Upload
phungquynh
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
POLÍTICA FISCAL E EQUIDADE CLAUDINEY PEREIRA
W.P. CAREY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY NON-RESIDENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, COMMITMENT TO EQUITY
INSTITUTE AT TULANE UNIVERSITY
Fórum Internacional Tributário São Paulo
6 de junho, 2018
Roteiro 1. Introdução 2. Commitment to Equity Institute (CEQ) –
Compromisso com a Equidade 3. Metodologia 4. Fundamentos da Redistribuição Fiscal 5. Resultados para a América Latina 6. Considerações Finais
2
1. Introdução ■ Alta desigualdade de renda e riqueza ■ Tributação e desigualdade: impostos diretos e
indiretos ■ Tributação e equidade ■ Efeitos da política fiscal na desigualdade e
nível de pobreza
2. COMMITMENT TO EQUITY (CEQ) INSTITUTE – COMPROMISSO COM A EQUIDADE HTTP://WWW.COMMITMENTOEQUITY.ORG/
2. Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Institute
Missão: Contribuir para a redução da desigualdade e pobreza através de estudos rigorosos de incidência fiscal e engagemento com os formuladores de política
Objetivo: Medir o impacto da política fiscal na desigualdade e pobreza usando uma metodologia que nos permite fazer comparações entre países
Ø Nora Lustig, Diretora
2. Commitment to Equity (CEQ) Institute
■ Cobertura: 65 países – cerca de dois terços da população mundial
– Resultados disponiveis para 42 países ■ Mais de 100 pesquisadores ■ Parcerias: ADB, AfDB, CAF, IDB, IMF, ICEFI, OECD, Oxfam, Paris
School of Economics, UNDP, UNICEF, World Bank ■ Recursos da Fundação Bill & Melinda Gates: US$4.9 million for
5 years (2016 – 2020); National Science Foundation, US$240 mil para o Centro de Dados sobre Desigualdade e Pobreza
6
7
http://www.commitmentoequity.org/
Azul: concluído Laranja: em andamento
3.METODOLOGIA
3. Principais Perguntas
■ Quanto da redução em desigualdade e pobreza pode ser atribuída a política fiscal de um país ? ■ Qual a contribuição de impostos e despesas específicas
para a equidade? ■ Quanto eficiente são os tributos e despesas pra reduzir a
desigualdade e a pobreza? ■ Qual o impacto de reformas que alteram a aliquota ou
progressividade de um imposto or beneficio especifico ?
9
+valormonetizadodeserviçospúblicosdeeducaçãoesaúde
RendadeMercado
RendaDisponível
+transferênciasdiretas–impostosdiretos
+subsidiosindiretos–impostosindiretos
RendaConsumível
RendaFinal
3. Definições importantes
10
4. Política Fiscal e Desigualdade § O s istema f iscal d iminui ou aumenta a
desigualdade? § Quais impostos ou transferências são equitativos
(ou não) ? § Qual a contribuição específica de um imposto ou
transferência (ou uma combinação) para a mudança na desigualdade?
§ Qual o impacto na desigualdade se aumentamos impostos (ou transferências)?
11
O que aprendemos 1. Analisar apenas o lado do imposto (ou da transferência) não é suficiente (ou pouco útil) Ø Impostos podem não ter efeito equalizador, mas as
transferência podem mais que compensar o efeito dos impostos [resultado conhecido]
Ø Impostos podem ser regressivos, mas quando combinado com transferências podem tornar o Sistema mais equitativo [surpreso?]
Ø IVA no Chile
Ø Transferências podem ser equalizadoras, mas quando combinadas com impostos, pode haver um aumento no nivel pobreza [surpreso?]
12 Source: Lustig (2018)
2. Analisar o impacto do sistema fiscal apenas na desigualdade pode ser falacioso – o nível de pobreza pode está aumentando [surpreso?]
3. As medidas tradicionais de pobreza podem não está captando o efeito do sitema fiscal corretamente
Ø Pode haver uma redução do nivel de pobreza e mesmo assim uma parte da população pode ter empobrecido como resultado do sistema fiscal [surpreso?]
13 Source: Lustig (2018)
O que aprendemos
5.RESULTADOS PARA A AMÉRICA LATINA
17 países (2009-2014*): Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela
15
Receitas do Governo (% PIB, 2009-2014*)
16 Source:Lustig(2018)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Guatem
ala (2011)
Dom
inican Republic (2013)
Honduras (2011)
Colombia (2010)
Paraguay (2014)
El Salvador (2011)
Chile (2013)
Costa Rica (2010)
Mexico (2010)
Nicaragua (2009)
Peru (2009)
Ecuador (2011)
Venezuela (2013)
Uruguay (2009)
Bolivia (2009)
Argentina (2012)
Brazil (2009)
Average
(ranked by total government revenue/GDP; GNI right hand scale)
Corporate taxes Personal and payroll taxes Other direct taxes Indirect taxes Other taxes Social security contributions Other revenues GNI per capita (2011 PPP)
17
Gasto Social (% PIB, 2009-2014*)
Source:Lustig(2018)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Guatemala(2011)
DominicanRepublic(2013)
Paraguay(2014)
Peru(2009)
Nicaragua(2009)
Honduras(2011)
ElSalvador(2011)
Ecuador(2011)
Mexico(2010)
Colombia(2010)
Chile(2013)
Venezuela(2013)
Bolivia(2009)
CostaRica(2010)
Uruguay(2009)
Brazil(2009)
Argentina(2012)
Average
OECD(2011)
(rankedbysocialspendingpluscontributorypensions/GDP;GNIrighthandscale)
Directtransfers Education Health Othersocialspending Contributorypensions GNIpercapita(2011PPP)
18
Política Fiscal e Desigualdade Aposentadorias não são consideradas transferências
Source:Lustig(2018)
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
Marketincomepluspensions Disposableincome Consumableincome Finalincome
Argentina(2012) Bolivia(2009) Brazil(2009) Chile(2013)Colombia(2010) CostaRica(2010) DominicanRepublic(2013) Ecuador(2011)ElSalvador(2011) Guatemala(2011) Honduras(2011) Mexico(2010)Nicaragua(2009) Paraguay(2014) Peru(2009) Uruguay(2009)Venezuela(2013)
19
Política Fiscal e Desigualdade Aposentadorias são consideradas transferências
Source:Lustig(2018)
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
Marketincome Disposableincome Consumableincome Finalincome
Argentina(2012) Bolivia(2009) Brazil(2009) Chile(2013)Colombia(2010) CostaRica(2010) DominicanRepublic(2013) Ecuador(2011)ElSalvador(2011) Guatemala(2011) Honduras(2011) Mexico(2010)Nicaragua(2009) Peru(2009) Uruguay(2009) Venezuela(2013)
Efeito Redistributivo (%)
20 Source:Lustig(2018)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
-45%
-40%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
Guatem
ala (2011)
Honduras (2011)
Peru (2009)
Paraguay (2014)
Nicaragua (2009)
El Salvador (2011)
Dom
inican Republic (2013)
Bolivia (2009)
Colombia (2010)
Venezuela (2013)
Chile (2013)
Ecuador (2011)
Mexico (2010)
Uruguay (2009)
Costa Rica (2010)
Brazil (2009)
Argentina (2012)
Average
Red
istri
butiv
e ef
fect
-mar
ket i
ncom
e to
fina
l
(ranked by redistributive effect (left hand scale); Gini coefficients right hand scale)
Contributory pensions as deferred income Contributory pensions as direct transfer Gini market income plus pensions Gini market income
21
Contribuição dos Impostos e Transferências na Renda Final Aposentadorias não são consideradas transferências
Source:Lustig(2018)
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Brazil (2009)
Chile (2013)
Ecuador (2011)
Paraguay (2014)
Direct taxes Direct transfers Indirect subsidies Indirect taxes Education Health Redistributive effect
22
Contribuição dos Impostos e Transferências na Renda Final Aposentadorias são consideradas transferências
Source:Lustig(2018)
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Brazil (2009)
Chile (2013)
Ecuador (2011)
Direct taxes Direct transfers Indirect subsidies Indirect taxes Education Health Redistributive effect
■ Politica fiscal equalizadora, mas o nivel de pobreza pode está aumentando
Ø 1.25 dólares/dia: Guatemala e Nicarágua Ø 2.50 dólares/dia: Bolívia, Guatemala, Honduras e
Nicarágua Ø 4 dólares/dia: os países acima, Argentina, Brasil, Costa
Rica, República Dominicana, El Salvador, Peru e Venezuela
Note: Linhas de pobreza em 2005 PPP
23 Source:Lustig(2018)
RendadeMercado
RendaDisponível
+transferênciasdiretas–impostosdiretos
+subsídiosindiretos–impostosindiretos
RendaConsumível
Definições
24
25 Source:Lustig(2018)
Política Fiscal e Redução da Pobreza $4 dolares 2005 PPP/dia; %; e pensões não são consideradas transferências
1.0%
-0.4% -0.4% -1.7% -2.1% -2.7% -2.7% -2.9%-5.6%
-6.2%
-8.5%-10.8%
-13.0% -13.9%
-41.0% -41.2% -42.0%
-11.4%
4.8%2.0%
4.1% 4.9%
-2.3%
3.8%0.4% 1.9%
4.4%
-3.5%
8.1%
-10.2%
-15.7%
2.8% 1.6%
-24.2% -21.8%
-2.3%
-50.0%
-40.0%
-30.0%
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Nicaragua(2009)
Venezuela(2013)
Guatemala(2011)
Honduras(2011)
Colombia(2010)
ElSalvador(2011)
Peru(2009)
DominicanRepublic(2013)
Bolivia(2009)
Mexico(2010)
Brazil(2009)
Paraguay(2014)
Ecuador(2011)
CostaRica(2010)
Argentina(2012)
Chile(2013)
Uruguay(2009)
Average
(rankedbypovertyreductionin%;povertyline$4dollars2005PPP/day)
Marketincomepluspensionstodisposableincome Marketincomepluspensionstoconsumableincome
Beneficiários e pagadores líquidos (decil) Aposentadorias não são consideradas transferências
26 Source:Lustig(2018)
Argentina (2012)
Costa Rica (2010)
El Salvador (2011)
Guatemala (2011)
Nicaragua (2009)
Peru (2009)
Brazil (2009)
Bolivia (2009)
Chile (2013)
Dominican Republic (2013)
Honduras (2011)
Uruguay (2009)
Paraguay (2014)
Venezuela (2013)
Mexico (2010)
Colombia (2010)
Ecuador (2011)
Net receivers Net payers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
27 Source:Lustig(2018)
Nicaragua (2009)
Guatemala (2011)
Bolivia (2009)
Honduras (2011)
Dominican Republic
El Salvador (2011)
Peru (2009)
Argentina (2012)
Chile (2013)
Colombia (2010)
Costa Rica (2010)
Mexico (2010)
Uruguay (2009)
Venezuela (2013)
Brazil (2009)
Ecuador (2011)
Paraguay (2014)
Net receivers Net payers
y<1.25 1.25<=y<2.5 2.5<=y<4 4<=y<10 10<=y<50 y>=50
Beneficiários e pagadores líquidos (grupos de renda; doláres 2005 PPP/dia) Aposentadorias não são consideradas transferências
28 Source: Higgins and Lustig (2016). Can a poverty reducing and progressive tax and transfer system hurt the poor? Journal of Development Economics 122, 63-75, 2016
Empobrecimento Fiscal
Empobrecimento Fiscal
29 Source: Higgins and Lustig (2016)
Country (survey year)
Market
income plus pensions Poverty
headcount (%)
Change in
poverty headcount
(p.p.)
Market
income plus pensions inequality
( Gini)
Reynolds-
Smolensky
Change in inequality (▲Gini)
Fiscally
impoverished as % of
population
Fiscally
Impoverished as %
of consumable income poor
Panel A: Upper-middle income countries, using a poverty line of $2.5 dollars 2005 PPP per day
Brazil (2009) 16.8 -0.8 57.5 4.6 -3.5 5.6 34.9
Chile (2013) 2.8 -1.4 49.4 3.2 -3.0 0.3 19.2
Ecuador (2011) 10.8 -3.8 47.8 3.5 -3.3 0.2 3.2
Mexico (2012) 13.3 -1.2 54.4 3.8 -2.5 4.0 32.7
Peru (2011) 13.8 -0.2 45.9 0.9 -0.8 3.2 23.8
6.CONCLUSÕES
6. Considerações Finais 1) Política fiscal é equalizadora, mas pode aumentar o nível de pobreza Ø Qualquer reforma deve levar em consideração esse efeito
2) Gastos em educação e saúde são quase sempre equalizadores Ø Mas, esse resultado ocorre porque a classe media e os ricos não estão
utilizando esses serviços? 3) Reforma tributária: impostos indiretos
4) Futuro das políticas sociais: renda universal básica, imposto de renda negativo
31
OBRIGADO !
1. Argentina (2012-13; I): Rossignolo, Dario. 2018. “Taxes, Expenditures, Poverty, and Income Distribution in Argentina.” In Commitment to Equity Handbook. Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty, edited by Nora Lustig (Brookings Institution Press and CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
Rossignolo, Dario. 2017. “CEQ Master Workbook: Argentina. Version: May 19, 2017." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
2. Bolivia (2009; I): Paz Arauco, Veronica, George Gray-Molina, Wilson Jimenez and Ernesto Yañez. 2014a. “Explaining Low Redistributive Impact in Bolivia." In The Redistributive Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in Latin America, edited by Nora Lustig, Carola Pessino and John Scott, Special Issue, Public Finance Review 42, no 3, pp. 326-345. DOI: 10.1177/1091142113496133
Paz Arauco, Veronica, George Gray-Molina, Wilson Jimenez and Ernesto Yañez. 2014b. “CEQ Master Workbook: Bolivia. Version: September 22, 2014." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
3 . B r a z i l ( 2 0 0 8 - 0 9 ; I ) : H i g g i n s , S e a n a n d C l a u d i n e y P e r e i r a . 2 0 1 4 . “The Effects of Brazil’s Taxation and Social Spending on the Distribution of Household Income." In The Redistributive Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in Latin America, edited by Nora Lustig, Carola Pessino and John Scott, Special Issue, Public Finance Review 42, 3, pp. 346–67. DOI: 10.1177/1091142113501714
Higgins, Sean and Claudiney Pereira. 2017. “CEQ Master Workbook: Brazil. Version: April 19, 2017." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
4 . C h i l e ( 2 01 3 , I ) : M a r t i n e z - A g u i l a r, S a n d r a , A l a n Fu c h s , E d u a r d o O r t i z - J u a r e z a n d G i s e l l e d e l C a r m e n . 2 01 8 . “The Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty in Chile.” In Commitment to Equity Handbook. Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty, edited by Nora Lustig (Brookings Institution Press and CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
Martinez-Aguilar, Sandra and Eduardo Ortiz-Juarez. 2016. “CEQ Master Workbook: Chile. Version: October 7, 2016." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University and the World Bank)
5. Colombia (2010, I): Melendez, Marcela and Valentina Martinez. 2015. “CEQ Master Workbook: Colombia. Version: December 17, 2015." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University and Inter-American Development Bank)
6. Costa Rica (2010; I): Sauma, Pablo and Juan Diego Trejos. 2014a. “Gasto publico social, impuestos, redistribucion del ingreso y pobreza en Costa Rica.” CEQ Working Paper 18 (Center for Inter-American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-American Dialogue), January
Sauma, Pablo and Juan D. Trejos. 2014b. “CEQ Master Workbook: Costa Rica. Version: February 2014." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
33
Teams and References by Country (the year for which the analysis was conducted in parentheses); C=consumption & I=income)
7. Dominican Republic (2006-07, I): Aristy-Escuder, Jaime, Maynor Cabrera, Blanca Moreno-Dodson and Miguel E. Sanchez-Martin. 2018. “Fiscal Policy and Redistribution in the Dominican Republic.” In Commitment to Equity Handbook. Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty, edited by Nora Lustig (Brookings Institution Press and CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
Aristy-Escuder, Jaime, Maynor Cabrera, Blanca Moreno-Dodson and Miguel Sanchez-Martin. 2016. “CEQ Master Workbook: Dominican Republic. Version: August 4, 2016." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University and the World Bank)
8. Ecuador (2011-12, I): Llerena Pinto, Freddy Paul, Maria Cristhina Llerena Pinto, Roberto Carlos Saa Daza and Maria Andrea Llerena Pinto. 2015. “Social Spending, Taxes and Income Redistribution in Ecuador.” CEQ Working Paper 28 (Center for Inter-American Policy and Research and Department of Economics, Tulane University and Inter-American Dialogue), February
Llerena Pinto, Freddy Paul, Maria Cristhina Llerena Pinto, Roberto Carlos Saa Daza and Maria Andrea Llerena Pinto. 2017. “CEQ Master Workbook: Ecuador. Version: January 5, 2017." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
9 . E l S a l v a d o r ( 2 0 1 1 ; I ) : B e n e k e , M a r g a r i t a , N o r a L u s t i g a n d J o s e A n d r e s O l i v a . 2 0 1 8 . “The Impact of Taxes and Social Spending on Inequality and Poverty in El Salvador.” In Commitment to Equity Handbook. Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty, edited by Nora Lustig (Brookings Institution Press and CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
Beneke, Margarita, Nora Lustig and Jose Andres Oliva. 2014. “CEQ Master Workbook: El Salvador. Version: June 26, 2014." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University and Inter-American Development Bank)
10. European Union (2011, I): EUROMOD statistics on Distribution and Decomposition of Disposable Income, accessed at http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/euromod/statistics/ using EUROMOD version no. G2.0
11. Guatemala (2011; I): Icefi. 2017a. “Incidencia de la politica fiscal en la desigualdad y la pobreza en Guatemala." CEQ Working Paper 50 (CEQ Institute, Tulane University, IFAD and Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Fiscales), May
Cabrera, Maynor and Hilcias E. Moran. 2015a. “CEQ Master Workbook: Guatemala. Version: May 6, 2015." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University, Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Fiscales (ICEFI) and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD))
34
Teams and References by Country (the year for which the analysis was conducted in parentheses); C=consumption & I=income)
12. Honduras (2011; I): Icefi. 2017b. “Incidencia de la politica fiscal en la desigualdad y la pobreza en Honduras." CEQ Working Paper 51 (CEQ Institute, Tulane University, IFAD and Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Fiscales), April
Castaneda, Ricardo and Ilya Espino. 2015. “CEQ Master Workbook: Honduras. Version: August 18, 2015." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University, Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Fiscales and International Fund for Agricultural Development)
13. Mexico (2010; C & I): Scott, John. 2014. “Redistributive Impact and Efficiency of Mexico’s Fiscal System." In The Redistributive Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in Latin America, edited by Nora Lustig, Carola Pessino, John Scott, Special Issue, Public Finance Review 42, no. 3, pp. 368-390. DOI: 10.1177/1091142113497394
Scott, John. 2013. “CEQ Master Workbook: Mexico. Version: September 2, 2013." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
14. Nicaragua (2009; I): Icefi. 2017c. “Incidencia de la politica fiscal en la desigualdad y la pobreza en Nicaragua." CEQ Working Paper 52 (CEQ Institute, Tulane University, IFAD and Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Fiscales), May
15. Paraguay (2014; I): Gimenez, Lea, Maria Ana Lugo, Sandra Martinez-Aguilar, Humberto Colman, Juan Jose Galeano and Gabriela Farfan. 2017. “CEQ Master Workbook: Paraguay. Version: February 12, 2017." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
16. Peru (2009; I): Jaramillo, Miguel. 2014. “The Incidence of Social Spending and Taxes in Peru.” in The Redistributive Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in Latin America, edited by Nora Lustig, Carola Pessino and John Scott, Special Issue, Public Finance Review 42, no. 3, pp. 391-412. DOI: 10.1177/1091142113496134
Jaramillo, Miguel. 2015. CEQ Master Workbook: Peru, August 7. CEQ Institute, Tulane University
17. Un i ted States (2011, I ) : H igg ins , Sean, Nora Lust ig , Whi tney Rub le and T imothy Smeeding . 2016. “Comparing the Incidence of Taxes and Social Spending in Brazil and the United States.” Review of Income and Wealth 62, no. 1 (August), pp. 22-46. DOI: 10.1111/roiw.12201
35
Teams and References by Country (the year for which the analysis was conducted in parentheses); C=consumption & I=income)
18. Uruguay (2009; I) : Bucheli , Marisa, Nora Lustig, Maximo Rossi and Florencia Amabile. 2014. “Social Spending, Taxes and Income Redistribution in Uruguay.” in The Redistributive Impact of Taxes and Social Spending in Latin America, edited by Nora Lustig, Carola Pessino and John Scott, Special Issue, Public Finance Review 42, no. 3, pp. 413-433. DOI: 10.1177/1091142113493493
Bucheli, Marisa, Nora Lustig, Maximo Rossi and Florencia Amabile. 2014. “CEQ Master Workbook: Uruguay. Version: August 18, 2014." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
19. Venezuela (2012; I): Molina, Emiro. 2016. “CEQ Master Workbook: Venezuela. Version: November 15, 2016." CEQ Data Center on Fiscal Redistribution (CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
36
Teams and References by Country (the year for which the analysis was conducted in parentheses); C=consumption & I=income)
References: ■ Enami, Ali. 2018. “Measuring the Effectiveness of Taxes and Transfers in Fighting Inequality and Poverty." In Commitment to
Equity Handbook. Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty, edited by Nora Lustig (Brookings Institution Press and CEQ Institute, Tulane University).
■ E n a m i , A l i , N o r a L u s t i g a n d R o d r i g o A r a n d a . 2 0 1 8 . “Analytical Foundations: Measuring the Redistributive Impact of Taxes and Transfers.” In Commitment to Equity Handbook. Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty, edited by Nora Lustig (Brookings Institution Press and CEQ Institute, Tulane University).
■ Higgins, Sean and Nora Lustig. 2018. “Can a Poverty-Reducing and Progressive Tax and Transfer System Hurt the Poor?” Journal of Development Economics
■ Engel, Eduardo M., Alexander Galetovic and Claudio E. Raddatz. 1999. “Taxes and income distribution in Chile: some unpleasant redistributive arithmetic." Journal of Development Economics, 59 (1), pp. 155-192
■ H i g g i n s , S e a n a n d N o r a L u s t i g . 2 0 1 8 . “Allocating Taxes and Transfers, Constructing Income Concepts, and Completing Sections A, B, and C of CEQ Master Workbook.” In Commitment to Equity Handbook. Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty, edited by Nora Lustig (Brookings Institution Press and CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
■ Lambert, Peter. 2001. The Distribution and Redistribution of Income, 3rd ed (Manchester University Press)
■ Lindert, Peter H. 2004. 2004. Growing Public. Social Spending and Economic Growth since the Eighteenth Century. Volumes I and II. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press
■ Lustig, Nora. 2015. “The Redistributive Impact of Government Spending on Education and Health: Evidence from 13 Developing Countries in the Commitment to Equity Project.” Chapter 16 in Gupta, Sanjeev, Michael Keen, Benedict Clements and Ruud de Mooij, editors, Inequality and Fiscal Policy, Washington: International Monetary Fund, 2015
■ _________. 2016. “Inequality and Fiscal Redistribution in Middle Income Countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and South Africa.” Journal of Globalization and Development 7, no. 1, pp. 17-60. DOI: 10.1515/jgd-2016-0015
37
References: • ___________. 2017
. “El impacto del sistema tributario y el gasto social en la distribucion del ingreso y la pobreza en America Latina.” El Trimestre Economico, no. 335, pp.493-568
• ________. 2018. “Fiscal Policy, Income Redistribution and Poverty Reduction in Low and Middle Income Countries,” In Commitment to Equity Handbook. Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty, edited by Nora Lustig (Brookings Institution Press and CEQ Institute, Tulane University)
• O'Higgins, Michael and Patricia Ruggles. 1981. “The Distribution of Public Expenditures and Taxes among Households in the United Kingdom." Review of Income and Wealth 27, no. 3, pp. 298-326
• Ruggles, Patricia and Michael O'Higgins. 1981. “The Distribution of Public Expenditure among Households in the United States." Review of Income and Wealth 27, no. 2, pp. 137-164
38