Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 72 items for :

  • "FDI liberalization" x
Clear All
Mr. JaeBin Ahn, Ms. Era Dabla-Norris, Mr. Romain A Duval, Bingjie Hu, and Lamin Njie
This paper reassesses the impact of trade liberalization on productivity. We build a new, unique database of effective tariff rates at the country-industry level for a broad range of countries over the past two decades. We then explore both the direct effect of liberalization in the sector considered, as well as its indirect impact in downstream industries via input linkages. Our findings point to a dominant role of the indirect input market channel in fostering productivity gains. A 1 percentage point decline in input tariffs is estimated to increase total factor productivity by about 2 percent in the sector considered. For advanced economies, the implied potential productivity gains from fully eliminating remaining tariffs are estimated at around 1 percent, on average, which do not factor in the presumably larger gains from removing existing non-tariff barriers. Finally, we find strong evidence of complementarities between trade and FDI liberalization in boosting productivity. This calls for a broad liberalization agenda that cuts across different areas.
Mr. JaeBin Ahn, Ms. Era Dabla-Norris, Mr. Romain A Duval, Bingjie Hu, and Lamin Njie

input tariff effect appear to matter more for boosting productivity than the pro-competition impact of lower output tariffs. Quantitatively, the estimates imply that a one percentage reduction in input tariffs raises TFP levels by about two percent. In addition, the effect of both output and input tariff liberalization are greater when barriers to FDI are lower, highlighting the importance of complementarities between trade and FDI liberalization. Our results are robust across different specifications. Using alternative lags of the output and input tariff variables

Mr. Giovanni Dell'Ariccia, Mr. Paolo Mauro, Mr. Andre Faria, Mr. Jonathan David Ostry, Mr. Julian Di Giovanni, Mr. Martin Schindler, Mr. Ayhan Kose, and Mr. Marco Terrones

policy discipline. Moderate increase in macroeconomic volatility and the probability of financial crises. Growth effects of debt flows uncertain. Inward FDI liberalization. Case-by-case evaluation of opportunity for broader liberalization. Strengthening of domestic fundamentals. Countries far from meeting thresholds. Greatest potential for increases in risk sharing. Higher TFP growth. Higher economic growth (FDI). Reduction in distortions associated with controls. Reduction in the cost of capital. Faster financial sector development. Greatest benefits for

International Monetary Fund. Asia and Pacific Dept
This Selected Issues paper discusses various aspects of goods and service tax (GST) on India’s tax policy. Dual rate structure with a low standard rate and an additional higher rate on select items can be progressive and preserve revenue neutrality, while streamlining exemptions would further contribute to progressivity and reduce compliance and administrative costs. Simplifying the GST is possible without imposing a significantly higher burden on the poor. There are likely significant benefits from lower costs of compliance and administration. The literature on value added tax (VAT) compliance costs shows that there is broad variation across countries; however, there is a consensus that compliance costs are regressive and administrative costs increase with complexity. While evidence on India is nascent and remains to be assessed as experience with the GST is gained, anecdotal evidence from large firms indicates sizable increases in costs, which may be even more burdensome for smaller firms. Streamlined rates would also weaken incentives to lobby for lower rates.
International Monetary Fund
provide a powerful lift to growth—both in the short and the long term—if they are well aligned with individual country conditions . These include an economy’s level of development, its position in the economic cycle, and its available macroeconomic policy space to support reforms. The larger a country’s output gap, the more it should prioritize structural reforms that will support growth in the short term and the long term—such as product market deregulation and infrastructure investment. Macroeconomic support can help make reforms more effective, by bringing forward long-term gains or alleviating their short-term costs . Where monetary policy is becoming over-burdened, domestic policy coordination can help make macroeconomic support more effective. Fiscal space, where it exists, should be used to offset short-term costs of reforms. And where fiscal constraints are binding, budget-neutral reform packages with positive demand effects should take priority. Some structural reforms can themselves help generate fiscal space. For example, IMF research finds that by boosting output, product market deregulation can help lower the debt-to-GDP ratio over time. Formulating a medium-term plan that clarifies the long-term objectives of fiscal policy can also help increase near-term fiscal space. With nearly all G-20 economies operating at below-potential output, the IMF is recommending measures that both boost near-term growth and raise long-term potential growth. For example: ? In advanced economies, these measures include shifting public spending toward infrastructure investment (Australia, Canada, Germany, United States (US)); promoting product market reforms (Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy) and labor market reforms (Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea, United Kingdom (UK), US); and fiscal structural reforms (France, UK, US). Where there is fiscal space, lowering employment protection is also recommended (Korea). ? Recommendations for emerging markets (EMs) focus on raising public investment efficiency ( India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa), labor market reforms (Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey), and product market reforms (China, Saudi Arabia, South Africa), which would boost investment and productivity within tighter budgetary constraints particularly if barriers to trade and FDI were eased (Brazil, India, Indonesia). Governance (China, South Africa) and other institutional reforms are also crucial. Where policy space is limited, adjusting the composition of fiscal policy can create space to support reforms ( Argentina, India, Mexico, Russia). ? Some commodity-exporting EMs (Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa) are facing acute challenges, with output significantly below potential and an urgent need to rebuild fiscal buffers. To bolster growth, Fund staff recommends product market and legal reforms to improve the business climate and investment; trade and FDI liberalization to facilitate diversification; and financial deepening to boost credit flows. IMF advice also aims to promote inclusiveness and macroeconomic resilience. The Fund recommends a targeted expansion of social spending toward vulnerable groups (Mexico), social spending for the elderly poor ( Korea), and upgrading social programs for the nonworking poor (US). Recommendations to bolster macrofinancial resilience include expanding the housing supply (UK), resolving the corporate debt overhang (China, Korea), coordinating a national approach to regulating and supervising life insurers (US), and reforming monetary frameworks (Argentina, China).
International Monetary Fund

be rebuilt. Reform strategies advocated by the Fund are targeted at supporting short-term growth and diversification, with more weight put on product market and legal reforms to improve the business climate and private investment; trade and FDI liberalization to help with diversification and ease balance of payments pressures; and financial deepening to facilitate credit flows. 20. In addition to boosting growth, IMF recommendations also aim to promote inclusiveness and macroeconomic resilience. To promote inclusiveness , Fund staff recommends a carefully