Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper first assesses the current Colombian mining tax-and-royalty regime in comparison with other countries from the points of view of efficiency, competitiveness and revenue performance. It then discusses the theoretical convenience of introducing alternative designs for a resource rent tax (RRT) to be applied to new mining projects, together with a reduced common royalty rate for all minerals, and simulates their potential efficiency, competitiveness and revenue-performance effects. In particular, it examines alternative interactions between the RRT, the royalty regime and the corporate income tax (royalties creditable against the RRT or deductible from its tax base; accepting or not corporate income tax deductibility from the RRT tax base), under alternative RRT tax rates. It also discusses alternative capital return allowances and the pros and cons of project-by-project versus sectorial ring fencing, and sharing RRT revenues between the national and sub-national governments. It concludes with a detailed blueprint for reform based on these discussions, assessments and simulations, as well as political economy and administrative considerations for the specific case of Colombia.Este trabajo evalúa la eficiencia, competitividad y capacidad de recaudo del régimen tributario y de regalías colombiano en comparación con el de otros países mineros relevantes. Posteriormente, propone la implementación de un “Resource Rent Tax” (RRT) para proyectos mineros futuros (junto con una reducción y unificación de la tasa de regalías entre minerales) y modela el impacto que tendría éste sobre la eficiencia y el recaudo. Se examinan la interacción entre el RRT, las regalías y el impuesto de renta bajo distintos diseños y tasas de RRT y costo de oportunidad del capital. También se analiza si es preferible tener “ringfencing” a nivel de proyecto o a nivel sectorial. El trabajo concluye con una propuesta de reforma junto con consideraciones administrativas y políticas para una exitosa implementación.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".