赞比亚财政政策对不平等和贫困的影响

Alejandro de la Fuente, M. Rosales, J. Jellema
{"title":"赞比亚财政政策对不平等和贫困的影响","authors":"Alejandro de la Fuente, M. Rosales, J. Jellema","doi":"10.1596/1813-9450-8246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study assesses the redistributive impact of fiscal policy––and its individual elements––in Zambia. Zambia's 2015 fiscal policy reduces inequality; the largest reduction is created by in-kind public service expenditures on education. However, fiscal policy also increases poverty in three ways: (1) there is a relatively low level of targeted, direct-transfer spending; (2) energy subsidies, which do not reach many poor households, absorb a large share of expenditures; and (3) tax instruments create a burden greater than what is received as direct or indirect benefits from subsidies or direct transfers. The number of poor and vulnerable individuals who experience net cash subtractions from their incomes is greater than the number of poor and vulnerable individuals who experience net additions. Eliminating subsidy spending while compensating poor households would help fiscal policy achieve poverty reduction and even greater inequality reduction. If subsidies on fuel, electricity, and agricultural inputs were eliminated without any compensatory mechanism, such as an increase in the Social Cash Transfer program's coverage and benefit levels, the impact of fiscal policy on poverty would likely be muted. In 2015, Zambia exempted over 80 percent of the average household's consumption basket. However, value-added tax exemptions imply only that some portion of value-added is not taxed, and so do not entirely eliminate a value-added tax burden. A more efficient way to deliver net benefits to poor and vulnerable households is through targeted cash transfers at a scale large enough to compensate for the burden created across households by value-added tax and other indirect taxes.","PeriodicalId":152062,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: International Development Efforts & Strategies eJournal","volume":"187 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty in Zambia\",\"authors\":\"Alejandro de la Fuente, M. Rosales, J. Jellema\",\"doi\":\"10.1596/1813-9450-8246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study assesses the redistributive impact of fiscal policy––and its individual elements––in Zambia. Zambia's 2015 fiscal policy reduces inequality; the largest reduction is created by in-kind public service expenditures on education. However, fiscal policy also increases poverty in three ways: (1) there is a relatively low level of targeted, direct-transfer spending; (2) energy subsidies, which do not reach many poor households, absorb a large share of expenditures; and (3) tax instruments create a burden greater than what is received as direct or indirect benefits from subsidies or direct transfers. The number of poor and vulnerable individuals who experience net cash subtractions from their incomes is greater than the number of poor and vulnerable individuals who experience net additions. Eliminating subsidy spending while compensating poor households would help fiscal policy achieve poverty reduction and even greater inequality reduction. If subsidies on fuel, electricity, and agricultural inputs were eliminated without any compensatory mechanism, such as an increase in the Social Cash Transfer program's coverage and benefit levels, the impact of fiscal policy on poverty would likely be muted. In 2015, Zambia exempted over 80 percent of the average household's consumption basket. However, value-added tax exemptions imply only that some portion of value-added is not taxed, and so do not entirely eliminate a value-added tax burden. A more efficient way to deliver net benefits to poor and vulnerable households is through targeted cash transfers at a scale large enough to compensate for the burden created across households by value-added tax and other indirect taxes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":152062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Economy - Development: International Development Efforts & Strategies eJournal\",\"volume\":\"187 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Economy - Development: International Development Efforts & Strategies eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-8246\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Economy - Development: International Development Efforts & Strategies eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-8246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

本研究评估了赞比亚财政政策及其个别要素的再分配影响。赞比亚2015年的财政政策减少了不平等;削减幅度最大的是教育方面的实物公共服务支出。然而,财政政策也从三个方面增加了贫困:(1)针对性的直接转移支出水平相对较低;(2)能源补贴吸收了很大一部分支出,但并没有惠及很多贫困家庭;(3)税收工具造成的负担大于从补贴或直接转移中获得的直接或间接收益。收入净现金减少的贫困和弱势群体的数量大于收入净现金增加的贫困和弱势群体的数量。在补贴贫困家庭的同时取消补贴支出,将有助于财政政策实现减贫,甚至在更大程度上减少不平等。如果在没有任何补偿机制的情况下取消对燃料、电力和农业投入的补贴,例如增加社会现金转移支付计划的覆盖面和福利水平,财政政策对贫困的影响可能会减弱。2015年,赞比亚免除了80%以上的普通家庭消费篮子。然而,增值税豁免只是意味着增值的一部分不征税,因此并没有完全消除增值税负担。向贫困和弱势家庭提供净收益的一种更有效的方式是通过有针对性的现金转移支付,其规模足以弥补增值税和其他间接税给家庭造成的负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty in Zambia
This study assesses the redistributive impact of fiscal policy––and its individual elements––in Zambia. Zambia's 2015 fiscal policy reduces inequality; the largest reduction is created by in-kind public service expenditures on education. However, fiscal policy also increases poverty in three ways: (1) there is a relatively low level of targeted, direct-transfer spending; (2) energy subsidies, which do not reach many poor households, absorb a large share of expenditures; and (3) tax instruments create a burden greater than what is received as direct or indirect benefits from subsidies or direct transfers. The number of poor and vulnerable individuals who experience net cash subtractions from their incomes is greater than the number of poor and vulnerable individuals who experience net additions. Eliminating subsidy spending while compensating poor households would help fiscal policy achieve poverty reduction and even greater inequality reduction. If subsidies on fuel, electricity, and agricultural inputs were eliminated without any compensatory mechanism, such as an increase in the Social Cash Transfer program's coverage and benefit levels, the impact of fiscal policy on poverty would likely be muted. In 2015, Zambia exempted over 80 percent of the average household's consumption basket. However, value-added tax exemptions imply only that some portion of value-added is not taxed, and so do not entirely eliminate a value-added tax burden. A more efficient way to deliver net benefits to poor and vulnerable households is through targeted cash transfers at a scale large enough to compensate for the burden created across households by value-added tax and other indirect taxes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信