We use tax data from the Longitudinal Business Database to estimate the firm-level average interest rate on liabilities. The mean of this measure has similar time series properties to official statistics on the business borrowing rate, while also enabling detailed disaggregation across different firm types. We document significant variation in interest rate across firms in different industries, and across firms with different apparent borrowing risk. Finally, we compare firms self-reported views on whether they are finance-constrained to an estimated firm-specific interest rate premium, showing that: finance-constrained firms have higher interest rate premia than unconstrained firms; and that at least part of this difference in premia is explained by firm level differences in risk between constrained and unconstrained firms.
{"title":"Of Interest? Estimating the Average Interest Rate on Debt across Firms and Over Time","authors":"Motu Submitter, R. Fabling","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3866269","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3866269","url":null,"abstract":"We use tax data from the Longitudinal Business Database to estimate the firm-level average<br>interest rate on liabilities. The mean of this measure has similar time series properties to official<br>statistics on the business borrowing rate, while also enabling detailed disaggregation across<br>different firm types. We document significant variation in interest rate across firms in different<br>industries, and across firms with different apparent borrowing risk. Finally, we compare firms<br>self-reported views on whether they are finance-constrained to an estimated firm-specific<br>interest rate premium, showing that: finance-constrained firms have higher interest rate premia<br>than unconstrained firms; and that at least part of this difference in premia is explained by firm level<br>differences in risk between constrained and unconstrained firms.","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130976536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Bayerlein, V. Boese, S. Gates, Katrin Kamin, S. Murshed
Populist parties and actors now govern various countries around the world. Often elected by the public in times of economic crises and over the perceived failure of the elites, the question stands as to how populist governments actually perform once elected. Using the pandemic shock in the form of the COVID-19 crises, our paper answers the question of how populist governments handle the pandemic. We answer this question by introducing a theoretical framework according to which (1) populist governments enact less far-reaching policy measures to counter the pandemic,(2) lower the effort of citizens to counter the pandemic, and are ultimately (3) hit worse by the pandemic. We test the propositions in a sample of 42 countries with weekly data from 2020. Employing econometric models, we find empirical support for our propositions and ultimately conclude that excess mortality exceeds the excess mortality of conventional countries by 10 percentage points (i.e., 100%). Our findings have important implications for the assessment of populist government performance in general as well as counter-pandemic measures in particular by providing evidence that opportunistic and inadequate policy responses as well as spreading misinformation and downplaying the pandemic are strongly related to increases in COVID-19 mortality.
{"title":"Populism and COVID-19: How Populist Governments (Mis)Handle the Pandemic","authors":"M. Bayerlein, V. Boese, S. Gates, Katrin Kamin, S. Murshed","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3849284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3849284","url":null,"abstract":"Populist parties and actors now govern various countries around the world. Often elected by the public in times of economic crises and over the perceived failure of the elites, the question stands as to how populist governments actually perform once elected. Using the pandemic shock in the form of the COVID-19 crises, our paper answers the question of how populist governments handle the pandemic. We answer this question by introducing a theoretical framework according to which (1) populist governments enact less far-reaching policy measures to counter the pandemic,(2) lower the effort of citizens to counter the pandemic, and are ultimately (3) hit worse by the pandemic. We test the propositions in a sample of 42 countries with weekly data from 2020. Employing econometric models, we find empirical support for our propositions and ultimately conclude that excess mortality exceeds the excess mortality of conventional countries by 10 percentage points (i.e., 100%). Our findings have important implications for the assessment of populist government performance in general as well as counter-pandemic measures in particular by providing evidence that opportunistic and inadequate policy responses as well as spreading misinformation and downplaying the pandemic are strongly related to increases in COVID-19 mortality.","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121744681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study contributes to the literature on public debt sustainability and investigates whether European countries manage primary surplus also through interest rate swaps. Since the 1990s European countries have extensively employed Over The Counter (OTC) contracts such as swaps to smooth the financial costs of debt, shift part of debt forward, and exploit the lack of accounting transparency of these contracts. One of the primary goals of the EU fiscal framework is to ensure public debt sustainability. Several proposals have been considered to improve the current framework, yet none of them has addressed the issue of debt sustainability when countries use swaps. This is the first empirical investigation that confirms the use of swaps by European countries in the 2006-2018 period to improve the primary balance. According to panel data results, EU countries increased the primary surplus in the 2006-2018 period following a rising debt and took corrective action by actively managing their debt with swaps; this evidence is in line with the hypothesis of the strategic use of swaps by public administrations widely described in the theoretical literature on debt management. Policy implications and proposals to improve the current European fiscal framework are provided.
{"title":"Sustainability of Public Debt in Europe: The Use of Swaps","authors":"C. Oldani, Bianca Giannini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3877458","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3877458","url":null,"abstract":"This study contributes to the literature on public debt sustainability and investigates whether European<br>countries manage primary surplus also through interest rate swaps. Since the 1990s European countries<br>have extensively employed Over The Counter (OTC) contracts such as swaps to smooth the financial<br>costs of debt, shift part of debt forward, and exploit the lack of accounting transparency of these<br>contracts. One of the primary goals of the EU fiscal framework is to ensure public debt sustainability.<br>Several proposals have been considered to improve the current framework, yet none of them has<br>addressed the issue of debt sustainability when countries use swaps. This is the first empirical<br>investigation that confirms the use of swaps by European countries in the 2006-2018 period to improve<br>the primary balance. According to panel data results, EU countries increased the primary surplus in the<br>2006-2018 period following a rising debt and took corrective action by actively managing their debt with<br>swaps; this evidence is in line with the hypothesis of the strategic use of swaps by public administrations<br>widely described in the theoretical literature on debt management. Policy implications and proposals to<br>improve the current European fiscal framework are provided.","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131026786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Using balanced annual observations of insured US commercial banks, this paper investigates the nonlinear impacts of the lagged capital ratio on the interest rate spread by employing the panel threshold regression model with one and two threshold variables which divide our sample into two and four regimes, respectively. The threshold variables we use are the change in capital ratio, the main components of change in the capital ratio, namely change in the capital or change in risk-weighted asset and ROE changes. In single threshold models, regimes that correspond to the higher change in capital ratio, higher contribution of capital to the change in capital ratio, and higher contribution of the risk-weighted asset to the change in the capital ratio show a stronger impact of the lagged capital ratio on the interest rate spread. In the case of using lagged ROE changes as threshold variable, surprisingly banks that are less exposed to the fall in ROE (as a result of increasing the capital ratio) tend more to raise the interest rate spread to offset the fall. In the panel threshold regression model with two threshold variables and four regimes, we find similar results.
{"title":"The Capital Ratio and the Interest Rate Spread: The Panel Threshold Regression Approach","authors":"M. Botshekan, A. Golbabaei","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3827297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3827297","url":null,"abstract":"Using balanced annual observations of insured US commercial banks, this paper investigates the nonlinear impacts of the lagged capital ratio on the interest rate spread by employing the panel threshold regression model with one and two threshold variables which divide our sample into two and four regimes, respectively. The threshold variables we use are the change in capital ratio, the main components of change in the capital ratio, namely change in the capital or change in risk-weighted asset and ROE changes. In single threshold models, regimes that correspond to the higher change in capital ratio, higher contribution of capital to the change in capital ratio, and higher contribution of the risk-weighted asset to the change in the capital ratio show a stronger impact of the lagged capital ratio on the interest rate spread. In the case of using lagged ROE changes as threshold variable, surprisingly banks that are less exposed to the fall in ROE (as a result of increasing the capital ratio) tend more to raise the interest rate spread to offset the fall. In the panel threshold regression model with two threshold variables and four regimes, we find similar results.","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121125866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper considers revenue generation in Nigeria from the government's perspective of increased and improved taxation as well as investment promotion. The paper considers amongst others, the different benefits and challenges to taxation in Nigeria as well as investment promotion and concludes that government should adopt a mix of both models.
{"title":"Revenue Generation in Nigeria through Taxation Versus Investment Attraction Through Tax Incentives: In Search of a Balance","authors":"Akinbobola Olukayode Olugbemi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3885954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3885954","url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers revenue generation in Nigeria from the government's perspective of increased and improved taxation as well as investment promotion. The paper considers amongst others, the different benefits and challenges to taxation in Nigeria as well as investment promotion and concludes that government should adopt a mix of both models.","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129902085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Draft summary of a study conducted to measure whether NBA athletes perform better when in no-tax states compared to high-tax states due to a more positive attitude which has been shown to positively affect athletic performance.
{"title":"Do Varying State Tax Rates Affect Athletic Performance?","authors":"Michael Conklin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3810974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3810974","url":null,"abstract":"Draft summary of a study conducted to measure whether NBA athletes perform better when in no-tax states compared to high-tax states due to a more positive attitude which has been shown to positively affect athletic performance.","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126709783","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2020, the budget policy of the Russian Federation regarding regions had a strongly pronounced counter-cyclical nature aimed at immediate support of the worst-off subjects. This measure allowed to offset declining tax and non-tax revenues and ensure implementation of regional anti-crisis measures intended to strengthen the public health system, support of the economy and the social sphere. Proper tax and non-tax regions’ revenues contracted by merely 1.8%, which is a good result against the 2009 and 2014–2015 crises and was mainly due to a rebound in tax receipts in H2 2020. An all-time high public regional debt amounting to Rb2.5 trillion at the end of 2020 does not pose a serious threat for their budget stability owing to a relatively low debt burden.
{"title":"Regions' Budgets in 2020: Support by the Federation and Anti-Crisis Policy","authors":"A. Deryugin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3805076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3805076","url":null,"abstract":"In 2020, the budget policy of the Russian Federation regarding regions had a strongly pronounced counter-cyclical nature aimed at immediate support of the worst-off subjects. This measure allowed to offset declining tax and non-tax revenues and ensure implementation of regional anti-crisis measures intended to strengthen the public health system, support of the economy and the social sphere. Proper tax and non-tax regions’ revenues contracted by merely 1.8%, which is a good result against the 2009 and 2014–2015 crises and was mainly due to a rebound in tax receipts in H2 2020. An all-time high public regional debt amounting to Rb2.5 trillion at the end of 2020 does not pose a serious threat for their budget stability owing to a relatively low debt burden.","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128803606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The five-year average tax burden in the UK is now at a 70-year high. The impact and opportunities of Brexit, coupled with the need to revitalise the economy in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, mean 2021 would be a good time for the government to embark on a tax-cutting programme. This paper analyses twenty taxes that could be scrapped or significantly changed. If carried out, these reforms would simplify the tax system, reduce the overall burden of taxation, and eliminate harmful distortions that stifle the UK’s productivity and prosperity. The TV Licence, Inheritance Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax, stamp duties on buying shares, Apprenticeship Levy, Vehicle Excise Duty, Capital Gains Tax, the bank surcharge, and duties on alcohol, tobacco, and gambling, could be scrapped. Other property taxes, such as Council Tax, Community Infrastructure Levy, business rates, and affordable housing and other s106 obligations, could be replaced with a single land value tax. Under this proposed system, disincentives for property improvements and housebuilding would be removed. The Climate Change Levy and renewables obligations add economic distortion and complexity to the tax system and could be revamped into either through the Emissions Trading Scheme or a comprehensive carbon tax. Corporation Tax and the Diverted Profit Tax could be replaced with a single tax on capital income administered at the corporate level, similar to how PAYE works on wages. Doing so would promote neutrality between capital income and labour, eliminate the debt-capital bias, and spur productivity growth.
{"title":"20 Taxes to Scrap: How to Grow the UK Economy by Simplyfying the Tax System","authors":"Institute of Economic Affairs Submitter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3850620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3850620","url":null,"abstract":"The five-year average tax burden in the UK is now at a 70-year high. The impact and opportunities of Brexit, coupled with the need to revitalise the economy in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, mean 2021 would be a good time for the government to embark on a tax-cutting programme. This paper analyses twenty taxes that could be scrapped or significantly changed. If carried out, these reforms would simplify the tax system, reduce the overall burden of taxation, and eliminate harmful distortions that stifle the UK’s productivity and prosperity. The TV Licence, Inheritance Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax, stamp duties on buying shares, Apprenticeship Levy, Vehicle Excise Duty, Capital Gains Tax, the bank surcharge, and duties on alcohol, tobacco, and gambling, could be scrapped. Other property taxes, such as Council Tax, Community Infrastructure Levy, business rates, and affordable housing and other s106 obligations, could be replaced with a single land value tax. Under this proposed system, disincentives for property improvements and housebuilding would be removed. The Climate Change Levy and renewables obligations add economic distortion and complexity to the tax system and could be revamped into either through the Emissions Trading Scheme or a comprehensive carbon tax. Corporation Tax and the Diverted Profit Tax could be replaced with a single tax on capital income administered at the corporate level, similar to how PAYE works on wages. Doing so would promote neutrality between capital income and labour, eliminate the debt-capital bias, and spur productivity growth.","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130407239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The legal principle of offset has played a key role in debt collection by private parties for centuries. In 2021, offset continues to play an equally essential role in the United States government’s collection of debts owed to it, accounting for billions of dollars in funds taken from outgoing payments. The right of offset arises when two parties owe each other debts. The party asserting offset can subtract what is owed to them from what they owe, allowing the parties to avoid an unnecessary transaction. Offset thus makes intuitive sense, simplifying two payment flows into one. But offset becomes far more complex when one of the parties is the federal government, which is unlike a traditional private creditor in important ways. Offset has perhaps its largest impact in the tax system, where Congress has legislated that the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) has the authority (and sometimes, the mandate) to offset tax refunds. Refunds are commonly offset when a taxpayer owes prior year tax liabilities, other agency debts (e.g., student loans), state taxes or past-due child support. Despite its frequent use by the Service, offset is subject to minimal procedural protections, likely due to its origin in longstanding common law doctrine. Unlike other forms of tax collection, offset does not carry a right to prepayment judicial review in Tax Court. Nor does offset require the Service to issue a notice to the taxpayer prior to taking collection action. Courts also treat offset inconsistently when the applicable taxpayer/debtor is protected by a collection stay under Title 26 or Title 11, allowing offset in some scenarios and denying it in others. Finally, Congress and the Service have often failed to use their authority to make offset more equitable, particularly as applied to low-income taxpayers. The Service has a limited administrative remedy available for taxpayers to affirmatively request bypass from the offset of their refund to a tax debt. But the remedy is little-publicized, little-used and difficult to administer. During the COVID-19 pandemic and recession, Congress legislatively protected advance stimulus payments from some forms of offset. But Congress failed to make that protection expansive or to extend it to conventional tax refunds, both of which would have put needed funds in the hands of millions of taxpayers during an economic crisis. Similarly, the Service declined to exercise its statutory discretion to systemically suspend offset of conventional tax refunds to past tax liabilities. These issues extend to payments of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which are subject to offset. Both Congress and the Service have failed to acknowledge the EITC’s unique nature as a type of public benefit, treating it instead as a conventional tax refund subject to offset. This disproportionately hurts the low-income taxpayers, and their children, that the EITC was enacted to benefit. I argue that policymakers should pay closer attention to of
{"title":"The Role of Offset in the Collection of Federal Taxes","authors":"Keith Fogg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3793183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3793183","url":null,"abstract":"The legal principle of offset has played a key role in debt collection by private parties for centuries. In 2021, offset continues to play an equally essential role in the United States government’s collection of debts owed to it, accounting for billions of dollars in funds taken from outgoing payments. The right of offset arises when two parties owe each other debts. The party asserting offset can subtract what is owed to them from what they owe, allowing the parties to avoid an unnecessary transaction. Offset thus makes intuitive sense, simplifying two payment flows into one. But offset becomes far more complex when one of the parties is the federal government, which is unlike a traditional private creditor in important ways. Offset has perhaps its largest impact in the tax system, where Congress has legislated that the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) has the authority (and sometimes, the mandate) to offset tax refunds. Refunds are commonly offset when a taxpayer owes prior year tax liabilities, other agency debts (e.g., student loans), state taxes or past-due child support. Despite its frequent use by the Service, offset is subject to minimal procedural protections, likely due to its origin in longstanding common law doctrine. Unlike other forms of tax collection, offset does not carry a right to prepayment judicial review in Tax Court. Nor does offset require the Service to issue a notice to the taxpayer prior to taking collection action. Courts also treat offset inconsistently when the applicable taxpayer/debtor is protected by a collection stay under Title 26 or Title 11, allowing offset in some scenarios and denying it in others. Finally, Congress and the Service have often failed to use their authority to make offset more equitable, particularly as applied to low-income taxpayers. The Service has a limited administrative remedy available for taxpayers to affirmatively request bypass from the offset of their refund to a tax debt. But the remedy is little-publicized, little-used and difficult to administer. During the COVID-19 pandemic and recession, Congress legislatively protected advance stimulus payments from some forms of offset. But Congress failed to make that protection expansive or to extend it to conventional tax refunds, both of which would have put needed funds in the hands of millions of taxpayers during an economic crisis. Similarly, the Service declined to exercise its statutory discretion to systemically suspend offset of conventional tax refunds to past tax liabilities. These issues extend to payments of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which are subject to offset. Both Congress and the Service have failed to acknowledge the EITC’s unique nature as a type of public benefit, treating it instead as a conventional tax refund subject to offset. This disproportionately hurts the low-income taxpayers, and their children, that the EITC was enacted to benefit. I argue that policymakers should pay closer attention to of","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123576812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Italian Abstract: Ricerca sulla situazione economica italiana basata sui dati economici ufficiali; vengono analizzati e confrontati con il passato il debito pubblico, le riserve ufficiali, il PIL, l'inflazione e la disoccupazione.
English Abstract: Research into the state of the Italian economy based on official economic data; the current Sovereign Debt, Official Reserves, GDP, Inflation and Unemployment situation is presented and and compared with the past.
{"title":"Italia Economia a Fine 2020 (Italy - At the Close of 2020)","authors":"Maurizio Mazziero, A. Lawford, Gabriele Serafini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3792763","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3792763","url":null,"abstract":"Italian Abstract: Ricerca sulla situazione economica italiana basata sui dati economici ufficiali; vengono analizzati e confrontati con il passato il debito pubblico, le riserve ufficiali, il PIL, l'inflazione e la disoccupazione. <br><br>English Abstract: Research into the state of the Italian economy based on official economic data; the current Sovereign Debt, Official Reserves, GDP, Inflation and Unemployment situation is presented and and compared with the past.<br><br>Note: Downloadable document is in Italian.","PeriodicalId":119398,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Fiscal & Monetary Policy eJournal","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115360455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号