The World Bank has recently released the latest Doing Business 2010 report, measuring the level of business and economic regulation around the world. In spite of the financial crisis and the global recession, Singapore, New Zealand, Hong Kong and the United States retained the leadership as the most friendly locations for doing business. Notably, some countries have achieved high ranks. For example, Saudi Arabia moved to 13th placed and Georgia, once the bastion of Soviet-style state capitalism, now ranks as 11th most friendly place for doing business with open investment environment and low regulatory barriers to trade, entrepreneurship and investment. Countries such as Georgia, Thailand and Saudi Arabia have surpassed countries such as Sweden, Finland and Iceland although there is a notable difference in international comparison of those countries when it comes to the issues of the rule of law, property rights and institutionaly quality.
Douglass North, the 1993 Nobel-winning economist once famously wrote the essence of institutionaly quality for economic development. He said that the inability of societies to develop effective low-cost institutions is the major reason of today's contemporary underdevelopment of the third world. In terms of the ease of contract enforcement, 3 out of top 10 countries are Iceland, Finland and Norway where institutional quality and the rule of law are on the high level by all international indices and comparison.
In recent decade, embracing free-market ideas has had a significantly positive impact on the institutional quality, regulatory barriers and the overall quality of business environment - all of which affect the size of transaction cost and, by empirical evidence, the standard of living and the wealth of nations. Global economic integration further induced institutional competition in terms of tax structure, regulatory environment, administrative barriers and labor market structures. Thus, when countries such as Georgia, FYR Macedonia, Moldova, Liberia and United Arab Emirates, enacted the liberalization of the business environment, the results were significant ever after. The World Bank also published the list of top 10 reforms in 2010 among which are Rwanda, Kyrgyz Republic, FYR Macedonia, Egypt, Moldova, Belarus, Columbia, United Arab Emirates, Tajikistan and Liberia (link).
The efforts to deregulate and liberalize business environment worldwide, will have a strong impact on high-income countries to remove the existing barriers to trade and investment such as high tax burden, rigid labor market structure and government size relative to private sector. 2008/2009 financial crisis and the growing role of government in the economy will probably deteriorate the country ranking in the next year. However, the leadership in the quality of business and regulatory environment will depend on further liberalization of the business environment, particulary the labor market, which is a major backbone of high-income countries where union density and regulated labor markets are widespread.
If countries such as Italy, France, Germany and the rest of the developed world will hesitate in reforming the remaining barriers to trade, more direct investment flows will move to high-growing emerging markets where macroeconomic stabilization is proceeding and where policymakers impose reforms faster then their peers in the developed world.
If such trend continues, emerging markets will soon reap the benefits and could become the leaders in reforming the business environment, attracting direct investment and, by and large, in economic growth and catch-up with the rest of the world.
Showing posts with label Trade and Investment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trade and Investment. Show all posts
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
GLOBAL ENABLING TRADE REPORT 2009
World Economic Forum recently published its annual report on enabling trade around the world (link).
The report estimated broader openness to trade after taking all indicators, regulatory and administrative factors into account. Notably, among these are the ease of market access, customs administration, difficulty of export and import procedures, quality of transport infrastructure, the availibility of transport services and the use of ICT. The report found a positive and moderate correlation between the GDP per capita and enabling trade index. Thus, it implies that countries with higher GDP per capita, on average, tend to be more trade-friendly.
There are, of course, some other factors, aside from GDP per capita, that affect broader openness to trade. The research by the WEF found that the customs regulations, quality of regulatory and business environment and the quality of transport infrastructure and services significantly explain country's openness to trade flows fairly well.
Countries with the highest Enabling Trade Index (ETI) are Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden, followed by Canada, Norway, Finland, Austria and the Netherlands. In spite of robust growth of trade volume before the economic crisis, Russia ranks 109th out of 121 countries in the report, accompanied by countries such as Syria and Nepal. This suggests that Russia's growth of trade volume before the crisis can be assigned to its factor-driven economic growth. WEF's report reveals that Russia's score poorly in terms of border administration, market access and the business environment while performing modestly in terms of quality of transport infrastructure. Index of Economic Freedom noted that Russia's trade freedom is inhibited by the inefficient arbitrary customs administration. The latter restrains trade and is a popular protectionist policy measure. The least trade-friendly countries, according to the report, are: Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Nigeria.
The report estimated broader openness to trade after taking all indicators, regulatory and administrative factors into account. Notably, among these are the ease of market access, customs administration, difficulty of export and import procedures, quality of transport infrastructure, the availibility of transport services and the use of ICT. The report found a positive and moderate correlation between the GDP per capita and enabling trade index. Thus, it implies that countries with higher GDP per capita, on average, tend to be more trade-friendly.
There are, of course, some other factors, aside from GDP per capita, that affect broader openness to trade. The research by the WEF found that the customs regulations, quality of regulatory and business environment and the quality of transport infrastructure and services significantly explain country's openness to trade flows fairly well.
Countries with the highest Enabling Trade Index (ETI) are Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden, followed by Canada, Norway, Finland, Austria and the Netherlands. In spite of robust growth of trade volume before the economic crisis, Russia ranks 109th out of 121 countries in the report, accompanied by countries such as Syria and Nepal. This suggests that Russia's growth of trade volume before the crisis can be assigned to its factor-driven economic growth. WEF's report reveals that Russia's score poorly in terms of border administration, market access and the business environment while performing modestly in terms of quality of transport infrastructure. Index of Economic Freedom noted that Russia's trade freedom is inhibited by the inefficient arbitrary customs administration. The latter restrains trade and is a popular protectionist policy measure. The least trade-friendly countries, according to the report, are: Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Nigeria.
Monday, May 05, 2008
RUSSIA'S ECONOMIC NATIONALISM
Financial Times reports that Russia's outgoing president Mr. Putin has signed an act which defined 42 sectors of the economy in which state control of the economy is expanded and foreign investment roughly restricted. Under new law, foreign-owned companies will have to seek government permission in case they want to stake more than 25 percent of the company share in the sectors where free investment and ownership participation is staunchly restricted.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
INDIA'S OPENNESS TO FOREIGN INVESTMENT
The Economist Intelligence Unit has just published a brief article, outlining recent slewing of rules, some rigidity and entry barriers to foreign direct investment in certain sectors of the economy in India (link).
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
FREE TRADE, NOT FOREIGN AID
There is an innumerable evidence showing the devastating impact of foreign aid on the economic development of countries in the third world. In fact, free trade boosts growth and accelerates the GDP convergence while protectionist measures such as duties on imports and high tariffs on exports slows growth and impairs growth potentials due to higher costs of trade and international exchange at which markets in 'poor countries' (link) estimate the comparative advantage, i.e. the specialization at producing according to the opportunity costs of producing goods.
Friday, September 28, 2007
DOING BUSINESS: REVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE
The 2008 Doing Business project solidly provided a valuable tool in ranking the economies with respect to the ease of doing business. The quality of the business environment is, by any means, one of the essential supporting components of growth and value creation. Put simply, the greater the flexibility of the business environment and the ease of doing business, the greater the opportunities for the firm to target markets and growth while the foremost advantage of a dynamic business environment is the minimization of external risk, notably macroeconomic risk and the risk emerged from external vulnerabilities such as the failure of the public administration to provide sound entrepreneurial framework and business conditions. In spite of vital importance of dynamic entrepreneurial framework, small-scale economies are, by empirical investigation, affected by the extent of quality of the business environment far more than the economies of large scale according to the share in global economy they possess. That’s why; the first-class quality of the business environment is essential to long-term creation of venture capital and jobs as well as to output growth.
First, let’s take a look at the microeconomic aspect of rating the quality of business environment. Suppose there is a consulting firm with a certain amount of investment from venture-capital fund with an idea to target and invest in emerging markets whether by direct market entry or by indirect market access, i.e. through intermediaries. Firm’s executive board mutually decides to hire local human capital; local labor to reduce the potential risk of firm’s perception of asymmetric information about the local business environment in conducting consulting services to local firms or branches of global firms. Assume that the decision processing is as in usual firm’s entry. The barriers to doing business, in turn, crucially impact firm’s decision for investment location accountably regarding the size and attractiveness of market niches. Suppose the firm is decided to target emerging markets in Central and
Depending on the impact of firm’s strategic decisions regarding the performance of output and supply, the firm would, by rational means, choose the environment with the least regulatory complexity and administrative burden such as the quickness of starting a business, time costs of getting required licenses, the flexibility of labor market, the security of property rights, access to credit information, transparency of transactions, self-dealing liability, shareholders’ suing ability for misconduct and hence, tax compliance and time cost of paying taxes, the costs associated with international trade, contract enforcement, and the legal protection of the deprived party in exchange in case of payment dispute or payment delay and the extent of procedural backlash in case of closing the business.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
DOING BUSINESS 2008
The newest World Bank's Doing Business is here.
The top five economies where doing business is the easiest are:
1. Singapore
2. New Zealand
3. United States
4. Hong Kong
5. Denmark
...
55. Slovenia
The top five economies where doing business is the easiest are:
1. Singapore
2. New Zealand
3. United States
4. Hong Kong
5. Denmark
...
55. Slovenia
Friday, September 21, 2007
KOSOVO: EUROPEAN HONG KONG?
At Blic Online, I came across the article which predicts the model of autonomous sovereignity of Kosovo based on the status which is similar to Hong Kong.
Under such proposal, Kosovo would be able to join the international organizations such as World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Politically, the status could induce the formation of institutions as well as an independent political decision-making among which there is an ability to form the rule-of-law and slash government intervention. As a partly independent region, Kosovo would probably be able to induce the foundations of economic, personal and political liberty to gain the competitive position in the world and pursue the policies in support of economic growth and capital formation.
Hong Kong, which is entitled as the freest economy in the world, generated significant economic growth and structural advancement among which there had been the enforcement of competitive law and the creation of growth-friendly business environment which attracted a significant inflows of foreign direct investment. As a result of pro-growth economic and structural policy, Hong Kong's income per capita skyrocketed over the past half of the century.
Regardless of the solutions, the creation of autonomous region or an independent state is an opportunity to gain territorialy tax sovereignity in the region with sound property rights, openness to trade and investment, and enviable structural environment which would, in turn, energize economic growth and the pursuit of prosperity through economic, individual and political liberty.
Under such proposal, Kosovo would be able to join the international organizations such as World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Politically, the status could induce the formation of institutions as well as an independent political decision-making among which there is an ability to form the rule-of-law and slash government intervention. As a partly independent region, Kosovo would probably be able to induce the foundations of economic, personal and political liberty to gain the competitive position in the world and pursue the policies in support of economic growth and capital formation.
Hong Kong, which is entitled as the freest economy in the world, generated significant economic growth and structural advancement among which there had been the enforcement of competitive law and the creation of growth-friendly business environment which attracted a significant inflows of foreign direct investment. As a result of pro-growth economic and structural policy, Hong Kong's income per capita skyrocketed over the past half of the century.
Regardless of the solutions, the creation of autonomous region or an independent state is an opportunity to gain territorialy tax sovereignity in the region with sound property rights, openness to trade and investment, and enviable structural environment which would, in turn, energize economic growth and the pursuit of prosperity through economic, individual and political liberty.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
THE OPPOSITE EFFECTS OF PROTECTIONISM AND STATISM
"France should work for a much more offensive policy of protection, solidarity and regulation," says the French minister of foreign affairs.
The failure of protectionism
Contrary to popular asserted beliefs, the policy goals aimed at the enforcement of protective trade policy results the opposite effects. At the government level, extensive intervention in the form of company ownership reduces the competitive ability of the owned companies to compete in the open world markets.
Government officials have in fact different objectives than strategic investors. In terms of international trade, the restriction of imports from abroad, impairs the ability of gains from free trade and open exchange. In larger terms, even investment can be hampered as capital and technology may not be openly availible in the domestic market. If high tariffs and quotas are imposed on certain imports, the effect is three-fold. First, the enterprises and the economy are forced to pay an extra price for goods that are vitally needed to be purchased as estimated by the firm.
Practically, if a global economic environment of the firm is sourced by cutting-edge technology that could rapidly improve the productivity of the firm per unit of output, but the competitive and productivity potential is swiftly reduced as a possible 10% tariff on high-tech products from India causes an increase in firm's costs.
Second, assume that customers demand improved tech products which can be purchased in the firm which imports those products from India. Then tariff's mark-up on the price would inevitably result in the higher final customer retail or wholesale prices.
And third, high tariffs rate and protectionist trade policy with a bulk of formal and informal barriers, distort the general equilibrium and in this particular case, the only way to match supply and demand is the so called product smuggling resulted in the rise of informal economy which, ceteris paribus, reduces the overall output of the economy.
The anti-social effect of solidarity
Labor unions often expose how labor solidarity should remain an untouchable social value. In the rethorics and slogans of Karl Marx and contemporary socialist terminology, the leaders of the labor unions compose threats such as collective strikes in case if wage-increase demands are not fully accomplished. In macroeconomic terms, the spiral of unparalled wage growth boosts inflation pressures and diminishes the effect of benefits derived from the productivity growth. In effective terms, assume that trade unions achieve the periodic wage increase through collective demands.
After a sudden increase in the growth of real wages, the growth of productivity is negative while the union pressure on wage growth continues. Reasonably, the manager of the company will be forced to cut the exceeding labor quantity by firing to prevent the company's collapse.
Collectivism's Road to Serfdom
In the global economic environment where the regulatory burden and protectionism turn out into comparatively advantageous competitive environment of the firm, the outcome of strict enforcement of protectionism and collective union demands would, as demonstrated above, result in a lagging and stagnating economy facing low output growth rate, rachitic productivity growth and the spiral of upward inflationary pressures.
In fact, as the history has demonstrated many times, collectivism produces anti-social effects.
The failure of protectionism
Contrary to popular asserted beliefs, the policy goals aimed at the enforcement of protective trade policy results the opposite effects. At the government level, extensive intervention in the form of company ownership reduces the competitive ability of the owned companies to compete in the open world markets.
Government officials have in fact different objectives than strategic investors. In terms of international trade, the restriction of imports from abroad, impairs the ability of gains from free trade and open exchange. In larger terms, even investment can be hampered as capital and technology may not be openly availible in the domestic market. If high tariffs and quotas are imposed on certain imports, the effect is three-fold. First, the enterprises and the economy are forced to pay an extra price for goods that are vitally needed to be purchased as estimated by the firm.
Practically, if a global economic environment of the firm is sourced by cutting-edge technology that could rapidly improve the productivity of the firm per unit of output, but the competitive and productivity potential is swiftly reduced as a possible 10% tariff on high-tech products from India causes an increase in firm's costs.
Second, assume that customers demand improved tech products which can be purchased in the firm which imports those products from India. Then tariff's mark-up on the price would inevitably result in the higher final customer retail or wholesale prices.
And third, high tariffs rate and protectionist trade policy with a bulk of formal and informal barriers, distort the general equilibrium and in this particular case, the only way to match supply and demand is the so called product smuggling resulted in the rise of informal economy which, ceteris paribus, reduces the overall output of the economy.
The anti-social effect of solidarity
Labor unions often expose how labor solidarity should remain an untouchable social value. In the rethorics and slogans of Karl Marx and contemporary socialist terminology, the leaders of the labor unions compose threats such as collective strikes in case if wage-increase demands are not fully accomplished. In macroeconomic terms, the spiral of unparalled wage growth boosts inflation pressures and diminishes the effect of benefits derived from the productivity growth. In effective terms, assume that trade unions achieve the periodic wage increase through collective demands.
After a sudden increase in the growth of real wages, the growth of productivity is negative while the union pressure on wage growth continues. Reasonably, the manager of the company will be forced to cut the exceeding labor quantity by firing to prevent the company's collapse.
Collectivism's Road to Serfdom
In the global economic environment where the regulatory burden and protectionism turn out into comparatively advantageous competitive environment of the firm, the outcome of strict enforcement of protectionism and collective union demands would, as demonstrated above, result in a lagging and stagnating economy facing low output growth rate, rachitic productivity growth and the spiral of upward inflationary pressures.
In fact, as the history has demonstrated many times, collectivism produces anti-social effects.
Friday, August 24, 2007
FRANCE'S EXCESSIVE REGULATION PROPOSAL WOULD DISTORT FINANCIAL MARKETS
"Capitalism without failure is like a religion without sin."
France responded to recent turmoils and frictions in credit markets by calling for tougher and tighter regulation of global financial markets. Clearly, recent dynamics of credit markets and ECB's strongest intervention yet, reflect the turbulence and heating of risk over debt securities in avoiding speculation and credit default swamps which notably increase the probability of financial crisis (Mishkin, Herbertsson 2006).
The question is whether regulative pressures to disclose more of particular data and information about traded financial products could ease the credit flows and ensure more transparency. Since information is the most valuable tool in picking-up financial products to invest in particular assets with sufficient return predictions, adding trickier code laws would simply burden the ability of financial markets to catch growth momentum and enforce risk management rules to respond to the volatility of the level markets properly. Risk management is of course an important aspect of decision-making in globally competitive markets. In addition, pressures for more information disclosure would enforce control over credit and broadly financial markets.
Financial markets are faced by risks and shocks every day and failures which occur frequently could hardly be a reasons for imposing more regulation on decision-makers. One of the ways to confront risk-taking and risk-minimization measures is to ensure a broader access to particular funds, thus to provide sound sources of liquidity.
Recently, France's finance minister stressed (link):
"We have been proven right. We need more transparency and better governance in financial markets and we need it on a G-7 basis."
The evaluation of risk which investors and creditors face in the course of financial market, crucially depends on the ability to reduce the risk of biased information regarding decision-making in particular activity, say hedge fund industry or private equity investment. Transferring the liabilites of governance and transparency to a global body would fail already in the short-run because the amount of information needed to be absorbed and the lack of acceptance of risk in terms of responding to the outcome of the excessive regulation, are the prime reasons why globally enforced regulation would punish and penalize financial markets which could face significant distortions and risk aversion leading to lower returns and discounted ability to target particular markets with particular financial products respectively.
Recently published in Wall Street Journal, Allan Meltzer wrote a simple fact which politicians obviously can't understand:
"But whatever the perceived problem, more regulation is not the answer. It is far better to change some incentives for excessive risk-taking."
Because the regulation of credit and financial markets does not achieve stated objectives, information-sharing pressure reversingly forces equity investors, traders and market actors in particular financial industry to disclose the information required and this, in turn, leads to more complexity and government's control over the financial markets to go for an intervention which is perceived as a negative affection of stock market performance. For instance, could the regulation of carried risk in hedge fund industry really ensure more transparency if trading is conducted on the basis of contract deals where the treatment of information is regarded as contract stakers negotiate.
If the assessment of risk is perceived as low and underestimated, than the portfolio and price reassessment boosted by spontaneous market behavior would give bankers, traders and investors a far better incentive to re-evaluate the risk involving repackaged debt securities. A regulation such as proposed by France's policymakers rather induce external risk pressures to hit hedge fund industry, stock market and private equity firms, causing more harm than good.
The cinism of France's minister of finance is well seen:
"It's not a question of forbidding trading or barring market activity, it's making sure that the sophistication of financial products does not get so complicated that even investors dealing in those products are lost as to what they actually are."
So according to this statement, government officials know better how and where to allocate market resources to maximize the return from financial markets by purchasing traded products at agreeable conditions to traders and investors/purchasers. Market fluctuations are a daily reaction to innumerable decisions and contracts in the financial markets. The assessment of product sophistication could hardly be attached to government's responsibility. The proper degree and size of regulation is much better managed trhough contract deals at which both sides agree on terms and conditions involving particular products to take action in financial markets. In sum, transparency of particular financial products is the matter of the contractual enforcement and the reflection of dealing preferences and the overall efficiency of trading and financial markets always gets worse when government decides to intervene the market with excessive regulation whereas the cost adjustment is high; both for the cost of government and the private trading sector's ability to akin compliance burden.
Allan Meltzer
France responded to recent turmoils and frictions in credit markets by calling for tougher and tighter regulation of global financial markets. Clearly, recent dynamics of credit markets and ECB's strongest intervention yet, reflect the turbulence and heating of risk over debt securities in avoiding speculation and credit default swamps which notably increase the probability of financial crisis (Mishkin, Herbertsson 2006).
The question is whether regulative pressures to disclose more of particular data and information about traded financial products could ease the credit flows and ensure more transparency. Since information is the most valuable tool in picking-up financial products to invest in particular assets with sufficient return predictions, adding trickier code laws would simply burden the ability of financial markets to catch growth momentum and enforce risk management rules to respond to the volatility of the level markets properly. Risk management is of course an important aspect of decision-making in globally competitive markets. In addition, pressures for more information disclosure would enforce control over credit and broadly financial markets.
Financial markets are faced by risks and shocks every day and failures which occur frequently could hardly be a reasons for imposing more regulation on decision-makers. One of the ways to confront risk-taking and risk-minimization measures is to ensure a broader access to particular funds, thus to provide sound sources of liquidity.
Recently, France's finance minister stressed (link):
"We have been proven right. We need more transparency and better governance in financial markets and we need it on a G-7 basis."
The evaluation of risk which investors and creditors face in the course of financial market, crucially depends on the ability to reduce the risk of biased information regarding decision-making in particular activity, say hedge fund industry or private equity investment. Transferring the liabilites of governance and transparency to a global body would fail already in the short-run because the amount of information needed to be absorbed and the lack of acceptance of risk in terms of responding to the outcome of the excessive regulation, are the prime reasons why globally enforced regulation would punish and penalize financial markets which could face significant distortions and risk aversion leading to lower returns and discounted ability to target particular markets with particular financial products respectively.
Recently published in Wall Street Journal, Allan Meltzer wrote a simple fact which politicians obviously can't understand:
"But whatever the perceived problem, more regulation is not the answer. It is far better to change some incentives for excessive risk-taking."
Because the regulation of credit and financial markets does not achieve stated objectives, information-sharing pressure reversingly forces equity investors, traders and market actors in particular financial industry to disclose the information required and this, in turn, leads to more complexity and government's control over the financial markets to go for an intervention which is perceived as a negative affection of stock market performance. For instance, could the regulation of carried risk in hedge fund industry really ensure more transparency if trading is conducted on the basis of contract deals where the treatment of information is regarded as contract stakers negotiate.
If the assessment of risk is perceived as low and underestimated, than the portfolio and price reassessment boosted by spontaneous market behavior would give bankers, traders and investors a far better incentive to re-evaluate the risk involving repackaged debt securities. A regulation such as proposed by France's policymakers rather induce external risk pressures to hit hedge fund industry, stock market and private equity firms, causing more harm than good.
The cinism of France's minister of finance is well seen:
"It's not a question of forbidding trading or barring market activity, it's making sure that the sophistication of financial products does not get so complicated that even investors dealing in those products are lost as to what they actually are."
So according to this statement, government officials know better how and where to allocate market resources to maximize the return from financial markets by purchasing traded products at agreeable conditions to traders and investors/purchasers. Market fluctuations are a daily reaction to innumerable decisions and contracts in the financial markets. The assessment of product sophistication could hardly be attached to government's responsibility. The proper degree and size of regulation is much better managed trhough contract deals at which both sides agree on terms and conditions involving particular products to take action in financial markets. In sum, transparency of particular financial products is the matter of the contractual enforcement and the reflection of dealing preferences and the overall efficiency of trading and financial markets always gets worse when government decides to intervene the market with excessive regulation whereas the cost adjustment is high; both for the cost of government and the private trading sector's ability to akin compliance burden.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
MULTINATIONALS, TAXES AND COMPETITIVENESS
Here is a report from Financial Times:
"Multinational companies with US subsidiaries could face huge new tax bills under a law passing through the US Congress. The new measure, known as the Doggett law after the Texas Democrat who proposed it, aims to prevent international companies avoiding US tax when they transfer funds from the US to parent groups via countries with favourable tax treaties, such as the UK and the Netherlands. At present, companies with headquarters in countries that have no US tax treaty, such as Taiwan and Singapore, can avoid a 30 per cent tax on funds transferred from US subsidiaries by setting up a unit in countries with favourable treaties. Congressional Democrats say the legislation is focused on “tax haven hideaways”."
Source: US tax bill set to hit multinationals, Financial Times, August 19 2007 (link)
A new tax hike on multinationals introduced by the U.S. Congressman could seriously hurt job creation and force multinationals to leave the U.S. despite some of the particular competitive advantages of the business environment in the U.S. such as sound access to venture capital. The performance of multinational companies in areas such as value-added and venture formation crucially depends on tax rates hiking capital gains, corporate income and savings. In fact, net direct investment and capital inflows into low-tax and offshore jurisdictions reflect the attractiveness of particular locations to invest and transfer investment funds into the most favorable place with regard to corporate strategies undertaken by multinational companies.
Penalities levied on setting up business units in jurisdictions with non-punitive tax regime, would certainly force capital and investment managers to avoid taxes through unfavorable results such as less job creation as a measure to fight resisting cost pressures caused by the introducing particular tax bills on companies seeking to maximize growth and output in jurisdictions with lower statutory rates on corporate income and private equity.
Nevertheless, taxation of private equity has distorting effects on decision-making where and how to allocate investment resources in particular to maximize the output and return on equity. In fact, there is a numerous evidence that outsourcing benefits outward company performance and provides opportunities to investors and offshore/onshore service supply. Obviously politicians do not know that multinational companies frequently run several business units and that particular domestic markets do not neccessarily offer suitable or attractive access to particular capital and investment funds and that restricting access to international markets could result in a lack-luster performance of multinationals and consequently, in the loss of gains from competitiveness and access to provide liqudity and additional funds to fuel growth and perform the business strategy.
"Multinational companies with US subsidiaries could face huge new tax bills under a law passing through the US Congress. The new measure, known as the Doggett law after the Texas Democrat who proposed it, aims to prevent international companies avoiding US tax when they transfer funds from the US to parent groups via countries with favourable tax treaties, such as the UK and the Netherlands. At present, companies with headquarters in countries that have no US tax treaty, such as Taiwan and Singapore, can avoid a 30 per cent tax on funds transferred from US subsidiaries by setting up a unit in countries with favourable treaties. Congressional Democrats say the legislation is focused on “tax haven hideaways”."
Source: US tax bill set to hit multinationals, Financial Times, August 19 2007 (link)
A new tax hike on multinationals introduced by the U.S. Congressman could seriously hurt job creation and force multinationals to leave the U.S. despite some of the particular competitive advantages of the business environment in the U.S. such as sound access to venture capital. The performance of multinational companies in areas such as value-added and venture formation crucially depends on tax rates hiking capital gains, corporate income and savings. In fact, net direct investment and capital inflows into low-tax and offshore jurisdictions reflect the attractiveness of particular locations to invest and transfer investment funds into the most favorable place with regard to corporate strategies undertaken by multinational companies.
Penalities levied on setting up business units in jurisdictions with non-punitive tax regime, would certainly force capital and investment managers to avoid taxes through unfavorable results such as less job creation as a measure to fight resisting cost pressures caused by the introducing particular tax bills on companies seeking to maximize growth and output in jurisdictions with lower statutory rates on corporate income and private equity.
Nevertheless, taxation of private equity has distorting effects on decision-making where and how to allocate investment resources in particular to maximize the output and return on equity. In fact, there is a numerous evidence that outsourcing benefits outward company performance and provides opportunities to investors and offshore/onshore service supply. Obviously politicians do not know that multinational companies frequently run several business units and that particular domestic markets do not neccessarily offer suitable or attractive access to particular capital and investment funds and that restricting access to international markets could result in a lack-luster performance of multinationals and consequently, in the loss of gains from competitiveness and access to provide liqudity and additional funds to fuel growth and perform the business strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)