Seventy percent of the world’s poorest people live in countries rich in oil, natural gas or minerals, making effective taxation of these extractive industries critical to alleviating poverty and achieving sustained growth. But national borders make that task much harder, opening possibilities for tax avoidance by multinationals and raising tough jurisdictional issues when resource deposits cross frontiers. Continue reading “Taxing Oil, Gas and Minerals Across Borders Poses Challenges for Developing Nations” »
Low-income countries should build more infrastructure to strengthen growth. A new IMF analysis looks at ways to overcome obstacles.
The clock is now ticking on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and while investment—critical to this agenda—has been rising in recent years among low-income countries, weak infrastructure is still hampering growth. Governments need to make significant improvements to lay foundations for flourishing economies: roads to connect people to markets, electricity to keep factories running, sanitation to stave off disease, and pipelines to deliver safe water. Continue reading “Roads to Stronger Growth in Low-Income Countries” »
By Tao Zhang
Small states are far more vulnerable than other countries to natural disasters and climate change. On average, the annual cost of disasters for small states (economies with a population of less than 1.5 million) is more than four times that for larger countries, in relation to GDP. These countries—whether landlocked nations or small island states—need a range of approaches to deal with catastrophe, including not only better disaster response but also more focus on risk reduction and preparedness. Continue reading “Small States Confront Big Challenges with Natural Disasters and Climate Change” »
By David Lipton
There were a lot of dramatic headlines over the weekend suggesting that Brexit signals the beginning of the end of globalization. Surely, it is too soon to understand all the ramifications of the British referendum. But at the same time, today is surely a good day to make the case for multilateralism. While there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the future, I will argue that globalization still has promise. But to achieve that promise, we will need a fresh look at multilateralism and the role the international financial institutions can play.
By Pritha Mitra
Version in عربي (Arabic)
Every year, millions of people leave their countries of birth in search of better opportunities abroad. Often, these migrants are among the most talented workers in their home countries. At first glance, this is a loss for the home countries, which invested considerable time and money in educating and developing these people, only to watch them leave. But look again.
Version in 中文 (Chinese)
China’s high and rising corporate debt problem and how best to address it has received much attention recently. Indeed, corporate debt in China has risen to about 160 percent of GDP, which is very high compared to other, especially developing, countries.
The IMF’s April 2016 Global Financial Stability Report looked at the issue from the viewpoint of commercial banks and resulting vulnerabilities. Its analysis suggests that the share of commercial banks’ loans to corporates that could potentially be at risk has been rising fast and, although currently at a manageable level, needs to be addressed with urgency in order to avoid serious problems down the road. Indeed the success in addressing this issue is important for China’s economic transition and, given its size and growing global integration, the world’s economy at large.
Countries will start a new chapter in their development this year with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. Designed to replace the Millennium Development Goals, these new goals will broaden the vision of development to embrace economic, social, and environmental issues. To achieve these goals, two elements are critical: money and the right policies to use the money. The IMF, along with many others in the global community, will partner with countries to bring these two elements together.
US$5.3 trillion; 6½ percent of global GDP—that is our latest reckoning of the cost of energy subsidies in 2015. These estimates are shocking. The figure likely exceeds government health spending across the world, estimated by the World Health Organization at 6 percent of global GDP, but for the different year of 2013. They correspond to one of the largest negative externality ever estimated. They have global relevance. And that’s not all: earlier work by the IMF also shows that these subsidies have adverse effects on economic efficiency, growth, and inequality.
What are energy subsidies
We define energy subsidies as the difference between what consumers pay for energy and its “true costs,” plus a country’s normal value added or sales tax rate. These “true costs” of energy consumption include its supply costs and the damage that energy consumption inflicts on people and the environment. These damages, in turn, come from carbon emissions and hence global warming; the health effects of air pollution; and the effects on traffic congestion, traffic accidents, and road damage. Most of these externalities are borne by local populations, with the global warming component of energy subsidies only a fourth of the total (Chart 1).
In an article in the new issue of Finance & Development magazine, President Bill Clinton shares his experience working with governments, business, and civil society as part of his Clinton Global Initiative. He says they are making the most progress in places where people have formed networks of creative cooperation where stakeholders come together to do things better, faster and cheaper than any could alone.