Puzzles over international taxation of cross border flows of capital income
In: NBER working paper series 8662
318 results
Sort by:
In: NBER working paper series 8662
In: Working papers 121
World Affairs Online
World Affairs Online
In: China's Trade, Exchange Rate and Industrial Policy Structure; The Tricontinental Series on Global Economic Issues, p. 11-25
In: China's Trade, Exchange Rate and Industrial Policy Structure; The Tricontinental Series on Global Economic Issues, p. 3-9
In: Pacific affairs, Volume 85, Issue 3, p. 618-622
ISSN: 0030-851X
In: NBER Working Paper No. w17498
SSRN
In: Governance: an international journal of policy and administration, Volume 23, Issue 4, p. 700-702
ISSN: 1468-0491
In: Canadian public policy: Analyse de politiques, Volume 35, Issue 3, p. 315-323
ISSN: 1911-9917
Dans cet article, j'examine une option, l'« approche infranationale de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) », qui, jusqu'à maintenant, n'a pas été prise en compte dans le débat sur une question discutée depuis longtemps au Canada, celle des barrières interprovinciales au commerce. Cette approche se base sur une idée simple: tenter d'établir un accord entre les provinces (et les membres de l'OMC) pour appliquer les disciplines de l'OMC au commerce interprovincial. Cela aurait trois implications. Premièrement, les clauses de la nation la plus favorisée et du traitement national, ainsi que le processus de règlement des différends, utilisés par l'OMC, s'appliqueraient au commerce interprovincial des biens et services, sur la base de l'Accord général sur les tarifs douaniers et le commerce de 1994. Deuxièmement, le cadre de l'Accord général sur commerce des services permettrait de formuler les engagements à être souscrits, y compris sur la mobilité de la main-d'œuvre selon le mode 4. Enfin, tous les autres accords de l'OMC, comme l'Accord sur les subventions et les mesures compensatoires, s'appliqueraient également aux provinces.
In: Canadian public policy: a journal for the discussion of social and economic policy in Canada = Analyse de politiques, Volume 35, Issue 3, p. 315-325
ISSN: 0317-0861
In: CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1790
SSRN
In: NBER Working Paper No. w12178
SSRN
Numerical simulation exercises to analyze the impacts of potential changes in non-tariff policies commonly use ad valorem equivalent tariff treatment even though estimated impacts using explicit model representation and ad valorem equivalent treatments will differ. The difficulty for modellers is that the detail and subtlety embodied in a wide array of policy interventions means that some simplification is appealing, but no meaningful general propositions exist in the theoretical literature as to the sign or size of the differences in predicted effects. All that can seemingly be done is to investigate the differences case by case, but even here the findings are sensitive both to the particular form of model used as well as the model parameterization employed. As a result, there is relatively little in the literature that provides guidance as to how serious the pitfalls may be, and how misleading ad valorem tariff equivalent treatment is. Here I draw on three examples of numerical modelling where explicit representation of policy interventions are used. The picture that emerges is one of large quantitative and even qualitative differences in predicted impacts. These examples suggest that where interventions differ from a tariff, ad valorem representation should be undertaken in numerical trade modelling only with substantial caveats.
BASE
SSRN