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

Similar documents
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


기획7.hwp

[<1107><1169><11AB><1106><116E><11AB>] 2015<1102><1167><11AB> 7<110B><116F><11AF><1112><1169>-<110E><116C><110C><1169><11BC>.pdf

Main Title

untitled

CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAK REPUBLIC ANGOLA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN BAHRAIN BOTSWANA BULGARIA CROATIA CYPRUS DENMARK ESTONIA FINLAND GEORGIA GREECE HUNGARY ICELA

CZECH REPUBLIC SLOVAK REPUBLIC ANGOLA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN BAHRAIN BOTSWANA BULGARIA CROATIA CYPRUS DENMARK ESTONIA FINLAND GEORGIA GREECE HUNGARY ICELA

±×¸°¸®Æ÷Æ® ³»Áö5Â÷

DV690-N_KOR_ indd

Microsoft Word - R 선관위 최종 보고서(완성본).docx

<BFA9BCBAC0C720C1F7BEF7B4C9B7C220B0B3B9DFB0FA20C3EBBEF7C1F6BFF820C1A4C3A5B0FAC1A62E687770>

IDP www idp or kr IDP 정책연구 한국경제의구조적문제와개혁방향 민주정책연구원 The Institute for Democracy and Policies

2월1일자.hwp

C.PÀÛ¾÷

±§ 60¡ÿ ‚±‚ ‰«•¡ˆ

212년 하반기 금리전망 및 채권투자전략 그림 1 주요국 국채1년 금리 추이 (%) Spain Italy Korea Malaysia China Australia US UK Germany Japan 자료:

한국어교재_중급1-앞-인쇄용.indd

Vol.259 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


화학적방법에의한폐석면의무해화처리연구 환경자원연구부자원순환연구과,,,,,,,,,,,, 2010


untitled

untitled

(..).pdf

Vol.257 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

레이아웃 1

교토대학은 1897 년 6 월에 설립된 전통있는 대학입니다.메인 캠퍼스는,역사적 도시로서 전 통적인 일본문화가 잘 보존되어 있는 교토에 자리잡고 있습니다. 설립이래 본교는 고등교육에 있어서의 자유로운 전통적 학풍만들기에 기여해 왔습니다.본교의 졸업생은 국내외에서 학문,



Microsoft Word - Week Ahead_Economy.docx

HyundaiElevator AR _kor.pdf

이머징마켓 동향 글로벌 이머징마켓 시장 동향 인도 시장: 센섹스지수는 장중 강세를 이어갔으나 마감 직전에 급락세로 전환해 6거래일 연속 약세를 보였 다. 주간단위로는 2주째 하락했고 하락폭도 크게 확대됐다. 정부가 재정적자 통제 목표를 달성하지 못


<465441C8B0BFEBC1F6BFF8BCBEC5CDC8ABBAB8C6D4C7C3B8B E696E6464>

경영학석사학위논문 투자발전경로이론의가설검증 - 한국사례의패널데이타분석 년 8 월 서울대학교대학원 경영학과국제경영학전공 김주형


컴투스 미국서머너즈워매출순위 (Google) ( 순위 ) 한국낚시의신매출순위 (Google) ( 순위 )

13.11 ①초점

수입목재의합법성판단세부기준 [ ] [ , , ] ( ) 제 1 조 ( 목적 ) 제 2 조 ( 용어정의 ). 1.. 제3조 ( 대상상품의분류체계 ) ( ) 18 2 (Harmoniz

, Analyst, , Table of contents 2

0표지.indd

A&G_Brochure_korea_kor.indd

!DVD브로셔

Policy synchronization for high-tech medical devices in Korea 특 집 고자 하는 과제는 그 나라의 의료체계를 유지, 발전시키는데 있어서 가장 중요한 과제 중의 하나라고 할 수 있다[2]. 또한 의료자원, 특히 이 글에서

1 (%) Composite leading index OECD EM big

hwp

?

2016 년 12 월동향

< B1B9B0A1BEC8BAB8C0DAB7E1C1FDC6EDC1FD283134C0CF20C3D6C1BE292E687770>


슬라이드 1

Vol.258 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

Microsoft PowerPoint - Freebairn, John_ppt


大学4年生の正社員内定要因に関する実証分析


제 2 장 골프장의 경영

hwp

¨èÂ÷·Ê

< FB4EBB1B8BDC320BAB8B0C7BAB9C1F6C5EBB0E8BFACBAB820B9DFB0A320BFACB1B85FBEF6B1E2BAB92E687770>

< F28C3D6C1BEBCF6C1A4BABB29C1A C8A35F F496E E31312E C0CCBFECBCBA5FBFDC292E687770>

금융위기 이후, 글로벌 환경 변화와 한국 경제 세계경제의 장기정체 위험 국내 장기 저성장 위험 지속 고부채 下 잠재위기 지속 국내 경제 및 금융시장의 상대적 안정성 시험 교역흐름의 위축과 재편 국내 수출 위축과 경쟁위협 심화 자금흐름의 변동성 심화 국내 자본유출입 변동

Microsoft Word - NEW08_prof. Ma

......(N)

+Z _CL_USB.indd

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.1-19 DOI: *,..,,,.,.,,,,.,,,,, ( )

06_À̼º»ó_0929

Print

사회동향-내지간지수정

JAS KOREA_KOR_1Q2016_Ver 1.

인구정책의 현황과 과제 (4) 수 있다. 과거 서구에서 전염병, 기근, 전쟁 등으로 인하여 대량으로 사망자가 발생하였던 시기 직후 에 사망을 조절하는 정책도 인구조정정책의 중요 한 영역을 차지하였으나 최근 보건의료발달 등에 따라 평균수명이 지속적으로 증가하고 있는 상황

사회동향1-2장

<B1B9C1A6B0B3B9DFC7F9B7C25FC3B9B0C9C0BD5FB3BBC1F62E706466>

untitled

GS건설채용브로셔-2011

WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성 ( 황수경 ) ꌙ 127 노동정책연구 제 4 권제 2 호 pp.127~148 c 한국노동연구원 WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성황수경 *, (disabi

1차1~6장12.9

Microsoft Word - Auto Industry _120316_ - Europe retail February 2012 Sales.doc

레이아웃 1

13.12 ①초점

Microsoft Word K_01_07.docx

Á¶´öÈñ_0304_final.hwp

0121사회동향1장

<C0CEBCE2BFEB5FBFACB1B85F D32322D3528BAAFBCF6C1A4295F FBCF6C1A42E687770>

연구보고 젠더에 대한 한국인간개발보고서 연구책임자: 문 유 경 (한국여성개발원 연구위원) 공동연구자: 박 수 미 (한국여성개발원 연구위원) 강 민 정 (한국여성개발원 연구원) 여 성 부

(주) 윈포넷은 가치있는 회사, 신뢰와 존중, 세계제품최고기술 을 가슴에 담아 실천함으로써 네트워크 세상을 지키는 젊은이 가 될 것입니다. Win4NET will be frontiers aiming perfect network world pursuing valuable

歯주5일본문.PDF

<BFACB1B85F D333528C0CCC3B6BCB1295FC3D6C1BEC8AEC1A45FC0CEBCE2BFEB E687770>

목차 I. 나이지리아개관 01 II. 나이지리아경제동향 02 III. 한-나이지리아무역동향 05 IV. 비자및출입국 11 V. 기후 12 VI. 출장유의사항 13 VII. 교통및통신 17 VIII. 호텔및식당 18

0121사회동향1장

시장개발처

2011´ëÇпø2µµ 24p_0628

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

03이경미(237~248)ok

<C7D1B1B9BEEEC6C75FBDC9C6F7C1F6BEF6B0B3BFE42E687770>

<313120B9DABFB5B1B82E687770>

사회동향1-최종

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: : * Research Subject

Contents 심층분석 In-depth Analysis 주요국국가발전전략체계와 IT R&D 정책분석 1 정책동향 Policy Trend 대만 IT 산업의 R&D 동향및정책현황 31 일본대지진이후 IT 정책변화와과제 38 EU의 2011년 IT 정책지원프로그램현황및사례

Transcription:

2017.10Vol.256 C O N T E N T S 02 06 32 68 97 129 149 155 165 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 2017.10

3

4 2017.10

6 2017.10

7 1)

2) 3) 8 2017.10

4) 9

40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 2.61 2.70 2.37 2.42 2.37 2.31 2.30 2.16 2.18 2.21 2.20 2.22 2.25 2.20 2.09 2.09 2.00 1.93 2.22 2.19 2.11 2.07 2.06 2.00 1.94 28.8 31.1 33.4 33.8 34.3 35.9 36.5 37.0 30.0 29.6 23.0 13.3 13.7 14.7 17.5 20.0 21.3 18.3 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 0.00 8.6 6.5 7.7 8.4 6.9 6.6 3.7 4.2 4.3 1.6 5.4 4.0 9.9 6.6 6.8 2.2 4.9 4.9 7.5 6.2 6.4 2.3 4.6 4.2 6.2 5.8 5.9 10 2017.10

5) 12.5 12.5 12.4 14.4 14.3 15.9 14.7 14.4 13.3 13.4 13.6 13.4 13.3 14.1 14.1 13.6 13.3 12.5 13.0 13.2 13.5 13.9 14.0 13.6 14.0 14.8 15.5 15.1 14.5 14.4 14.8 14.8 14.5 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 11

6) ö 12 2017.10

359,017 15,585,916 2.30% 1,232,353 17,946,996 6.87% 225,260 1,983,288 11.36% 203,200 1,870,693.0 10.86% 5,815 255,815.2 2.27% 78,337 2,139,964.0 3.66% 135,605 1,609,992.0 8.42% éç 13

7) 14 2017.10

8) 15

9) 16 2017.10

10) 17

11) 18 2017.10

12) 19

13) 20 2017.10

14) 21

22 2017.10

23

24 2017.10

15) 25

26 2017.10

1,445 0.4 135 59.2 11 1,297 0.4 9 3.9 144 2,333 0.7 9 3.9 259 2,043 0.6 6 2.6 341 2,676 0.8 6 2.6 446 9,794 2.8 165 72.4 59 3,863 1.1 7 3.1 552 1,990 0.6 3 1.3 663 1,492 0.4 2 0.9 746 811 0.2 1 0.4 811 2,864 0.8 3 1.3 955 11,020 3.1 16 7.0 689 26,893 7.6 18 7.9 1,494 10,246 2.9 4 1.8 2,562 12,433 3.5 3 1.3 4,144 69,355 19.6 9 3.9 7,706 89,921 25.4 7 3.1 12,846 50,129 14.2 3 1.3 16,710 74,260 21.0 3 1.3 24,753 333,237 94.1 47 20.6 7,090 354,051 100.0 228 100.0 1,553 27

28 2017.10

16) 17) 29

ö 30 2017.10

éç 31

* 32 2017.10

33

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 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) 34 2017.10

35 0 14 10 12 2 8 6 4 16 18 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

50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 32.7 46.14 17.00 10.0 5.0 0.0 Total General expenditure public service 5.6 6.58 2.4 1.53 1.2 1.70 Defence 6.4 4.61 Public Economic order affairs and safety 0.8 0.75 1.0 0.64 Environ ment protection 6.74 3.7 0.7 1.14 5.2 5.43 5.6 Housing and Health Recreation, Education community culture and amenities religion Social protection 2) 36 2017.10

80 81 80 69 66 64 67 67 73 69 68 69 80 67 73 64 62 66 65 62 74 69 69 66 65 69 68 66 74 66 64 69 63 61 72 71 68 76 77 76 80 67 66 77 73 73 78 77 76 79 76 73 67 88 68 66 74 69 69 72 75 74 78 68 69 71 71 69 73 71 72 79 65 66 70 72 68 74 65 64 73 67 64 71 68 70 71 71 68 76 84 77 74 74 70 70 69 73 37

100 Distribution of initial sources of public funds for education by level of government in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education (2013) 80 60 40 20 0 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 38 2017.10

39

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 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 2017.10

3) 517,030 549,341 572,576 605,164 623,605 100 100 100 100 100 449,491 485,597 503,163 512,669 511,712 86.9 88.4 87.9 84.7 82.1 363,112 394,009 410,696 409,780 400,888 70.2 71.7 71.7 67.7 64.3 361,390 392,488 408,123 408,687 394,056 69.9 71.4 71.3 67.5 63.2 348,782 378,558 393,675 394,400 380,185 67.5 68.9 68.8 65.2 61 12,608 13,931 14,448 14,287 13,870 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 1,722 1,521 2,573 1,093 6,833 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.1 85,203 90,609 91,667 102,082 109,895 16.5 16.5 16 16.9 17.6 78,350 81,502 82,507 94,500 101,830 15.2 14.8 14.4 15.6 16.3 52,022 54,458 53,857 55,815 61,902 10.1 9.9 9.4 9.2 9.9 5,746 5,367 5,251 5,514 5,185 1.1 1 0.9 0.9 0.8 16,618 18,198 18,699 21,124 22,936 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.7 3,964 3,479 4,700 4,143 4,250 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0 0 0 7,905 7,557 0 0 0 1.3 1.2 6,854 9,107 9,160 7,582 8,065 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.3 3,051 4,371 4,514 2,930 3,962 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 41

3,802 4,736 4,646 4,652 4,102 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 1,176 979 800 807 929 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1,176 908 724 728 801 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 71 76 79 127 0 0 0 0 0 42 2017.10

517,030 549,341 572,576 605,164 623,605 100 100 100 100 100 14,865 15,074 15,637 14,882 14,046 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 11,313 10,701 10,618 10,115 9,670 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6 229 259 241 225 226 0 0 0 0 0 1,037 1,334 1,856 2,303 2,272 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 1,673 1,967 1,828 988 801 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 613 813 1,094 1,251 1,078 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 52,674 48,669 53,776 77,614 97,848 10.2 8.9 9.4 12.8 15.7 0 339 9,583 38,022 61,268 0 0.1 1.7 6.3 9.8 52,674 48,330 44,194 39,592 36,579 10.2 8.8 7.7 6.5 5.9 23,544 24,328 20,406 13,876 13,219 4.6 4.4 3.6 2.3 2.1 2 59 28 11 61 0 0 0 0 0 29,128 23,943 23,760 25,705 23,300 5.6 4.4 4.1 4.2 3.7 43

4) 5) 468,141 504,339 532,958 567,894 565,979 600,419 100 100 100 100 100 100.0 280,909 299,150 316,725 331,238 352,174 363,511 60 59.3 59.4 58.3 62.2 60.5 19,375 21,360 21,711 19,844 19,444 20,516 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.5 3.4 3.4 6,236 11,696 19,228 25,148 30,834 30,541 1.3 2.3 3.6 4.4 5.4 5.1 50,883 52,411 50,155 49,055 45,418 61,092 10.9 10.4 9.4 8.6 8 10.2 8,427 160 305 19,941 1,151 4,071 1.8 0 0.1 3.5 0.2 0.7 101,540 119,484 124,714 122,573 116,792 119,877 21.7 23.7 23.4 21.6 20.6 20.0 770 78 119 95 166 811 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1 44 2017.10

100 80 60 40 20 0 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

7) 1.3 92 66.1 36.6 70.1 20.3 26.9 5.4 4.1 97.7 95.8 73.3 84.5 48.8 27.2 11.4 31.6 100.5 99.8 91.6 95.7 79.4 33.2 23.6 26.2 97.2 100 95 99.6 89.4 62 52.5 30.9 98.8 100 94.6 99.7 91 73.4 65.1 40.2 99.2 100 97 99.7 91.5 75.4 70.1 49.4 98.5 100 96.3 99.7 93.5 70.8 68.1 8) 46 2017.10

Figure 1.18. 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 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 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

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 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 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 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 Luxembourg France Lithuania Ireland Poland Korea 9) 10) 48 2017.10

Percentage-of resilient students 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 6 Macao(China) Hong Kong(China) Japan 8 Estonia Chinese Taipei 5 6 4 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 7 5 12 Jordan Qatar Tunisia 11) 49

517 3~8 4~9 524 1~4 6~9 516 5~8 9~14 493 490 493 50 2017.10

12) 13) 51

14) 15) 16) 52 2017.10

17) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 83.1 82.5 15.2 16.2 1.5 1.1 0.2 0.2 53

18) 19) Figure 7. Percentage of decisions taken in public lower secondary schools at each level of government, (2011) 100 % of decisions taken 80 60 40 20 0 0 Korea OECD Average Japan % of decisions taken 100 80 60 40 20 54 2017.10

20) 55

21) 22) 23) 56 2017.10

550 500 PISA MEAN 450 400 350 300 0.2.4.6.8 local expenditure/total expenditure 550 500 PISA MEAN 450 400 350 300 0.1.2.3.4.5 local rev/total rev 57

58 2017.10

Mean score in science 600 550 500 450 400 350 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 300 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Size of language-of-instruction class 24) 59

27.00 26.00 25.00 24.00 R 2 =0.1045 23.00 22.00 21.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 60 2017.10

25) 26) 27) 61

62 2017.10

63

64 2017.10

535 1 564 1 556 1 527 2~5 548 2~3 538 2~3 527 2~4 544 2~4 534 2~5 526 2~5 542 2~4 532 2~7 521 4~8 532 5~6 531 3~7 519 5~8 531 4~7 529 5~8 517 4~9 524 6~9 528 5~9 516 5~10 521 7~10 525 4~10 513 7~11 520 7~10 523 7~10 509 9~14 516 8~12 518 8~16 509 8~15 512 10~14 516 9~14 509 10~13 511 10~15 513 10~15 506 10~17 511 10~15 513 11~15 505 12~17 510 11~15 510 12~17 503 12~21 507 12~18 509 12~19 503 13~19 506 12~19 509 12~19 500 13~26 504 14~19 509 13~19 500 14~25 504 15~19 506 14~23 499 15~26 502 16~20 503 17~24 499 16~26 497 18~27 502 18~25 498 16~27 495 20~28 502 18~25 498 16~27 495 18~32 501 18~25 497 17~27 494 20~30 501 18~25 497 16~28 494 20~30 498 20~27 496 19~28 494 21~29 496 21~31 495 19~30 493 21~30 495 23~30 494 15~33 492 21~31 495 24~30 492 22~32 492 21~31 493 24~32 488 28~34 492 21~31 493 25~31 487 27~35 490 23~33 493 25~31 487 27~35 488 27~33 490 28~32 487 27~37 486 29~34 487 30~34 485 29~37 486 31~34 483 32~34 485 29~37 482 32~36 481 32~36 65

482 33~38 479 34~38 477 34~39 481 33~38 478 34~38 475 34~39 479 32~39 477 35~39 475 35~39 475 30~41 475 35~39 475 32~41 472 38~41 470 37~41 473 36~39 470 38~41 470 38~41 467 39~42 467 38~42 464 40~42 465 40~42 459 41~43 456 40~44 461 41~43 453 42~43 454 42~43 455 42~44 447 44~45 444 43~45 447 44~45 443 44~46 441 44~46 446 43~46 437 46~49 437 45~46 437 46~49 434 46~52 427 47~48 435 46~49 434 46~50 423 47~51 435 46~50 432 46~55 420 47~54 433 47~50 428 47~55 420 48~54 428 49~53 427 49~55 418 49~55 427 49~54 427 49~54 418 49~54 425 49~55 427 49~54 417 50~55 425 51~54 425 50~55 415 49~55 421 51~57 423 51~55 413 51~56 420 53~57 416 55~57 408 55~57 418 55~58 409 56~60 404 56~59 416 55~60 408 57~61 402 57~59 416 55~59 407 57~61 400 57~60 411 59~61 405 57~63 396 58~61 411 58~61 402 60~63 390 60~63 409 59~62 401 59~64 387 61~64 403 61~63 398 61~64 386 61~64 401 62~64 397 61~64 380 63~65 397 63~64 361 65~66 377 64~65 386 65~67 358 65~67 371 66~67 386 65~67 352 67~69 367 66~68 384 65~67 350 67~70 362 67~69 378 68~69 347 68~70 360 68~69 376 68~69 347 67~70 328 70 332 70 66 2017.10

67

68 2017.10

Session 1. Trends of Data-Driven Management Reforms 69

70 2017.10

71

72 2017.10

Session 1. Impact of Data-Driven Management Reforms 73

74 2017.10

75

> > > 76 2017.10

77

78 2017.10

79

Session 3. Challenges of Data-Driven Management Reforms 80 2017.10

81

82 2017.10

1) 83

2) 3) 84 2017.10

85

86 2017.10

Session 4. Data-Driven Public Financial Management Reforms 87

88 2017.10

89

90 2017.10

91

92 2017.10

> < > < > < 93

40.0 35.0 32.2 34.3 35.9 37.8 38.3 80.0 65.0 57.1 67.1 69.0 69.1 73.0 75.0 60.0 48.1 61.1 63.9 63.3 69.0 30.0 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 50.0 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 45.0 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 94 2017.10

0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 2.0 2.4 1.4 2.0 2.9 2.9 2.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 4.0 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 95

22.0 21.4 20.0 19.6 18.2 19.0 18.7 19.5 17.5 17.1 17.4 17.5 18.4 16.1 16.0 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 15.0 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 96 2017.10

97

98 2017.10

99

100 2017.10

101

102 2017.10

1) 103

2) 104 2017.10

105

106 2017.10

107

108 2017.10

109

110 2017.10

111

112 2017.10

113

114 2017.10

115

116 2017.10

117

118 2017.10

119

120 2017.10

121

122 2017.10

123

124 2017.10

125

126 2017.10

127

1) 129

130 2017.10

2) 3) 4) 131

5) 6) 7) 132 2017.10

8) 133

9) 10) 134 2017.10

11) 12) 13) 14) 135

15) 16) 136 2017.10

17) 18) 19) 20) 137

21) 22) 23) 138 2017.10

24) 25) 139

140 2017.10

* 1) 3) 2) 141

4) 5) Gross domestic product 1.1 0.9 Percentage change on the previous quarter, seasonally adjusted data 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 United Kingdom Italy France Germany Euro area Major Seven United States European Union OECD-Total Japan 142 2017.10

3.1 3.5 0.0 3.7 0.1 1.5 2.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.8 2.1 0.3 1.9 0.1 1.9 2.2 0.2 2.1 0.1 1.1 1.7 0.4 1.6 0.1 1.0 1.4 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.0 1.6 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.5 3.2 0.4 2.3 0.0 1.8 1.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.7 6.8 0.2 6.6 0.2 7.1 6.7 0.6 7.2 0.5 3.6 0.6 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.2 2.0 0.6 2.1 0.5 3.2 3.7 0.1 3.8 0.0 143

6) 7) 8) 9) 287 306 323 338 354 374 395 417 439 463 487 3,897 296 315 326 344 365 386 408 431 455 480 508 4,017 45 62 68 71 74 77 78 82 85 86 90 773 80 81 84 89 94 98 103 108 112 119 124 1,011 3 28 38 42 40 43 46 49 52 56 59 453 705 735 763 800 847 892 938 989 1,039 1,093 1,150 9,245 144 2017.10

10) 11) 235,285 238,214 2,929 778 682 10,767 984 [407] 934 [444] 10,791 [84] 582 595 13 5,710 5,157 553 3,500 3,500 257,304 260,175 [935] 206 252 24 2,871 145

974,547 147,833 15.1% 147,833 15.1% 3,956,840 1,464,785 37.0% 1,464,785 37.0% 1,021,936 276,368 27.0% 276,368 27.0% 3,983,823 1,246,630 31.2% 1,246,630 31.2% 12) 13) 146 2017.10

14) 147

148 2017.10

149

150 2017.10

151

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. 152 2017.10

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 2017.10

157

158 2017.10

159

160 2017.10

161

162 2017.10

163

164 2017.10

165

166 2017.10

167