest rate–growth differential, and the level of contingent liabilities also have a bearing on the appropriate debt target. See the April 2013 Fiscal Monitor for a review of the literature and related issues.

    The April 2013 Fiscal Monitor discusses these scenarios as well as underlying assumptions in detail.

    Depending on, among other factors, the starting debt level, the resulting structural balance targets vary between a 1 percent surplus and a 3 percent deficit. It is assumed that countries attain their medium-term structural targets no later than 2020 and maintain that level thereafter.

    The primary balance gap is defined as the difference between the actual primary balance and the primary balance required to stabilize the debt at current levels, taking 2013 as the year of reference.

    For example, in Brazil policy lending to public financial institutions amounted to 8 percent of GDP from 2008 to 2012. In China, local-government financing vehicles and off-budget funds are estimated to account for about 19 percent of GDP.

    This assumes a full pass-through of the cuts for the share of aid provided as grants (about 80 percent). For a discussion of possible domestic offsets to the scaling down of aid, see Section 2.

    Estimates based on a sample of nine emerging market economies representing a cross-section of commodity exporters suggest that a 10 percentage point across-the-board fall in commodity prices would lead to a decline of more than 1 percent of GDP in budget revenues annually (see the April 2011 Fiscal Monitor).

    The scenario assumes that foreign holdings of local-currency government debt fall by 30 percent, U.S. Treasury note yield increases by 100 basis points, and the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index (VIX) is up by 10 percentage points. For more details, see the October 2013 Global Financial Stability Report.

    Data on guarantees and other contingent liabilities for emerging market economies are scant. For a discussion on the contingent liabilities in India and China, see the April 2013 Fiscal Monitor.

    This is the unweighted average for advanced economies with debt-to-GDP ratios above 60 percent or cumulative fiscal adjustment higher than 3 percent of GDP.

    Greater-than-planned reliance on revenue measures partly reflects spending rigidities; it is also a feature of previous consolidations (Mauro, 2011).

    Earthquake-related reconstruction outlays explain the absence of spending offset in Japan.

    The concept and measurement of tax expenditures, and experience in their elimination, were discussed in the April 2011 Fiscal Monitor.

    One would, of course, expect nominal increases simply to maintain the real value of excises levied as fixed monetary amounts.

    In Germany, for instance, the solidarity surcharge introduced in the wake of unification in 1991 is still in place.

    Some have expanded in-work tax credits, with effects similar to a rate cut on lower earnings.

    An important exception is Brazil, where the employers’ contribution has been converted to a low rate and a sectorally differentiated turnover tax.

    The central estimate of U.S. IAWG (2013) for the social cost of carbon.

    On climate policies in hard macroeconomic times more generally, see Jones and Keen (2011).

    This bias affects all types of company but is especially troubling in regard to financial institutions, given the great damage that their excess leverage can cause.

    Including novel taxes on high-frequency trades. These taxes have appeal if such trades are seen as socially costly, although it remains unclear whether regulatory measures would be superior.

    See especially Boxes 3 and 4.

    Meaning here that the proportionate fall in disposable income is higher at higher income levels.

    In Greece, for instance, although the loss of disposable income as a result of consolidation measures increased with income over the top nine deciles, the lowest income decile experienced a particularly large reduction.

    The sample is a cross-section of 164 countries in 2012 (panel estimation would be preferable, but data limitations preclude it). Revenues exclude the proceeds from capital income, grants, natural resources, and taxes on international trade. Explanatory variables include per capita GDP, the old-age dependency ratio, population growth, net exports of oil and gas, and the political participation rate. For further details see Torres (2013).

    For instance, one cannot say that increasing effort from 30 percent to 40 percent is “easier” than increasing it from 80 percent to 90 percent, or that it would be equally easy for two countries with effort of 70 percent to raise it to 80 percent.

    The underlying assumptions about economic growth and interest rates follow World Economic Outlook projections until 2018 and are model determined thereafter. See Statistical Table 13b for more details.

    IMF (2011) discusses this potential in more detail.

    Issues in the measurement and interpretation of C-efficiency are discussed in Ebrill and others (2001), Keen (2013), and OECD (2008) (which refers to it as the “VAT revenue ratio”).

    As Cnossen (2003) argues, the EU VAT, nearly 50 years old, is showing its age.

    A cost of means-tested compensation of this kind is that its withdrawal, as income increases, leads to higher marginal effective tax rates over some income range—as Apps and Rees (2013) stress in the Australian context—so that equity gains need to be traded against efficiency losses.

    On India, see Cnossen (2013); on Brazil, see Afonso, Soares, and de Castro (2013); more generally, see Perry (2010).

    It is possible, for instance, to decompose the policy gap further into components related to rate differentiation and exemptions, as Keen (2013) does for the EU countries above.

    The research has focused on advanced economies. See, in particular, Arnold and others (2011). OECD (2013b) uses this and a similar hierarchy on the spending side as a starting point to assess alternative compositions along consolidation paths.

    The precise nature of the injustice in low tax rates on business income is rarely articulated. The implications for the distribution of income at the personal level are not as obvious as is often supposed: shareholders, including through pension funds, are not necessarily especially well off, the overall burden also depends on personal-level taxes on dividends and capital gains, and in some circumstances the benefits of low corporate tax rates may be passed on in part to workers—though this is less likely the more widely the low rates apply and the more they apply to profits in excess of normal, for reasons set out, for instance, in IMF (2010a). The implications of the devices now discussed for the distribution of tax revenue across countries are no less a concern, pointing to the deeper question of how rights to tax international activities should be allocated.

    In his “Special Message to the Congress on Taxation” on April 20, 1961; the text of the message is available at http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/5669.

    Klemm and van Parys (2009) find that tax measures have attracted foreign direct investment in lower-income countries, and van Parys and James (2010) find some effect in the Caribbean too. Kinda (2013), on the other hand, finds little impact on the foreign share of the capital stock, with other factors much more important.

    This is true even in terms of national self-interest: investment can be increased in high-tax countries if more-tax-sensitive firms can use low-tax jurisdictions to reduce their effective tax rate (Desai, Foley, and Hines, 2006).

    Instead of allocating a multinational’s taxable profits across jurisdictions by the use of arm’s-length (market-mimicking) prices, “formula apportionment” would allocate a multinational’s global profit by reference to indicators of its activity in each jurisdiction (such as sales, payroll, or workforce). This alternative approach, used at the subnational level in both Canada and the United States, has attracted considerable interest from civil society organizations, and the European Commission has proposed a system of this kind—a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base—for the European Union. These and other efficiency aspects of coordination are reviewed in Keen and Konrad (2013).

    Peter, Buttrick, and Duncan (2010) show that the trend toward lower top marginal personal income tax rates over the last 30 years has been worldwide and that the wider progressivity of the system—measured in terms of the distribution of tax liabilities over the full income range—has trended down in all but the lowest-income countries.

    Piketty, Saez, and Stantcheva (2011) note that the cuts in top marginal rates generally preceded increased income shares of the top 1 percent.

    The same is true of essentially all tax issues, of course, but is especially evident when, as here, the focus is explicitly on raising more from a particular group.

    The data underlying the figure are in the Statistical Appendix (Statistical Tables 15a and 15b).

    Because the household surveys from which these figures are calculated underrepresent those with very high incomes.

    In April 2013 the United Kingdom reduced its top rate from 50 percent to 45 percent.

    The adoption of the “flat tax” in Russia in 2001 is a famous example of a reform that cut the top marginal rate (from 30 percent to 13 percent) and was followed by a large increase in personal income tax revenue. Close analysis has concluded, however, that this primarily reflected nontax developments (Ivanova, Keen, and Klemm, 2005; Gorodnichenko, Martinez-Vasquez, and Peter, 2009). These analyses also concluded that the reform did improve compliance, suggesting that the revenue-maximizing top personal income tax rate is likely to be lower where compliance is weak.

    This change alone would reduce Gini coefficients by less than 0.01 on average.

    More precisely, it shows what the weight attached to the welfare of those in the highest incomes (relative to that on those with lower incomes) must be if (given the assumption on behavioral responses in the figure) the current top marginal rate exactly balances the welfare loss to the richest (from a slight increase in the marginal rate they face) against the social value of the additional revenue they pay.

    By the same token, the trend toward lower top rates over the last three decades is consistent with an increase in the valuation of the welfare of those with the highest incomes relative to those with lower ones. It remains an open question whether social preferences are now reverting to their earlier pattern.

    An estate tax is one levied on the value of assets at death; an inheritance tax is levied on the recipients.

    Kopczuk (2013) reviews the evidence, which is more informative about shorter-term responses to incentives—one macabre distortion being to the timing of death (Kopzcuk and Slemrod, 2003)—than it is about longer-term effects on capital accumulation. Theoretical results on optimal bequest taxation differ widely. Fahri and Werning (2010) find that it is optimal to subsidize bequests (because donors do not take full account of the social benefit to the recipients). In a different setting, Piketty and Saez (2012) find the optimal rate to be positive, and in some cases substantial. For general discussion, with an eye to practicalities of implementation, see Boadway, Chamberlain, and Emmerson (2010).

    From the Eurosystem’s Household Finance and Consumption Survey (Household Finance and Consumption Network, 2013).

    There is evidence, for instance, that when some jurisdictions commit to exchange of information, deposits partly move to those that do not (Johannesen and Zucman, 2013).

    For example, in the Slovak Republic poorer households were compensated for the effect of income tax reform in 2004; in Chile, tax reform in the early 1990s, including reform of the VAT, was accompanied by an increase in social spending (Brys, 2011).

    In Latin American and Caribbean countries, for instance, the focus of reforms has shifted from simplification and the reduction of distortions in the early 1990s to revenue mobilization in later years, largely in response to crises (IDB, 2013).

    If all tax reforms produced clear winners and losers, policymakers could, in principle, implement the most efficient reform in conjunction with a compensation mechanism for losers. Weingast, Shepsle, and Johnsen (1981) explain the persistence of inefficiency as a divergence between economic and political costs and benefits.

    On the other hand, as discussed in Table 14, sometimes a big-bang approach to implementation may be desirable to stem opposition.

    From that perspective, fiscal councils could be helpful in assessing the implications of alternative tax proposals. This is one of their responsibilities, for example, in Australia and Korea.

    User charges were raised for private health insurance in the United States (Ryu and others, 2013).

    See IMF (2013a) for a similar model.

    Two-thirds of the gap between actual and predicted growth rates in 2011 was driven by these four countries and Korea.

    The projections up to 2018 are based on the macroeconomic projections from the World Economic Outlook (economic growth, general government public debt–to–GDP ratios, and unemployment rate). Beyond 2018, the projections assume that excess cost growth (the difference between the growth of real health spending and GDP growth, after the effect of aging is adjusted for) will gradually return to its historical average by 2030.

    Some studies argue that part of the recent slowdown in health spending in the United States could reflect structural changes in the health care system that affect long-term spending growth, including those happening under the ongoing implementation of the country’s health care reform act (Cutler and Sahni, 2013).

    With obvious amendments when estimation is on panel data, which also has the advantage (among others) of providing fixed effects that could be interpreted as giving some indication of social preferences. Data limitations—the desire to apply both methods to the same data set—mean the analysis here is on a cross-section.

    See for instance, Pessino and Fenochietto (2010), including on the econometrics involved. Note that equation (2) implies a bias in ordinary least squares estimation of equation (1) if, as one might expect, policy choices are correlated with the xi.

    Though the presence of the error vi means that actual revenue may exceed the estimated maximum.

    Estimation is by maximum likelihood, with U(zi) assumed to have a half-normal distribution and v to be normally distributed. See Grigoli and Muthoora (2013).

    Cross-section estimation techniques, whether in the context of the peer analysis or of stochastic frontier analysis, cannot fully capture the effects of country-specific circumstances and may bias estimates of the revenue gaps or tax effort. Given these and other data limitations, results should be interpreted with caution.

    This appendix is based on Norregaard (2013).

    And sometimes transaction and/or capital gains taxes too.

    Theorists have shown interest in self-assessment schemes (an idea attributed to Sun Yat-sen) under which taxpayers declare a value but are then required to accept bids for some specified amount in excess. Practical experience is limited, however, though such a scheme has been used in Bogotá, Colombia.

      Other Resources Citing This Publication