Optimal Capital Income Taxation, Investment Subsidies and Redistribution in a Neoclassical Growth Model

In this paper I readdress the result that capital income taxes are bad instruments for pure redistribution and should be zero in the long run. In a neoclassical growth model a capital income cum investment subsidy tax, which is not distorting accumulation, is considered to investigate if net capital income taxes used for pure redistribution are zero in a long-run optimum. I find that capital income taxes may be nonzero, depending on the political power of those who receive redistributive transfers, the distribution of pre-tax factor incomes, and the intertemporal elasticity of substitution.Growth, Redistribution, Investment Subsidies, Capital Income Taxes

Redistribution and Economic Growth in Integrated Economies

Many theoretical models show that redistribution causes low growth or capital outflows even though empirically redistribution and growth are often found to be positively associated across countries. This paper argues that tax competition and the danger of capital outflows leads optimizing governments to pursue high growth, no redistribution policies in technologically similar economies. However, the government of a technologically superior economy may attract foreign and domestically owned capital and may have relatively higher GDP growth and more resources for redistribution than in a closed economy. Thus, redistributing governments may have a relatively stronger interest in technological advance or high economic integration. The results imply that one may well observe a positive association between redistribution and growth across countries.Growth; Redistribution; Tax Competition; Capital Mobility

(Re)Distribution of Personal Incomes, Education and Economic Performance Across Countries

Growth, Redistribution, Inequality, Education

Education, Economic Growth and Measured Income Inequality

In this paper education simultaneously affects growth and income inequality. More education does not necessarily decrease inequality when the latter is assessed by the Lorenz dominance criterion. Increases in education first increase and then decrease growth as well as income inequality, when measured by the Gini coefficient. There is no clear functional relationship between growth and measured income inequality. The model identifies regimes of this relationship which depend crucially on the production and schooling technology. Conventional growth regressions with human capital and inequality as regressors may miss the richness of the underlying nonlinearities, but viewed as approximations may still provide important information on the nonlinear relationship between growth and education.Keywords: Education, Growth, Inequality, Policy

(Re-)Distribution of Personal Incomes, Education and Economic Performance Across Countries

In many OECD countries income inequality has risen, but surprisingly redistribution as well. The theory attributes this partly to the redistributive effect of education spending. In the model income inequality and growth depend in an inverted U-shaped way on education. To maintain a given level of human capital it is shown that a less efficient schooling technology requires more resources, which lowers pre-tax and post-tax income inequality as well as growth. Using consistently defined income data from the Luxembourg Income Study suggests that there is a negative relationship between growth and income inequality in rich countries. It is argued that using some unadjusted inequality measures in growth regressions may yield estimates that are biased upwards. The evidence suggests that a rich country would raise growth with lower pre-tax and post-tax inequality if it spent more on education.growth, redistribution, inequality, education.

Why Run a Million Regressions? Endogenous Policy and Cross Country Growth

This paper analyzes the link between growth and public policy when the latter depends on economically important fundamentals. When policy is endogenous the measured effects of policy on growth will generally be biased. Using a widely quoted theoretical model, the signs of the biases are derived. It is shown that the usually reported effects on growth of tax rate variables related to GDP, the ratio of public investment to total investment and the ratio of redistributive transfers to GDP are generally biased downwards. Based on these signed biases the paper discusses some empirical results that seem puzzling from a theoretical viewpoint.Growth, Public Policy, Cross-Sectional Models

Endogenous (Re-)Distributive Policies and Economic Growth: A Comparative Static Analysis

This paper analyzes the interplay of growth, (re-)distribution and policies when the latter are set exogenously or when the latter depend on economically important fundamentals. A redistribution policy generally causes lower growth, but less so when there is technological progress. The model implies that high (endogenous) tax rates may not necessarily imply low growth. The paper shows that the longrun cross-country relationship between growth and endogenous policy is generally not clear-cut. But this relies on conditions that can be used for identification in empirical research. The paper also argues that workers benefit more from technical progress than capital owners, even though inequality might and growth would rise.Growth, Distribution, Endogenous Policy

Why Run a Million Regressions? Endogenous Policy and Cross-Country Growth Empirics

This paper analyses the link between growth and public policy when the latter depends on economically important fundamentals. When policy is endogenous the measured effects of policy on growth will generally be biased. Using a widely quoted theoretical model, the signs of the biases are derived. It is shown that the usually reported effects on growth of tax rate variables related to GDP, the ratio of public investment to total investment and the ratio of redistributive transfers to GDP are generally biased downwards. Based on these signed biases the paper discusses some empirical results that seem puzzling from a theoretical viewpoint.

Advertising, Consumption and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation

It is sometimes argued that more advertising raises consumption which in turn stimulates output and so economic growth. We test this hypothesis using annual German data expressed in terms of GDP for the period 1950-2000. We find that advertising does not Granger-cause growth but Granger-causes consumption. Consumption, in turn, Granger-causes GDP growth. The data imply that the immediate impact of more advertising on consumption is positive. However, the long-run effect is negative. Further- more, the immediate impact of higher consumption on growth is negative. But the long-run effect is positive. These results raise interesting questions for standard theory, political debates and advertising practioners.Advertising, Consumption, Economic Growth