IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aiy/jnljtr/v5y2019i2p129-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Tax Reforms on the Behaviour of Economic Agents (Indirect Taxation in Russia and the USA)

Author

Listed:
  • Evgeny V. Balatsky
  • Natalya A. Ekimova

Abstract

The “turnpike hypothesis” proposed in this article suggests that the trajectory of GDP growth rates is a “turnpike”, which attracts tax revenues of any type. A significant deviation of the rates of tax revenue growth from the turnpike means that this tax has grown unresponsive to the dynamics of the global tax base – GDP. To test this hypothesis, the authors introduce the indicators of surplus return and volatility of tax revenues, which leads them to narrowing the definitions of such terms as budget orientation and efficiency of taxes. To analyze the behaviour of economic agents, the authors construct econometric dependencies of three indirect taxes (VAT, customs duties and excise taxes) on the tax rate (tax burden), GDP and the population income. For the VAT, the tax burden was its nominal rate; for excise taxes, the share of excise taxes in the retail turnover; for customs duties, the share of customs duties in the foreign trade turnover. The resulting models were used to calculate the elasticity of tax revenues, GDP and population incomes with respect to the tax burden, which is equivalent to the analytical expression of the way the three participants of the economic system – state (public budget), producers (business) and consumers (population) – react to the tax burden. To analyze the analytical coefficients and econometric models, the authors used the statistical data of Rosstat for Russia and of the OECD for the USA for the period between 1995 and 2017. The calculations show that the Russian and American tax systems contain taxes that are “insensitive” to economic growth. In Russia, these include the natural resource extraction tax, customs duties and contributions to extra-budgetary funds, and in the USA, excise taxes, property tax and customs duties. The study shows that the Russian economic crises in 2008 and 2014 had a remedial effect on the country’s tax system and helped it get closer to the turnpike of economic growth. The model calculations of the three kinds of elasticity showed that an increase in the VAT tax rate reduced the activity of the three participants of the economic system while an increase in the excise or customs duty burden, on the contrary, enhanced their activity. The conclusion is made that the turnpike hypothesis is confirmed for the majority of taxes both in Russia and the USA. It is also shown that those taxes for which the hypothesis is confirmed only partially are in urgent need of reformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Evgeny V. Balatsky & Natalya A. Ekimova, 2019. "The Impact of Tax Reforms on the Behaviour of Economic Agents (Indirect Taxation in Russia and the USA)," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 5(2), pages 129-147.
  • Handle: RePEc:aiy:jnljtr:v:5:y:2019:i:2:p:129-147
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/jtr.2019.5.2.064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://jtr.urfu.ru/fileadmin/user_upload/site_15907/main/Balatsky_Ekimova-2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/jtr.2019.5.2.064?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gareth D. Myles, 2009. "Economic Growth and the Role of Taxation - Disaggregate Data," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 715, OECD Publishing.
    2. Bernardi, LUIGI, 2013. "Recent findings regarding the shift from direct to indirect taxation in the EA-17," MPRA Paper 47877, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Mishustin, Michael V. (Мишустин, Михаил), 2016. "Factors of Growth of Tax Revenues: A Macroeconomic Approach [Факторы Роста Налоговых Доходов: Макроэкономический Подход]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 5, pages 8-27, October.
    4. Stoyan Tanchev, 2016. "The Role of The Proportional Income Tax on Economic Growth of Bulgaria," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 4, pages 66-77.
    5. Jens Matthias Arnold, 2008. "Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth?: Empirical Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 643, OECD Publishing.
    6. Gareth D. Myles, 2009. "Economic Growth and the Role of Taxation-Theory," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 713, OECD Publishing.
    7. Barro, Robert J, 1990. "Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 103-126, October.
    8. Gareth D. Myles, 2009. "Economic Growth and the Role of Taxation - Aggregate Data," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 714, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. E. V. Balatsky & N. A. Ekimova, 2020. "Methods for Assessing the Fiscal Effectiveness of Indirect Taxation," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 19(1), pages 19-39.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Evgeny V. Balatsky & Natalia A. Ekimova, 2019. "Evaluating scenarios of a personal income tax reform in Russia," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 5(1), pages 6-22.
    2. Doris Prammer, 2011. "Quality of taxation and the crisis: Tax shifts from a growth perspective," Taxation Papers 29, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    3. Desislava Stoilova & Ivan Todorov, 2021. "Fiscal policy and economic growth: Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 7(2), pages 146-159.
    4. Emilian DOBRESCU, 2016. "Controversies over the Size of the Public Budget," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(4), pages 5-34, December.
    5. Humberto Banda-Ortiz & Edgar Demetrio Tovar-García, 2018. "Impacto de la estructura tributaria sobre el crecimiento económico: el caso de México," Remef - Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas Nueva Época REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance), Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos de Finanzas, IMEF, vol. 13(4), pages 585-601, Octubre-D.
    6. Åsa Johansson, 2016. "Public Finance, Economic Growth and Inequality: A Survey of the Evidence," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1346, OECD Publishing.
    7. Aldieri, Luigi & Makkonen, Teemu & Paolo Vinci, Concetto, 2020. "Environmental knowledge spillovers and productivity: A patent analysis for large international firms in the energy, water and land resources fields," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    8. Dackehag, Margareta & Hansson, Åsa, 2015. "Taxation of Dividend Income and Economic Growth: The Case of Europe," Working Paper Series 1081, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    9. LEONIDA, Ionel, 2021. "An Attempt To Design A Fiscal Profile Of The Romanian Tax System," Studii Financiare (Financial Studies), Centre of Financial and Monetary Research "Victor Slavescu", vol. 25(4), pages 88-98, December.
    10. Jean-Marc Fournier & Åsa Johansson, 2016. "The Effect of the Size and the Mix of Public Spending on Growth and Inequality," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1344, OECD Publishing.
    11. åsa Johansson & Christopher Heady & Jens Arnold & Bert Brys & Laura Vartia & Philip Spier, 2010. "Taxes and Firm Performance: Evidence from the OECD," Chapters, in: Iris Claus & Norman Gemmell & Michelle Harding & David White (ed.), Tax Reform in Open Economies, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Muinelo-Gallo, Leonel & Roca-Sagalés, Oriol, 2013. "Joint determinants of fiscal policy, income inequality and economic growth," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 814-824.
    13. Luigi, Bernardi, 2011. "Economic crisis and taxation in Europe," MPRA Paper 31007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Zhang, Lifeng & Ru, Yucong & Li, Jingkui, 2016. "Optimal tax structure and public expenditure composition in a simple model of endogenous growth," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 352-360.
    15. Strohner, Ludwig & Thomas, Tobias, 2019. "Mehr Wachstum, Wohlstand und Beschäftigung: Ökonomische Effekte der Steuerreform 2020-23," Policy Notes 32, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Thomas, Tobias & Berger, Johannes & Graf, Nikolaus & Strohner, Ludwig, 2017. "Volkswirtschaftliche Effekte unterschiedlicher Abgabensenkungen in Österreich," Policy Notes 19, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Desislava G. Stoilova, 2023. "The Impact of Tax Structure on Economic Growth: New Empirical Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 9(2), pages 181-196.
    18. Brendan O'Connor, 2013. "The Structure of Ireland’s Tax System and Options for Growth Enhancing Reform," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 44(4), pages 511-540.
    19. Teuta Balliu & Loreta Bebi, 2015. "Taxation and Government Expenditures in the Center of the Albanian Policy Debate," European Journal of Economics and Business Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 1, May - Aug.
    20. Bart Capéau & André Decoster & Stijn Van Houtven, 2024. "Piecemeal Modeling of the Effects of Joint Direct and Indirect Tax Reforms," Public Finance Review, , vol. 52(1), pages 111-149, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aiy:jnljtr:v:5:y:2019:i:2:p:129-147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Natalia Starodubets (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seurfru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.