Vol.256 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Vol.256 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M"

서열 조
6 years ago
Views:

2 Vol.256 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

4 3

8 7 1)

9 2) 3)

10 4) 9

12 5)

13 6) ö

14 359,017 15,585, % 1,232,353 17,946, % 225,260 1,983, % 203,200 1,870, % 5, , % 78,337 2,139, % 135,605 1,609, % éç 13

15 7)

16 8) 15

17 9)

18 10) 17

19 11)

20 12) 19

21 13)

22 14) 21

24 23

26 15) 25

28 1, , , , , , , , , , , , ,494 10, ,562 12, ,144 69, ,706 89, ,846 50, ,710 74, , , , , ,553 27

30 16) 17) 29

31 ö

32 éç 31

33 *

34 33

35 New Zealand Colombia United States United Kingdom Norway Chile Canada Korea Israel Iceland Portugal Finland Belgium Ireland Australia Brazil Netherlands Sweden South Africa France Mexico OECD Average Slovenia Austria Estonia Switzerland Poland Japan Germany Spain Czech Republic Latvia Italy Hungary Turkey Luxembourg Slovak Republic Russian Federation Indonesia 1)

36 United States United Kingdom Portugal Finland Belgium Netherlands OECD Average Slovenia Austria Poland Japan Germany Czech Republic Italy Luxembourg Slovak Republic Hungary Estonia Spain Greece France Sweden Ireland Korea Israel Iceland Australia Denmark Norway

37 Total General expenditure public service Defence Public Economic order affairs and safety Environ ment protection Housing and Health Recreation, Education community culture and amenities religion Social protection 2)

39 100 Distribution of initial sources of public funds for education by level of government in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education (2013) New Zealand Ireland Estonia Chile Netherlands Luxembourg Israel Slovenia Hungary Turkey Colombia Portugal Slovak Republic Italy Mexico Lithuania Austria France Korea Latvia EU22 Average OECD Average United Kingdom Finland Australia Iceland Belgium Brazil Japan Spain Czech Republic United States Argentina Germany Norway Poland Switzerland Canada

40 39

41 New Zealand Ireland Estonia Chile Netherlands Luxembourg Israel Slovenia Hungary Turkey Colombia Portugal Slovak Republic Italy Mexico Lithuania Austria France Korea Latvia EU22 Average OECD Average United Kingdom Finland Australia Iceland Belgium Brazil Japan Spain Czech Republic United States Argentina Germany Norway Poland Switzerland Canada

42 3) 517, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,608 13,931 14,448 14,287 13, ,722 1,521 2,573 1,093 6, ,203 90,609 91, , , ,350 81,502 82,507 94, , ,022 54,458 53,857 55,815 61, ,746 5,367 5,251 5,514 5, ,618 18,198 18,699 21,124 22, ,964 3,479 4,700 4,143 4, ,905 7, ,854 9,107 9,160 7,582 8, ,051 4,371 4,514 2,930 3,

43 3,802 4,736 4,646 4,652 4, , ,

44 517, , , , , ,865 15,074 15,637 14,882 14, ,313 10,701 10,618 10,115 9, ,037 1,334 1,856 2,303 2, ,673 1,967 1, ,094 1,251 1, ,674 48,669 53,776 77,614 97, ,583 38,022 61, ,674 48,330 44,194 39,592 36, ,544 24,328 20,406 13,876 13, ,128 23,943 23,760 25,705 23,

45 4) 5) 468, , , , , , , , , , , , ,375 21,360 21,711 19,844 19,444 20, ,236 11,696 19,228 25,148 30,834 30, ,883 52,411 50,155 49,055 45,418 61, , ,941 1,151 4, , , , , , ,

46 Figure B6.2. Compensation of staff as a share of current expenditure on educational institutions, by level of education (2013) Argentina Mexico South Africa Belgium Luxembourg Switzerland Japan Germany Spain Netherlands Lithuania Israel Italy Norway United States Russian Federation Canada France Portugal Turkey Denmark Ireland Slovenia OECD Average Australia United Kingdom Brazil EU22 Average Austria Korea Latvia Iceland Poland Hungary Indonesia Slovak Republic Estonia Sweden Finland Czech Republic 6) 45

47 7) )

48 Figure Upper secondary attainment is now the norm across almost all OECD countries (2011) Percentage of the population that has attained at least upper secondary education Korea Czech Republic Slovak Republic Poland Slovenia Canada Sweden Finland Israel Switzerland United States Austria Chile Hungary Germany Estonia Ireland Australia United Kingdom Norway Luxembourg France OECD Average Belgium Netherlands New Zealand Denmark Greece Iceland Italy Spain Portugal Mexico Turkey 47

49 Chart A1.2. Percentage of younger and older tertiary-educated adults (2014) 25~34 and 55~64 year-olds, and percentage-point difference between these two groups South Africa Israel Germany Costa Rica Brazil United States Estonia Indonesia Finland Russian Federation Mexico New Zealand Saudi Arabia Colombia Iceland Italy Canada Chile Denmark China United Kingdom Australia Czech Republic Turkey Switzerland Hungary OECD Average Slovak Republic Sweden Latvia Austria Norway Netherlands Greece Belgium Portugal Slovenia Spain Luxembourg France Lithuania Ireland Poland Korea 9) 10)

50 Percentage-of resilient students Macao(China) Hong Kong(China) Japan 8 Estonia Chinese Taipei Finland 10 Korea Spain 11 Canada Portugal United Kingdom Latvia Poland Slovenia Germany 9 Australia United States 12 Netherlands New Zealand Ireland OECD Average 2 Switzerland Denmark 8 Belgium France Italy Norway 9 Austria Russia Czech Republic Sweden Croatia Lithuania Turkey Luxembourg Hungary 7 Thailand 5 Greece Slovak Republic Iceland Israel Chile Uruguay Bulgaria 4 Mexico Colombia Romania 5 Indonesia Brazil Montenegro Jordan Qatar Tunisia 11) 49

51 517 3~8 4~ ~4 6~ ~8 9~

52 12) 13) 51

53 14) 15) 16)

54 17)

55 18) 19) Figure 7. Percentage of decisions taken in public lower secondary schools at each level of government, (2011) 100 % of decisions taken Korea OECD Average Japan % of decisions taken

56 20) 55

57 21) 22) 23)

58 PISA MEAN local expenditure/total expenditure PISA MEAN local rev/total rev 57

60 Mean score in science Singapore Japan Sweden Estonia Hong Kong Chinese Taipei Finland Canada (China) Denmark B-S-J-G(China) Macao(China) Switzerland B C Slovenia Korea Viet Nam Belgium A Netherlands Portugal Russia Latvia Spain France R 2 =0.10 Luxembourg Italy United States CABA(Argentina) Iceland Croatia Hungary Lithuania Malta Israel Slovak Republic Bulgaria Chile Greece Uruguay Romania United Arab Emirates Moldova Albania Trinidad and Tobago Thailand Costa Rica Qatar Mexico Turkey Montenegro Colombia Georgia Peru Jordan Indonesia Brazil FYROM Lebanon Algeria Tunisia Kosovo A Austria Czech Republic Norway B Ireland Poland United Kingdom C Australia Germany New Zealand Dominican Republic Size of language-of-instruction class 24) 59

61 R 2 =

62 25) 26) 27) 61

64 63

66 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~36 65

67 482 33~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

68 67

70 Session 1. Trends of Data-Driven Management Reforms 69

72 71

74 Session 1. Impact of Data-Driven Management Reforms 73

76 75

77 > > >

78 77

80 79

81 Session 3. Challenges of Data-Driven Management Reforms

82 81

84 1) 83

85 2) 3)

86 85

88 Session 4. Data-Driven Public Financial Management Reforms 87

90 89

92 91

94 > < > < > < 93

95 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY

96 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY

97 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY

98 97

100 99

101

102 101

103

104 1) 103

105 2)

106 105

107

108 107

109

110 109

111

112 111

113

114 113

115

116 115

117

118 117

119

120 119

121

122 121

123

124 123

125

126 125

127

128 127

129

130 1) 129

131

132 2) 3) 4) 131

133 5) 6) 7)

134 8) 133

135 9) 10)

136 11) 12) 13) 14) 135

137 15) 16)

138 17) 18) 19) 20) 137

139 21) 22) 23)

140 24) 25) 139

141

142 * 1) 3) 2) 141

143 4) 5) Gross domestic product Percentage change on the previous quarter, seasonally adjusted data United Kingdom Italy France Germany Euro area Major Seven United States European Union OECD-Total Japan

144

145 6) 7) 8) 9) , , , ,039 1,093 1,150 9,

146 10) 11) 235, ,214 2, , [407] 934 [444] 10,791 [84] ,710 5, ,500 3, , ,175 [935] ,

147 974, , % 147, % 3,956,840 1,464, % 1,464, % 1,021, , % 276, % 3,983,823 1,246, % 1,246, % 12) 13)

148 14) 147

149

150 149

151

152 151

153 A vast theoretical literature in public finance has studied the question of the desirability of capital taxation. Distinct from questions of the optimality of taxing wealth is whether it is politically feasible. We provide to our knowledge the first investigation of individuals preferences over jointly taxing income and wealth via a survey on Amazons Mechanical Turk. Key Senate Republicans announced an agreement last week that will reportedly allow the Senate to move forward with tax-cut legislation that could lose $1.5 trillion in revenue over the next decade.1 If recent proposals from President Trump and Republican congressional leaders are any guide the tax cut will be skewed toward high-income households who have reaped most of the income gains of recent decades. In this paper we evaluate the incidence of a large cut in value-added taxes (VAT) for French sitdown restaurants. In contrast to previous studies that focus on prices only we estimate its effect on four groups: workers firm owners consumers and suppliers of material goods. Using a difference-in-differences strategy on firm-level data we find that: (1) the effect on consumers was limited (2) employees and sellers of material goods shared 25 and 16 percent of the total benefit and (3) the reform mostly benefited owners of sit-down restaurants who pocketed 41 percent of the tax cut

154 We derive a sufficient statistics optimal income tax formula in a general model that incorporates unemployment and endogenous wages to study the shape of the tax and transfer system at the bottom of the income distribution. The sufficient statistics are the macro employment response to taxation and the micro and macro participation responses. We estimate these statistics using policy variation from the U.S. tax and transfer system. This report is the second edition of Tax Policy Reforms: OECD and Selected Partner Economies which is an annual publication that provides comparative information on tax reforms across countries and tracks tax policy developments over time. 153

155

156 155

157

158 157

159

160 159

161

162 161

163

164 163

165

166 165

167

168 167

169

Vol.266 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

Vol.266 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2018.08Vol.266 C O N T E N T S 02 06 30 48 54 66 80 120 M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M 2 2018.8 3 4 2018.8 1) 6 2018.8 2) 7 8 2018.8 3) 9 4) 5) 6) 10 2018.8 7) 8) 9) 10) 11 12 2018.8