International Financial Centers and the World Economy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
International financial centers (IFCs) are countries and territories with low tax rates and other features that make them attractive investment locations. These properties of IFCs occasionally raise concerns that they may erode tax collections, divert economic activity, and otherwise burden nearby high-tax countries. A large body of economic research over the last 15 years considers these issues, with findings that point sharply in the opposite direction: the evidence strongly suggests that the policies of IFCs contribute to investment, employment, and the efficient functioning of markets and government policies in other countries.\nIFCs contribute to economic activity by improving the potential profitability of business operations elsewhere. As a result, for a typical American firm, a 1 percent greater likelihood of establishing an IFC affiliate is associated with a 0.5-0.7 percent greater sales and investment growth in the same region in countries other than IFCs. Furthermore, foreign investment stimulated by IFCs also appears to encourage greater domestic investment: the American evidence is that 10 percent greater foreign capital investment triggers 2.6 percent additional domestic capital investment, and that 10 percent greater foreign employment is associated with 3.7 percent greater domestic employment. Evidence of the behavior of European, Canadian, Australian and other firms offers similar conclusions: expanded foreign economic opportunities are associated with greater domestic investment and employment.\nOther evidence indicates that the financial services offered in IFCs contribute to the competitiveness of financial markets in the regions in which they are located. Commercial banks in countries with nearby IFCs have lower interest rate spreads than do other countries, and their banking sectors are less concentrated, as reflected in lower market shares for the five largest banks. By every measure credit is more freely available in countries proximate to IFCs, reflecting the degree of banking competition and the resulting stability of their financial architectures.\nIFC economies have grown very rapidly in the period since 1980, with average per capita annual growth rates of 3.3 percent, compared to 1.4 percent for the world as a whole. This fast pace of economic growth reflects the benefits of attracting high levels of foreign investment and indirectly contributes to economic prosperity elsewhere through the usual process by which affluence spreads across countries. Among the notable features of IFCs are not only their high average incomes and small populations (many are islands), but also, according to new research findings, their very high scores on governance quality measures. Recent evidence implies that improving the quality of governance from the level of Brazil to that of Portugal raises the likelihood of a small country being an IFC from 26 percent to roughly 61 percent. This association of IFCs with governance quality carries implications for their own and other countries through the widelyobserved process by which governance influences economic outcomes, and in particular, by which bad governance retards economic performance.\nEconomic outcomes aside, are the tax policies of other countries somehow undermined by those of IFCs? IFCs are typical of small countries in imposing low income tax rates and instead relying on expenditure-type taxes. Contrary to popular impression, IFCs are not the locations of choice for anonymous accounts and other vehicles for international tax evasion, recent evidence instead indicating that large countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom instead serve this function. Modern tax competition theories indicate that the low tax rates available in IFCs contribute to a form of tax competition that is likely to contribute to the efficiency of tax policies elsewhere, by distinguishing between highly mobile international investments that are very responsive to tax rate differences, and less mobile, more commonly domestic, investments that large countries are able to tax at high rates. By fostering this type of competition, and by not taxing income that is therefore available for others to tax, IFCs very likely enhance the ability of other countries to operate their tax systems efficiently.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».