Skatter, omfördelning, effektivitet & tillväxt

Valerie Cerra och Sweta Chaman Saxena, "Eurosclerosis or Financial Collapse: Why Did Swedish Incomes Fall Behind?" (pdf), IMF Working Papers 05/29, 2005

Barros (1990) modell för skatter och produktivitet

”In a model of endogenous growth, Barro (1990) combines the offsetting effects of fiscal taxes and expenditures. In his model, income taxes diminish capital accumulation and growth, but a publicly provided capital good (such as infrastructure) financed from such taxation increases economic productivity. The model predicts a hump-shaped relationship between the size of government and growth. At low levels of taxation, the government can increase growth by raising tax and spending rates. The higher provision of public goods enhances the returns to private investment (crowding in). However, as taxation rises to very high levels, growth declines as the distortions to output outweigh the productivity benefits of public infrastructure. Overall, the optimal tax rate is positive.” (s 6f)

ref-->Robert Barro, “Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth,” Journal of
Political Economy, 1990 - tidigare citerad på bloggen här, maj 2008

Omfördelning och tillväxt

"Although redistribution can have negative effects on growth through the distortionary taxes required to finance it, there are a number of theoretical channels by which redistribution can improve growth. If capital market distortions generate liquidity constraints on investment that prevent resources from going to the most productive uses, redistribution can increase growth by allowing the poor to accumulate capital. The provision of a social safety net to protect against some lifetime risks for which private insurance may not be available can also encourage productive risk-taking by reducing the costs of failure. The social and political stability that arises from a more equal income distribution can enhance incentives to save and invest, thereby increasing growth. Equality can contribute to better health and promote schooling, thereby permitting poor individuals to take advantage of their talents.
A number of empirical studies have found a positive relationship between public
transfers or income equality and growth (Sala-i-Martin, 1992; Barro, 1989; Alesina and Rodrik, 1994; Persson and Tabellini, 1991; Van Der Ploeg, 2004). Benabou (1996) compared the Philippines and South Korea, which had similar macroeconomic indicators in the early 1960s. In the subsequent thirty years, the more equal South Korea grew fivefold, while the output level of the Philippines barely doubled. Alesina and Perotti (1996) found evidence that inequality creates social unrest and political instability, which, in turn, depress investment and growth. However, the direction of causality between redistribution and growth is difficult to ascertain. Faster growing countries may be able to afford more generous social assistance schemes. The relationship may also depend on the level of development, with inequality in poor countries contributing to poor health and lack of schooling.
The empirical evidence is mixed for OECD countries. Some studies (Hansson and Henrekson, 1994; Weede, 1986; Weede, 1991; Persson and Tabellini, 1994; and Nördström, 1992) find that various social transfers have a significant negative effect on growth in samples of OECD countries, whereas other studies find a positive effect (Korpi, 1985; Castles and Dowrick, 1990; and McCallum and Blais, 1987). The last study finds a nonmonotonic relationship." (s 7)

Jfr 15 maj 2010 "En liberal om inkomstfördelning, 4" och 17 februari 2010 "Ger lägre skatter högre tillväxt?"