2016年-世界发展银行全球_Domestic_Resource_Mobilization_and_the_Poor_15页_1mb

Summary: Domestic Resource Mobilization and the Poor

Core Content

This background paper, authored by Nora Lustig from Tulane University, explores the impact of fiscal policies on poverty and inequality in developing countries, focusing on how domestic resource mobilization affects the poor. It is part of the World Development Report 2017 on Governance and the Law.

The paper emphasizes that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires effective domestic resource mobilization, which is crucial for funding social protection, public services, and infrastructure. However, it also highlights that this process can have negative consequences for the poor if not carefully managed.

Main Points

• Fiscal Policy and Poverty: Fiscal policy can either reduce or increase poverty depending on the design of taxes and transfers. In some countries, the poor are made worse off due to high consumption taxes and insufficient transfers.

• Fiscal Incidence Studies: These studies assess how taxes and transfers affect different income groups. The paper uses data from household surveys in 25 countries to evaluate the impact of fiscal systems on the poor.

• Key Questions Addressed:

  1. To what extent do fiscal systems leave the poor worse off in terms of consumption?
  2. How often do fiscal systems reduce inequality but still leave the poor worse off?
  3. In which countries are the poor and vulnerable net payers of the fiscal system?

Key Findings

• Fiscal Impoverishment: In many countries, the poor are net payers, meaning they lose more from taxes than they gain from transfers. This is especially true for countries like Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania, where over 75% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.

• Impact on Consumption: The headcount ratio of the poor increases in several countries when using different poverty lines, indicating that fiscal policies may be reducing the purchasing power of the poor.

• Progressivity and Inequality: The Reynolds-Smolensky index, which measures the global progressivity of the tax and transfer system, shows that while some countries experience a decline in inequality, the poor are still negatively impacted in many cases.

Country-Specific Insights

• Upper-Middle Income Countries:

  • Brazil: 5.6% of the population and 34.9% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Chile: 0.3% of the population and 19.2% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Ecuador: 3.2% of the population and 3.2% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Mexico: 4.0% of the population and 32.7% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Peru: 3.2% of the population and 23.8% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Russia: 1.1% of the population and 34.4% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • South Africa: 5.9% of the population and 13.3% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Tunisia: 3.0% of the population and 38.5% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.

• Lower-Middle Income Countries:

  • Armenia: 6.2% of the population and 52.3% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Bolivia: 6.6% of the population and 63.2% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Dominican Republic: 1.0% of the population and 16.3% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • El Salvador: 1.0% of the population and 27.0% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Guatemala: 7.0% of the population and 62.2% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Indonesia: 4.1% of the population and 39.2% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Sri Lanka: 1.6% of the population and 36.4% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.
  • Tanzania: 50.9% of the population and 98.6% of the poor are fiscally impoverished.

Methodological Highlights

• Income Concepts:

  • Market Income: Total income before taxes.
  • Disposable Income: Market income minus direct taxes plus direct transfers.
  • Post-Fiscal (Consumable) Income: Disposable income plus indirect subsidies minus indirect taxes.
  • Final Income: Post-fiscal income plus government-provided services in education and health.

• Pensions Treatment: There is no consensus on how to treat contributory pensions. They can be considered either as deferred income or as government transfers. The paper uses the deferred income approach.

• Fiscal Impoverishment: This is measured by comparing market income with post-fiscal income, and it highlights the negative impact of fiscal policies on the poor.

Conclusion

The paper concludes that while fiscal systems can reduce inequality, they often leave the poor worse off due to consumption taxes and insufficient transfers. It calls for a more nuanced approach to domestic resource mobilization that takes into account the needs of the poor and vulnerable. The SDGs should include a target that ensures the fiscal system does not reduce the income of the poor.