APPENDIX I Incidence Analyses and Income Redistribution
Most studies of the income distributional effects of public policy fall within the category of “incidence analyses” of taxation and expenditure. They either analyze the effects of particular measures or, if appraising the overall incidence of the tax system or the net budgetary effects of the tax and expenditure system, rest on the analytical assumption that one is appraising the distributional effect of a set of measures relative to the effects of a proportional income tax increase or decrease (to be able to ignore the macro-economic effects of a particular revenue or expenditure measure).57 They are partial analyses with crude assumptions made on the effective elasticity of response of consumers or factors of production to the effects of a tax or price change. No general equilibrium effects are considered. The focus is on fiscal measures and does not readily take account of the other types of policy measures typically included in a Fund program.
Expenditure incidence estimates are particularly fraught with conceptual difficulties. Analysts are uncertain whether to examine the incidence of the expenditure (e.g., salaries paid to teachers), the monetary value of the service provided by the expenditure (e.g., the cost of the education imputed to the student), the benefit derived from the service (e.g., the benefit derived by the student from the education), or the overall incidence effects from the expenditure (taking account of any general equilibrium effects on relative prices and income) as it affects the distribution of income. How does one treat the incidence of government investment expenditure? The flow of benefits from such expenditure derives more from the present stock of government capital than from the flow of present investment expenditure.58
De Wulf (1980) has noted that incidence analyses are useful when the focus is on smaller expenditure or tax components or on changes in the tax or expenditure system that do not imply wholesale elimination of major programs or revenue sources; in such cases, it can be correctly assumed that the general economic framework will not be affected by assuming away a given expenditure (or tax) program. In the case of many of the microeconomic fiscal measures introduced as part of a Fund program (changes in particular expenditure programs or rates of taxation), such measures are sufficiently at the margin that one is perhaps not distorting reality drastically by accepting the methodological assumptions required to validate traditional incidence analyses. While the data problems alluded to above are likely to preclude specific incidence analyses in the countries recently involved in Fund programs, there exists a large body of incidence literature on which one can rely for making reasonably good inferences on the likely distributional consequences of particular policy measures.
The difficulty in inference becomes greater when a Fund program involves a large number of significant fiscal measures and, more important, and as is generally the case, the adoption of significant macroeconomic and external policy measures. The number of detailed empirical studies tracing the distributional consequences of such policies is more limited, and it is more difficult to separate out the consequences associated with particular policies or the effects that were specific to the countries that were the subject of such studies. Analytically, one is perforce required to decompose particular macroeconomic measures into their micro-economic consequences. For example, to the extent that a devaluation leads to increases in the price of importables, one could attempt to analyze its distributional effects in the same way one would assess the effects of changes in excise or sales taxes. In the case of many macroeconomic measures, such a decomposition is not easy, but there is basically little in the way of an analytical alternative.
APPENDIX II Some Empirical Evidence on Price and Subsidy Policy
Empirical information concerning the direct effect of price and subsidy policy on income distribution is scarce and of questionable quality. In addition, existing studies do not cover a sufficient range of countries to provide an adequate basis for generalization. The conclusions of the few studies available, however, indicate that for large, general subsidy programs the hardship imposed in the short run by eliminating subsidies to the poor cannot be ignored. They also indicate that such programs are inefficient and ineffective mechanisms for redistributing incomes.
A practical problem is the practice in many countries confronting budgetary constraints to reduce subsidy outlays by adopting the expediency of excluding the poor, further exacerbating the adverse distributional implications of these programs. As a consequence, subsidy programs are often inconsistent with their stated objective of helping the poor. In one member country spending approximately 2 percent of GDP on consumer subsidies, for example, a Fund technical assistance study based largely on household survey data found that even a relatively open-ended subsidy scheme with no mechanisms to selectively exclude the poor nevertheless resulted in relatively perverse distributional effects. As such open-ended food subsidy schemes are typical of those attracting Fund attention, precisely because of the budgetary exposure they engender, the major results are worth reviewing here. In urban areas, it was found that less than 10 percent of the benefits of food subsidies accrued to the poorest 20 percent of the population, while 46 percent of the subsidy went to the richest 27 percent of the urban dwellers. Looking more directly at nutritional status, and taking the figure of 1,800 calories a day as representing the limit of serious undernutrition, one finds that in the rural areas only 15 percent of the budgetary cost of subsidies is transferred to those under this limit; in the urban areas the corresponding figure is 25 percent. Despite this poor targeting, however, data indicate that food subsidies provide an income transfer equivalent to up to 6 percent of per capita household expenditure for the poorest urban dwellers.
In a second member country for which data is available (Tarrant (1982)), food subsidies are allocated through ration shops that distribute foodgrains below free market prices. Rural people, which make up 90 percent of the population, receive less than 20 percent of the available food ration, and even this proportion is reported to be reduced in the event of shortages. More than 60 percent of the recipients are government employees, and the privilege of a ration card is reportedly used to hold down government wages and salaries.
A recent study in another member country, which spends approximately 7 percent of GDP on food subsidies, finds a substantially less skewed distribution of benefits, no doubt owing to the broader coverage (and higher cost) of the system.59 The amount of income transferred equaled 17 percent of the income of the poorest rural expenditure quartile and 16 percent of the income of the poorest urban expenditure quartile. The amount of income transferred for the richest rural and urban quartiles was 4 percent and 3 percent, respectively. The distribution of subsidy benefits in absolute terms appears to be much less regressive than in the first country mentioned.
The distributional effect of subsidy programs can be substantially improved. For example, another member country decreased the budgetary cost of food subsidies from 6 percent to 3 percent of GDP, at the same time increasing the per capita transfer to the poorest classes by more than 30 percent through the introduction of a food coupon system that targeted food subsidies to the lower-income classes (Mateus (1983)).
APPENDIX III A Review of Policies in Fund Programs, 1980–84
Selection of the Sample
The Fund approved 117 stand-by programs and 23 extended facilities from January 1980 to December 1984, for 68 countries. Twenty-two countries had programs in two of those years, 15 countries had programs in three years, 5 countries had programs in four years, and 1 country had programs in all five years. The sample for this study was primarily derived from this population with all the 67 countries being included. To have a wider country example not all the programs approved in one particular country were included. The sample covers 94 programs in 68 countries. Fifteen programs were under extended facilities and 79 were for stand-by arrangements. Table 11 provides a list of Fund programs during 1980–83 by country and year; the programs selected for the sample are in bold print.
Programs Supported Under Stand-By and Extended Arrangements Approved in 1980–84
Stand-by arrangement.
Covers second or third year of the extended Fund facility.
Extended Fund facility.
First credit tranche.
Programs Supported Under Stand-By and Extended Arrangements Approved in 1980–84
| 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | SBA1 | SBA | Madagascar | SBA | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||
| Bangladesh2 | EFF3 | EFF | SBA | Malawi2 | SBA | SBA | EFF | ||||
| Barbados | SBA | SBA | Mali | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Belize | SBA | Mauritania | SBA | SBA | |||||||
| Bolivia | SBA | Mauritius | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Brazil | EFF | Mexico | EFF | ||||||||
| Burma | SBA | Morocco2 | EFF | EFF | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Central African Republic | SBA* | SBA | SBA | SBA | Niger | SBA | SBA | ||||
| Chile | SBA | Pakistan2 | EFF | EFF | |||||||
| China | SBA* | Panama | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Costa Rica | SBA | EFF | SBA | Peru | EFF | SBA | |||||
| Côte d’lvoire | EFF | SBA | Philippines | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Cyprus | SBA* | Portugal | SBA | ||||||||
| Dominica | EFF | SBA | Romania | SBA | |||||||
| Ecuador | SBA | Senegal | EFF | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| El Salvador | SBA* | SBA | Sierra Leone2 | EFF | SBA | ||||||
| Equatorial Guinea | SBA | Solomon Islands | SBA | SBA | |||||||
| Ethiopia | SBA | Somalia | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Gabon | EFF | South Africa | SBA | ||||||||
| Gambia, The | SBA | SBA | Sri Lanka2 (1979 EFF) | SBA | |||||||
| Ghana | SBA | SBA | Sudan | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Grenada | SBA | EFF | Tanzania | SBA | |||||||
| Guatemala | SBA* | SBA | Thailand | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Guinea | SBA | Togo | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Guinea-Bissau | SBA* | Turkey | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Guyana | EFF | Uganda | SBA | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Haiti | SBA | SBA | Uruguay | SBA* | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Honduras | SBA | Western Samoa | SBA | SBA | |||||||
| Hungary | SBA | SBA | Yugoslavia | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| India2 | EFF | Zaïre | EFF | SBA | |||||||
| Jamaica | EFF | SBA | Zambia2 | EFF | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Kenya | SBA | SBA | SBA | Zimbabwe | SBA* | SBA | |||||
| Korea | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||||
| Lao, People’s Democratic Republic | SBA | ||||||||||
| Liberia | SBA | SBA | SBA | SBA | SBA |
Stand-by arrangement.
Covers second or third year of the extended Fund facility.
Extended Fund facility.
First credit tranche.
Programs Supported Under Stand-By and Extended Arrangements Approved in 1980–84
| 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | SBA1 | SBA | Madagascar | SBA | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||
| Bangladesh2 | EFF3 | EFF | SBA | Malawi2 | SBA | SBA | EFF | ||||
| Barbados | SBA | SBA | Mali | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Belize | SBA | Mauritania | SBA | SBA | |||||||
| Bolivia | SBA | Mauritius | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Brazil | EFF | Mexico | EFF | ||||||||
| Burma | SBA | Morocco2 | EFF | EFF | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Central African Republic | SBA* | SBA | SBA | SBA | Niger | SBA | SBA | ||||
| Chile | SBA | Pakistan2 | EFF | EFF | |||||||
| China | SBA* | Panama | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Costa Rica | SBA | EFF | SBA | Peru | EFF | SBA | |||||
| Côte d’lvoire | EFF | SBA | Philippines | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Cyprus | SBA* | Portugal | SBA | ||||||||
| Dominica | EFF | SBA | Romania | SBA | |||||||
| Ecuador | SBA | Senegal | EFF | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| El Salvador | SBA* | SBA | Sierra Leone2 | EFF | SBA | ||||||
| Equatorial Guinea | SBA | Solomon Islands | SBA | SBA | |||||||
| Ethiopia | SBA | Somalia | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Gabon | EFF | South Africa | SBA | ||||||||
| Gambia, The | SBA | SBA | Sri Lanka2 (1979 EFF) | SBA | |||||||
| Ghana | SBA | SBA | Sudan | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Grenada | SBA | EFF | Tanzania | SBA | |||||||
| Guatemala | SBA* | SBA | Thailand | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Guinea | SBA | Togo | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Guinea-Bissau | SBA* | Turkey | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||
| Guyana | EFF | Uganda | SBA | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Haiti | SBA | SBA | Uruguay | SBA* | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Honduras | SBA | Western Samoa | SBA | SBA | |||||||
| Hungary | SBA | SBA | Yugoslavia | SBA | SBA | SBA | |||||
| India2 | EFF | Zaïre | EFF | SBA | |||||||
| Jamaica | EFF | SBA | Zambia2 | EFF | SBA | SBA | |||||
| Kenya | SBA | SBA | SBA | Zimbabwe | SBA* | SBA | |||||
| Korea | SBA | SBA | SBA | ||||||||
| Lao, People’s Democratic Republic | SBA | ||||||||||
| Liberia | SBA | SBA | SBA | SBA | SBA |
Stand-by arrangement.
Covers second or third year of the extended Fund facility.
Extended Fund facility.
First credit tranche.
Classification of Policy Actions
The policy actions in the 94 programs in this sample are detailed in Table 12. They are classified by major area distributed by rows, and countries distributed by columns. The study makes no attempt to quantify the magnitude of adjustment envisaged or to determine if the measures were in fact implemented, but merely reports the measures as identified in the Use of Fund Resources documents.
Several symbols are employed to simplify the presentation and retain as much information as possible. A policy action undertaken by the authorities as identified in the column of policy measures is marked by an “*” in the appropriate country column. To save space, those cases where the direction of the policy undertaken was opposite to that identified in the policy measure column, such as an expansion of capital investment rather than a curtailment, are identified by a “▲.” As employed here, the term “prior actions” includes all policy measures adopted in the 12 months prior to adoption of the programs and not just measures undertaken as part of the program. If a Use of Fund Resources paper identifies World Bank collaboration on measures relating to capital expenditure, this assistance is identified by a “●.” Countries with external arrears during the program period are denoted with a “■” in the section covering debt.
References
Aaron, Henry J., “Some Criticisms of Tax Burden Indices,” National Tax Journal (Columbus, Ohio), Vol. 18 (September 1965), pp. 313–16.
Aaron, Henry J., Who Pays the Property Tax? A New View (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1975).
Aaron, Henry J., and Martin McGuire, “Public Goods and Income Distribution,” Econometrica (Evanston, Illinois), Vol. 38 (November 1970), pp. 907–20.
Adelman, Irma, and Sherman Robinson, Income Distribution Policy in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Korea (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).
Alderman, Harold and Joachim Von Braun, “The Effects of the Egyptian Food Ration and Subsidy System on Income Distribution and Consumption,” Research Report No. 45 (Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1984).
Altimir, Oscar The Extent of Poverty in Latin America, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 522 (Washington: The World Bank, 1982).
Altimir, Oscar, and Juan V. Sourrouille, Measuring Levels of Living in Latin America: An Overview of Main Problems, Living Standards Measurement Study Working Paper No. 3 (Washington: The World Bank, October 1980).
Anand, Sudhir, Inequality and Poverty in Malaysia: Measurement and Decomposition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983).
Bacha, Edmar L., and Lance Taylor, “Brazilian Income Distribution in the 1960s; ‘Facts,’ Model Results and the Controversy,” Journal of Development Studies (London), Vol. 14 (April 1978), pp. 271–97.
Bacha, Edmar L., and Lance Taylor, and Wayne R. Thirsk, “The Fiscal Incidence of Some Experiments in Fiscal Federalism: Technical Report” (Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1979).
Ballentine, J. Gregory, Equity, Efficiency and the U.S. Corporation Income Tax (Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1980).
Berg, Alan, “A Strategy to Reduce Malnutrition,” Poverty and Basic Needs (Washington: The World Bank, September 1980), pp. 18–21.
Bergsman, Joel, Income Distribution and Poverty in Mexico, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 395 (Washington: The World Bank, April 1983).
Beveridge, W. A., and Margaret R. Kelly, “Fiscal Content of Financial Programs Supported by Stand-By Arrangements in the Upper Credit Tranches, 1969–78,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 27 (June 1980), pp. 205–49.
Bird, Richard M. “The Incidence of the Property Tax: Old Wine in New Bottles,”Canadian Public Policy (Guelph, Ontario), supplement (1963), pp. 323–34.
Bird, Richard M., and Luc H. De Wulf, “Taxation and Income Distribution in Latin America: A Critical Review of Empirical Studies,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 20 (November 1973), pp. 639–82.
Booth, Anne (1980a), “The Incidence of Taxation: A Preliminary Analysis,” in Issues in Public Finance in Singapore, ed. by M. Asher and S. Osborne (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1980), pp. 100–32.
Booth, Anne (1980b), “The Economic Impact of Export Taxes in ASEAN,” Malayan Economic Review (Singapore), Vol. 25 (April 1980), pp. 36–61.
Break, George F., “The Incidence and Economic Effects of Taxation,” in The Economics of Public Finance, by Alan S. Blinder and others (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1974), pp. 110–237.
Brittain, John A., The Payroll Tax for Social Security (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1972).
Catsambas, Thanos “Gasoline Tax Burden Is Analyzed To Assess Distributional Impact,” IMF Survey (Washington), Vol. 9 (April 21, 1980), pp. 114–16.
Champernowne, D.G., “A Comparison of Measures of Inequality on Income Distribution,” Economic Journal (Cambridge), Vol. 84 (December 1974), pp. 787–816.
Chenery, Hollis, Montek S. Ahluwalia, C.L.G. Bell, John H. Duloy, and Richard Jolly, Redistribution with Growth (London: Oxford University Press, 1974).
Cnossen, Sijbren, Excise Systems: A Global Study of the Selective Taxation of Goods and Services (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
Comité Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Secheressé dans le Sahel (CILSS), Recurrent Costs of Development Programs in the Countries of the Sahel: Analysis and Recommendations (Ouagadougou: CILSS, August 1980).
Corden, Warner M., Trade Policy and Economic Welfare (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974).
Dan, Usher, The Economics of the Rice Premium, Discussion Paper Series, No. 60, Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University (Bangkok, January 1978).
Davies, David G. “An Empirical Test of Sales-Tax Regressivity,” Journal of Political Economy (Chicago), Vol. 67 (February 1959), pp. 72–78.
Deaton, Angus, The Measurement of Welfare: Theory and Practical Guidelines, Living Standards Measurement Study Working Paper No. 7 (Washington: The World Bank, October 1980).
de Larosiere, Jacques (1984a), “Does the Fund Impose Austerity?” (Washington: International Monetary Fund, June 1984).
de Larosiere, Jacques (1984b), “The Growth of Public Debt and the Need for Fiscal Discipline,” remarks made at the International Institute of Public Finance, Innsbruck, Austria, August 27, 1984.
Dervis, Kemal, Jamie De Melo, and Sherman Robinson, General Equilibrium Models for Development Policy (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
De Wulf, Luc H., “Fiscal Incidence Studies in Developing Countries: Survey and Critique,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 22 (March 1975), pp. 61–131.
De Wulf, Luc H., “Incidence of Budgetary Outlays: Where Do We Go From Here?” (unpublished, Washington: International Monetary Fund, January 22, 1980).
De Wulf, Luc H., “Taxation and Income Distribution in Less Developed Countries: An Economist’s Guide,” (unpublished, Washington: International Monetary Fund, October 30, 1981).
De Wulf, Luc H., “Taxation and Income Distribution,” in Comparative Tax Studies: Essays in Honor of Richard Goode, ed. by Sijbren Cnossen (Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland, 1983), pp. 345–70.
Doe, Lubin K. “Fiscal Policy and Adjustment in the 1980 Fund Financial Programs” (unpublished, Washington: International Monetary Fund, June 30, 1983).
Donovan, Donal J. “Macroeconomic Performance and Adjustment Under Fund-Supported Programs: The Experience of the Seventies,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 29 (June 1982), pp. 171–203.
Eberstadt, Nick, “Hunger and Ideology,” Commentary (New York, July 1981), pp. 40–49.
Fields, Gary S., Poverty, Inequality, and Development (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980).
Fullerton, Don, and John B. Shoven, “Replacing the U.S. Income Tax With a Progressive Consumption Tax: A Sequenced General Equilibrium Approach,” Journal of Public Economics (Amsterdam), Vol. 20 (February 1983), pp. 3–23.
Gandhi, Ved P., “Tax Burden on Indian Agriculture” (Cambridge, Massachusetts: International Tax Program, Harvard Law School, 1966).
Gandhi, Ved P., “Sales Taxation of Services in Developing Countries” (unpublished, Washington: International Monetary Fund, December 1, 1977).
Gandhi, Ved P., “Vertical Equity of General Sales Taxation in Developing Countries” (unpublished, Washington: International Monetary Fund, July 18, 1979).
Gillespie, W. Irwin “Effect of Public Expenditures on the Distribution of Income,” in Essays in Fiscal Federalism, ed. by Richard A. Musgrave (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1965), pp. 122–86.
Gillespie, W. Irwin The Incidence of Taxes and Public Expenditure in the Canadian Economy, Studies of the Royal Commission on Taxation, No. 2 (Ottawa, 1966).
Glade, William “The Privatization and Denationalization of Public Enterprises,” in Government and Public Enterprises, ed. by G. Ram Reddy (London: Frank Cass, 1983), pp. 67–98.
Goode, Richard, Government Finance in Developing Countries (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1984).
Gotsch, Carl, and Gilbert Brown, Prices, Taxes, and Subsidies in Pakistan Agriculture, 1960–76, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 387 (Washington: The World Bank, April 1980).
Government of India, Incidence of Indirect Taxation (New Delhi: Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, 1969).
Government of India, Public Enterprises Survey 1982–83 (Highlights), Ministry of Finance (New Delhi, 1984).
Grootaert, Christiaan and Dennis De Tray, “Measuring Levels of Living: The Contribution of World Bank Research,” Research News (Washington), Vol. 5 (Summer 1984), pp. 3–15.
Hansen, W. Lee and Burton A. Weisbrod, “Distributional Effects of Public Expenditure Programs,” Public Finance (The Hague), Vol. 27 (1972), pp. 414–20.
Harberger, Arnold C. “The Incidence of the Corporation Income Tax,” Journal of Political Economy (Chicago), Vol. 70 (June 1962), pp. 215–40.
Harberger, Arnold C. “Fiscal Policy and Income Redistribution,” Chapter VII in Income Distribution and Growth in the Less-Developed Countries, ed. by Charles R. Frank, Jr. and Richard C. Webb (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1977), pp. 259–80.
Heller, Peter S. “Public Investment in LDCs with Recurrent Cost Constraint: The Kenyan Case,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (Cambridge, Mass.), Vol. 88 (May 1974), pp. 251–77.
Heller, Peter S. Issues in the Costing of Public Sector Outputs: The Public Medical Services of Malaysia, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 207 (Washington: The World Bank, June 1975).
Heller, Peter S. “Testing the Impact of Value-Added and Global Income Tax Reforms on Korean Tax Incidence in 1976: An Input-Output and Sensitivity Analysis,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 28 (June 1981), pp. 375–410.
Heller, Peter S. and Alan A. Tait, Government Employment and Pay: Some International Comparisons, IMF Occasional Paper, No. 24 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, March 1983).
Herrick, Bruce H., Urban Migration and Economic Development in Chile (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965).
Hirschman, Albert O., Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1982). International Center for Public Enterprises in Developing Countries Expert Group, “The Role of Public Enterprises in Employment Generation in Developing Countries,” Public Enterprise (Ljubljana), Vol. 4 (No. 2, 1983) pp. 5–16.
International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department, Fiscal Review Division, “The Concept of the Current Balance in Government Accounts” (unpublished, Washington: International Monetary Fund, June 11, 1976).
International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department, Fiscal Review Division, (1986a), Selected Decisions of the International Monetary Fund and Selected Documents, Twelfth Issue (Washington: International Monetary Fund, April 30, 1986).
International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department, Fiscal Review Division, (1986b), A Manual on Government Finance Statistics (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1986).
Jain, Shail, Size Distribution of Income: Compilation of Data, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 190 (Washington: The World Bank, 1974).
Jallade, Jean Pierre, Public Expenditure on Education and Income Distribution in Colombia, The World Bank Staff Occasional Papers No. 18, distributed by The Johns Hopkins University Press (Baltimore, 1974).
Jencks, Christopher, and others, Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (New York: Basic Books, 1972).
Johnson, Omotunde, and Joanne Salop, “Distributional Aspects of Stabilization Programs in Developing Countries,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 27 (March 1980), pp. 1–23.
Kakwani, Nanak C., Income Inequality and Poverty: Methods of Estimation and Policy Applications (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
Kanapathy, V., “Public Enterprise and Income Distribution,” in The Role of the Public Enterprise in Development, ed. by Chakrit Noranitipadungkarn (Manila: Europa, 1979).
Keller, Wouter J., Tax Incidence: A General Equilibrium Approach (Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland, 1980).
Kelly, Margaret R., “Fiscal Adjustment and Fund-Supported Programs, 1971–80,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 29 (December 1982), pp. 561–602.
Killick, Tony, and Graham R. Bird, The Quest for Economic Stabilisation: The IMF and the Third World (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984).
Krongkaew, Medhi “The Income Redistributional Effects of Taxes and Public Expenditures in Thailand: An Intertemporal Study” (doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1976).
Kuznets, Simon “Economic Growth and Income Inequality,” American Economic Review, Vol. 45 (March 1955), pp. 1–28.
Lam, N. V. “Incidence of the Rice Export Premium in Thailand,” Journal of Development Studies (London), Vol. 14 (October 1977), pp. 3–13.
Lele, Uma J., Food Grain Marketing in India: Private Performance and Public Policy (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1971).
Linn, Johannes F. The Distributive Effects of Local Government Finances in Colombia: A Review of the Evidence, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 235 (Washington: The World Bank, March 1976).
Lipton, Michael Poverty, Undernutrition, and Hunger, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 597 (Washington: The World Bank, April 1983).
Mallon, Richard D. “Performance Evaluation and Compensation of the Social Burdens of Public Enterprise in LDCs,” Discussion Paper No. 116 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Institute for International Development, Harvard University Press, April 1981).
Mallon, Richard D. (1982a), “Public Enterprises Versus Other Methods of State Intervention as Instruments of Redistribution Policy: The Malaysian Experience,” in Public Enterprise in Less-Developed Countries, ed. by Leroy P. Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 313–25.
Mallon, Richard D. (1982b), “Public Enterprise Pricing Policies,” Discussion Paper No. 129 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Institute for International Development, Harvard University Press, February 1982).
Mann, Arthur J., “The Fiscal System and Income Distribution: The Case of Puerto Rico,” Public Finance Quarterly (Beverly Hills, California), Vol. 4 (July 1976), pp. 339–66.
Mateus, Abel M. Targeting Food Subsidies for the Needy: The Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis and Institutional Design, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 617 (Washington: The World Bank, November 1984).
McLure, Charles E., Jr., “The Incidence of Taxation in Colombia,” in Fiscal Reform for Colombia: Final Report and Staff Papers of the Colombian Commission on Tax Reform, ed. by Malcolm Gillis (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Law School, 1971), pp. 239–66.
McLure, Charles E., “The Incidence of Taxation in West Malaysia,” Malayan Economic Review (Singapore), Vol. 17 (October 1972), pp. 66–98.
McLure, Charles E., (1974a), “The Distribution of Income and Tax Incidence in Panama: 1969,” Public Finance Quarterly (Beverly Hills, California), Vol. 2 (April 1974), pp. 155–201.
McLure, Charles E., (1974b), “On the Theory and Methodology of Estimating Benefit and Expenditure Incidence” (mimeograph, Program of Development Studies, Rice University, Houston, 1974).
McLure, Charles E., “The Relevance of the New View of the Incidence of the Property Tax in Less Developed Countries,” in The Taxation of Urban Property in Less Developed Countries, ed. by Roy W. Bahl (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1979), pp. 51–76.
McLure, Charles E., and Wayne R. Thirsk, “The Inequity of Taxing Inequity: A Plea for Reduced Sumptuary Taxes in Developing Countries,” Discussion Paper No. 47 (Houston: Program of Development Studies, William Marsh Rice University, Winter 1973).
Meerman, Jacob P., “Fiscal Incidence in Empirical Studies of Income Distribution in Poor Countries,” Discussion Paper No. 25 (Washington: United States Agency for International Development, June 1972).
Meerman, Jacob P., “The Definition of Income in Studies of Budget Incidence and Income Distribution,” Review of Income and Wealth (New Haven), Vol. 4 (December 1974), pp. 515–22.
Meerman, Jacob P., “Subsidies of Major Malaysian Public Utilities,” Studies in Domestic Finance, No. 16 (Washington: February 1976).
Meerman, Jacob P., “Do Empirical Studies of Budget Incidence Make Sense?” Public Finance (The Hague), Vol. 33 (1978), pp. 295–313.
Meerman, Jacob P., Public Expenditure in Malaysia: Who Benefits and Why?, World Bank study (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).
Musgrave, Richard A., The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959).
Musgrave, Richard A., and Peggy B. Musgrave, Public Finance in Theory and Practice (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed., 1976).
Nowotny, Ewald “Nationalized Industries as an Instrument of Stabilization Policy: The Case of Austria,” Annals of Public and Co-operative Economy (Liege), Vol. 53 (March 1982), pp. 41–57.
O’Connor, James The Corporations and the State: Essays in the Theory of Capitalism and Imperialism (New York: Harper & Row, 1974).
Okonkwo, Ubadigbo “Export Taxes on Primary Products in Developing Countries: The Taxation of Cocoa Exports in West Africa” (unpublished, International Monetary Fund, Washington, 1978).
Okun, Arthur M., Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1975).
Organización de los Estados Americanos, Secretaria General, La Política Tributaria como Instrumento del Desarrollo (Washington, 1973).
Pechman, Joseph A. and Benjamin A. Okner, Who Bears the Tax Burden? (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1974).
Premchand, A. “Nonfinancial Public Enterprises in Korea” (mimeographed, Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1979).
Premchand, A. (1983a), Government Budgeting and Expenditure Controls (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1983).
Premchand, A. (1983b), “Government and Public Enterprise: The Budget Link,” in Government and Public Enterprise, ed. by G. Ram Reddy (London: Frank Cass, 1983), pp. 24–47.
Ram, R., “Population Increase, Economic Growth, Educational Inequality, and Income Distribution: Some Recent Evidence,” Journal of Development Economics (Amsterdam), Vol. 14 (April 1984), pp. 419–28.
Sahota, Gian S., “The Distribution of Tax Burden Among Different Education Classes in Brazil,” Economic Development and Cultural Change (Chicago), Vol. 19 (April 1971), pp. 438–60.
Schaefer, Jeffrey M., “Sales Tax Regressivity Under Alternative Tax Bases and Income Concepts,” National Tax Journal (Columbus, Ohio), Vol. 22 (December 1969), pp. 516–27.
Schneider, Robert R. “A Framework for Analyzing Food Subsidies” (unpublished, Washington: International Monetary Fund, February 21, 1984).
Schneider, Robert R. “Food Subsidies: A Multiple Price Model,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 32 (June 1985), pp. 289–316.
Schultz, Theodore, W., ed., Distortions of Agricultural Incentives (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978).
Selowsky, Marcelo, Who Benefits from Government Expenditure? A Case Study of Colombia (London: Oxford University Press, 1979).
Sheahan, John B., “Public Enterprise in Developing Countries,” in Public Enterprises: Economic Analysis of Theory and Practice, by William Shepherd and others (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1976), pp. 215–19.
Short, R. P., “The Role of Public Enterprises: An International Statistical Comparison” in Public Enterprise in Mixed Economies: Some Macroeconomic Aspects by Robert H. Floyd, Clive S. Gray, and R. P. Short (Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1984), pp. 110–96.
Shoven, John B., “Applied General-Equilibrium Tax Modeling,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 30 (June 1983), pp. 394–420.
Shoven, John B., and John Whalley, “A General Equilibrium Calculation of the Effects of Differential Taxation of Income from Capital in the U.S.,” Journal of Public Economics (Lausanne), Vol. 1 (November 1972), pp. 281–321.
Snodgrass, Donald R., “The Fiscal System as an Income Redistributor in West Malaysia,” Public Finance (The Hague), Vol. 29 (1974), pp. 56–76.
Tait, Alan A., “A Simple Test of the Re-distributive Nature of Price Changes for Wealth Owners in the United States and the United Kingdom,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 49 (November 1967), pp. 651–54.
Tait, Alan A., “The Fiscal Policy Objectives of Nonfinancial Public Enterprises and Their Information Requirements: A Simple Taxonomy Suggested” (mimeographed, Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1977).
Tait, Alan A., Angelo G. Faria, and Peter S. Heller, Korea: Taxes in the 1980s (mimeographed, Washington: International Monetary Fund, 1979).
Tait, Alan A., Angelo G. Faria, and Peter S. Heller, and Peter S. Heller, International Comparisons of Government Expenditure, IMF Occasional Paper, No. 10 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, April 1982).
Tan, Edita A., “Taxation, Government Spending and Income Distribution in the Philippines,” in Income Distribution, Employment and Economic Development in Southeast and East Asia, Vol. 1, papers and proceedings of the seminar sponsored jointly by the Japan Economic Research Center and the Council for Asian Manpower Studies, December 16–20, 1974 (Manila: Council for Asian Manpower Studies, 1975).
Tanzi, Vito “Redistributing Income Through the Budget in Latin America,” Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (Rome), No. 108 (March 1974), pp. 65–87.
Tanzi, Vito “Export Taxation in Developing Countries: Taxation of Coffee in Haiti,” Social and Economic Studies (Mona, Jamaica), Vol. 25 (March 1976), pp. 66–76.
Tanzi, Vito, The Underground Economy in the United States and Abroad (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1982).
Tanzi, Vito “Quantitative Characteristics of the Tax Systems of Developing Countries,” Chap. 8, The Theory of Taxation for Developing Countries, ed. by David Newbury and Nicholas Stern (publication forthcoming, Oxford University Press, Washington).
Tanzi, Vito and Luc H. De Wulf, “A Distribuçāo da Carga Fiscal por Grupos de Rendimento em Portugal,” in the German Marshall Fund and Fundaçāo Calouste Gulbenkian Conferencia Internacional Sobre Economia Portuguesa (Lisbon: Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian, 1979), pp. 925–95.
Tanzi, Vito and George Iden, “Impact of Taxes on Wages in the United States: An Example of Supply-Side Economics?” Monte dei Paschi di Siena, Economic Notes (Siena), Vol. 11 (1982), pp. 5–19.
Tarrant, J. R. “Food Policy Conflicts in Bangladesh,” World Development (Oxford), Vol. 10 (February 1982), pp. 103–13.
Timmer, C. Peter and Harold Alderman, “Estimating Consumption Parameters for Food Policy Analysis,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics (Lexington), Vol. 61 (December 1979), pp. 982–94.
Todaro, M.P., “A Model for Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed Countries,” American Economic Review (Nashville), Vol. 59 (March 1969), pp. 138–48.
Trebat, Thomas J. Brazil’s State-Owned Enterprises: A Case Study of the State as Entrepreneur (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
Turvey, Ralph Economic Analysis and Public Enterprises (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971).
Wangwe, Samuel M., “Industrialization and Resource Allocation in a Developing Country: The Case of Recent Experiences in Tanzania,” World Development (Oxford), Vol. 11 (June 1983), pp. 483–92.
Webb, Richard C, The Distribution of Income in Peru, Discussion Paper No. 26, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs (Princeton: Princeton University, September 1972).
Webb, Richard C, Government Policy and the Distribution of Income in Peru, 1963–73 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977).
Whalley, John, “The North-South Debate and the Terms of Trade: An Applied General Equilibrium Approach,” Working Paper No. 8205C, Center for the Study of International Economic Relations (London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario, January 1982).
World Bank, Agricultural Sector, Memorandum on Morocco’s Agricultural Sector: Identification of Issues and Bank Strategy, Report No. 2667a-MOR (Washington, May 2, 1980).
This view was expressed in Executive Board Decision No. 6056-(79/38), March 2, 1979, International Monetary Fund (1986), p. 26, paragraph 4.
See Jain (1974); Altimir and Sourrouille (1980); Deaton (1980); Fields (1980); Kakwani (1980); Altimir (1982); Grootaert and DeTray (1984).
See Grootaert and DeTray (1984), p. 9.
A study by Anand compared two surveys on the income distribution of Malaysia, taken in 1957 and 1970. These suggested that the Gini coefficient of the income distribution increased from 0.37 to 0.51, suggesting considerably greater equality in the latter period. Anand’s study suggests that even such a large difference gives no indication at all about what actually happened to inequality in Malaysia since the difference in results could be entirely due to differences in income concept and survey coverage.
It is also questionable if income comparisons will lead to meaningful results.
Dollar bills may sometimes replace the domestic currency as the phenomenon of currency substitution becomes prevalent.
For details see Beveridge and Kelly (1980); Donovan (1982); Kelly (1982); Doe (1983).
If the economy only produced one good for which the demand by the rest of the world was perfectly elastic, reduced domestic absorption would simply imply lower imports or higher exports, and there would be no impact on sector incomes, but in the real world a reduction in aggregate demand affects the various domestic markets differently, and hence the domestic income distribution is affected.
The link between growth and distribution has been the subject of extensive research, but the evidence is still not conclusive. At present, it is generally believed that the absolute level of income earned by the poorest 40 percent rises throughout the development process but that their income share first decreases before increasing later in the development process. See Kuznets (1955), p.; Chenery and others (1974); and Bacha and Taylor (1978), p. 271.
For such a study in developed countries, see Tait (1967), p. 651.
In a recent cross-sectional study of 26 developing countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America, the primary determinants considered for income distribution in the sample countries were increases in population, short-term economic growth, and educational equality. See Ram (1984). In general, taxation policies tend to play a rather marginal role in cross-sectional studies of income distribution.
In some countries the sales tax is progressive up to ranges at which the (progressive) income tax is applicable, so that the tax system as a whole may be progressive.
In a survey of tax incidence studies of 32 developing countries none was found that indicated a tax incidence that was more than moderately progressive. See Bird and De Wulf (1973); for a similar pessimistic view see Harberger (1977) and De Wulf (1983). As another study points out: “The problem is that in less-developed countries the direct tax base is too small to make direct taxes the major instrument of redistribution policy” (Adelman and Robinson (1978), p. 84).
See Tanzi (1982).
Expatriates receive a disproportionate share of the jobs with high salaries in developing countries, and they often specify and obtain their salaries net of tax.
The level of income represented by the multiple of 30 times per capita income after exemptions and deductions is equivalent to that represented by the multiple of 40 times per capita income before deductions and exemptions.
See Goode (1984).
See Tanzi (publication forthcoming). In a sample of 82 developing countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America, the reliance on wealth and property taxes in overall tax revenue was 2.55 percent in 1979.
At the very lowest income ranges the consumption of goods on which sumptuary taxes are paid may increase faster than income owing to the common practice of low-income residents drinking untaxed home brews and smoking tobacco grown for personal consumption.
See Cnossen (1977); and Gandhi (1979).
See Davies (1959); Musgrave (1959); Schaefer (1969); and Heller (1981).
See Gandhi (1979). As discussed earlier there may be income levels for which a tax is progressive even though the general impact is regressive. With respect to consumer expenditures, of course, such consumption taxes can, and frequently are, progressive. For evidence on this see Government of India (1969).
Cf., Gandhi (1977).
See Corden (1974), p. 66 and Booth (1980a), who suggest that if governments need a minimum amount of revenue, export taxes could form part of the first-best tax package, especially if such taxes are easy to collect and administer.
See Goode (1984).
This argument has been made for small rice producers in Thailand by Dan (1978), as well as by Lam (1977). A similar argument has been made for coffee producers in Haiti by Tanzi (1976).
De Wulf (1983), p. 365, makes this argument and cites Okonkwo (1978) as having demonstrated the case for cocoa taxation in West Africa.
This argument could be generalized to any of the functional expenditure categories, which are identified in International Monetary Fund (1986b), pp. 147–48, as:
1. General Public Service
2. Defense
3. Education
4. Health
5. Social Security and Welfare
6. Housing and Community Amenities
7. Other Community and Social Services
8. Economic Services
9. Unallocable and Other Purposes
Some studies have indicated that education may not be an important determinant of income in developed countries. See Jencks, and others (1972).
See Aaron and McGuire (1970), who suggest that these outlays can be related to some presumed utility of money function.
Meerman (1979) concludes that public expenditures are very supportive of redistributional efforts in Malaysia but also observes that redistribution from the more affluent Chinese to the majority Malay has been a central tenet of government policy which has been facilitated by the physical separation of the two groups in urban and rural regions. Tanzi (1974) argues that the lower-income classes in Latin America are predominantly rural individuals who cannot take advantage of government programs and that without greater selectivity public expenditure in that region “may only continue or even aggravate the present redistribution process.”
Tait and Heller (1982) have attempted to approach these issues by using a variety of variables and regression analyses to “explain” different types of functional expenditure and thus determine if countries spend more or less for these purposes than comparable countries. This approach might thus be better characterized as descriptive rather than prescriptive, but it provides some tentative guidelines for comparison.
For a full economic classification of government expenditure, see International Monetary Fund (1986b), pp. 175–76.
Heller and Tait (1983), p. 42.
Large rural/urban wage differentials have also been cited as causing migration from rural to urban areas, increasing the demand for public services without necessarily creating a corresponding increase in supply owing to the high unemployment among these migrants. See Herrick (1965); and Todaro (1969).
Moreover, the actual amount spent for these purposes is often overstated by the practice of using these appropriations to supplement wages and salaries. In some countries civil servants travel extensively to qualify for relatively generous per diem allowances, while in others government employees sell government goods and services as a regular matter to increase their effective compensation.
For a discussion of the wealth effects of debt financing, see Section VII.
See Heller (1974); Comite Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Secheresse dans le Sahel (1980).
See Wangwe (1983).
On the Indian subcontinent, for example, government procurement of domestically produced foodgrain, along with a mechanism to restrict interstate trading in foodgrains, started during World War II (Lele (1971)).
For an excellent volume devoted to an exploration of many of these issues, see Schultz (1978), especially the contributions by Schultz, Brown, and Able.
A recent numerical examination of food subsidies indicates that the loss in agricultural income owing to the price-depressing effect of food subsidies for the economy as a whole far exceeds the budgetary costs of the subsidy (Schneider (1985)).
In a study of income distribution and poverty in Mexico, Bergsman (1983) notes: “Poverty in Mexico turns out to look pretty much like poverty in virtually every other middle-income country that has much of it.... It is mostly in rural areas, and mostly among people who are not only economically but also socially and usually culturally different from their more affluent compatriots. It appears in countries that exploited agriculture to finance industrialization, by lowering the price of agriculture’s products relative to the price of manufactures. It appears in ‘depressed areas.’ Brazil, Peru, Turkey, and the Philippines all share these characteristics,” p. 43.
For a more thorough discussion of targeting issues, see Schneider (1984); and Mateus (1984).
For a discussion of these aspects, see Premchand (1983a); and for an empirical survey of the shares of public enterprises in aggregate output and investment, see Short (1984).
See Government of India (1984). It should be noted, however, that it may not always be explicitly stated as an initial objective of enterprises but often becomes an important element of their policy (Tait (1977)).
Distribution has often been considered more as an ethical question and a social act, distinct from the “scientific” or “objective” issues of resource allocation and market efficiency. See O’Connor (1974). Also, distribution was seen as establishing equal opportunity, and economic growth (or increase in the size of the pie rather than its distribution) was viewed as the main answer. In most areas of development economics, there is substantial ambiguity as to which handicaps are to be removed first in economic growth. In the process, some studies have assumed away the problem. For example, Turvey (1971, p. 15), who examined the optimizing possibilities of enterprise operations, assumed that “the distribution of real income is not the concern of a public enterprise so that it should act as though that distribution were always ideal.”
See Premchand (1983a) for a discussion of these experiences. Trebat (1983) provides a detailed account of the experience in Brazil in this regard. Such policies have been pursued in nearly all countries including many industrial economies.
See Glade (1983) and Webb (1977) for a discussion of the experiences of Argentina and Peru. Glade suggests that there was a risk of unwittingly creating a “new class.” In India, the employees of the nationalized banking sector are generally believed to be a privileged class and their wage increases have sparked more demands for similar increases in other enterprises.
Even in regard to those areas where establishment of enterprises was expected to lead to better distribution, Kanapathy (1979) suggests that the new ventures in Malaysia might have “crowded” the traditional business areas owned by Bumiputras, the native Malay section of the population normally favored by government policies. Also, see Mallon (1982b); and Sheahan (1976).
The issue, however, is not simple. It may be assumed that the government knows what it is doing and that it reflects accurately the welfare function of the community at large. If the government decides to borrow and build hospitals rather than, say, a steel mill, this may represent a social choice even if in the long run this leads to a lower measured national output. If society decides that health and welfare are more important than the growth of national output, the lost output is not necessarily part of the burden of the debt. Moreover, private investors often avoid productive investments in favor of stores of value, such as gold, lowering the growth potential of the economy.
Examples of the incidence of particular taxes can be found in: Property Taxes: Bird (1963); Aaron (1975); Linn (1976); McLure (1979). Agricultural Taxation: Gandhi (1966). Sales Tax: Government of India (1969); Gandhi (1977, 1979). Payroll Tax: Brittain (1972). Excise Tax: Government of India (1969); Cnossen (1977); Catsambas (1980). Income Tax: Pechman and Okner (1974); Heller (1981). Wealth Taxes: Harberger (1962); Tait, Faria, Heller (1979),
For examples of specific expenditure incidence studies, see Gillespie (1965); Hansen (1972); Heller (1975); Jallade (1974); McLure (1974); Meerman (1972, 1978, 1979); Selowsky (1979).
This study, reported by Alderman and Von Braun (1984), is based on a survey of nearly 2,400 rural and urban households.
Numbers 1, 3, 4, and 21 of the Occasional Paper series are out of print.
Occasional Papers of the International Monetary Fund*
2. Economic Stabilization and Growth in Portugal, by Hans O. Schmitt. 1981.
5. Trade Policy Developments in Industrial Countries, by S.J. Anjaria, Z. Iqbal, L.L. Perez, and W.S. Tseng. 1981.
6. The Multilateral System of Payments: Keynes, Convertibility, and the International Monetary Fund’s Articles of Agreement, by Joseph Gold. 1981.
7. International Capital Markets: Recent Developments and Short-Term Prospects, 1981, by a Staff Team Headed by Richard C. Williams, with G.G. Johnson. 1981.
8. Taxation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Part I: Tax Policy and Administration in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Carlos A. Aguirre, Peter S. Griffith, and M. Zühtü Yücelik. Part II: A Statistical Evaluation of Taxation in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Vito Tanzi. 1981.
9. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1982.
10. International Comparisons of Government Expenditure, by Alan A. Tait and Peter S. Heller. 1982.
11. Payments Arrangements and the Expansion of Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa, by Shailendra J. Anjaria, Sena Eken, and John F. Laker. 1982.
12. Effects of Slowdown in Industrial Countries on Growth in Non-Oil Developing Countries, by Morris Goldstein and Mohsin S. Khan. 1982.
13. Currency Convertibility in the Economic Community of West African States, by John B. McLenaghan, Saleh M. Nsouli, and Klaus-Walter Riechel. 1982.
14. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1982, by a Staff Team Headed by Richard C. Williams, with G.G. Johnson. 1982.
15. Hungary: An Economic Survey, by a Staff Team Headed by Patrick de Fontenay. 1982.
16. Developments in International Trade Policy, by S.J. Anjaria, Z. Iqbal, N. Kirmani, and L.L. Perez. 1982.
17. Aspects of the International Banking Safety Net, by G.G. Johnson, with Richard K. Abrams. 1983.
18. Oil Exporters’ Economic Development in an Interdependent World, by Jahangir Amuzegar. 1983.
19. The European Monetary System: The Experience, 1979–82, by Horst Ungerer, with Owen Evans and Peter Nyberg. 1983.
20. Alternatives to the Central Bank in the Developing World, by Charles Collyns. 1983.
22. Interest Rate Policies in Developing Countries: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1983.
23. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1983, by Richard Williams, Peter Keller, John Lipsky, and Donald Mathieson. 1983.
24. Government Employment and Pay: Some International Comparisons, by Peter S. Heller and Alan A. Tait. 1983. Revised 1984.
25. Recent Multilateral Debt Restructurings with Official and Bank Creditors, by a Staff Team Headed by E. Brau and R.C. Williams, with P.M. Keller and M. Nowak. 1983.
26. The Fund, Commercial Banks, and Member Countries, by Paul Mentre. 1984.
27. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1984.
28. Exchange Rate Volatility and World Trade: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1984.
29. Issues in the Assessment of the Exchange Rates of Industrial Countries: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1984
30. The Exchange Rate System—Lessons of the Past and Options for the Future: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1984
31. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1984, by Maxwell Watson, Peter Keller, and Donald Mathieson. 1984.
32. World Economic Outlook, September 1984: Revised Projections by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1984.
33. Foreign Private Investment in Developing Countries: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1985.
34. Adjustment Programs in Africa: The Recent Experience, by Justin B. Zulu and Saleh M. Nsouli. 1985.
35. The West African Monetary Union: An Analytical Review, by Rattan J. Bhatia. 1985.
36. Formulation of Exchange Rate Policies in Adjustment Programs, by a Staff Team Headed by G.G. Johnson. 1985.
37. Export Credit Cover Policies and Payments Difficulties, by Eduard H. Brau and Chanpen Puckahtikom. 1985.
38. Trade Policy Issues and Developments, by Shailendra J. Anjaria, Naheed Kirmani, and Arne B. Petersen. 1985.
39. A Case of Successful Adjustment: Korea’s Experience During 1980–84, by Bijan B. Aghevli and Jorge Marquez-Ruarte. 1985.
40. Recent Developments in External Debt Restructuring, by K. Burke Dillon, C. Maxwell Watson, G. Russell Kincaid, and Chanpen Puckahtikom. 1985.
41. Fund-Supported Adjustment Programs and Economic Growth, by Mohsin S. Khan and Malcolm D. Knight. 1985.
42. Global Effects of Fund-Supported Adjustment Programs, by Morris Goldstein. 1986.
43. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, by Maxwell Watson, Donald Mathieson, Russell Kincaid, and Eliot Kalter. 1986.
44. A Review of the Fiscal Impulse Measure, by Peter S. Heller, Richard D. Haas, and Ahsan H. Mansur. 1986.
45. Switzerland’s Role as an International Financial Center, by Benedicte Vibe Christensen. 1986.
46. Fund-Supported Programs, Fiscal Policy, and Income Distribution: A Study by the Fiscal Affairs Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1986.
International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. 20431, U.S.A.
Telephone number 202 623–7430
Cable address: Interfund