Suchergebnisse

Production and consumption activities in any economy have a
direct impact on the environment. Although increased economic activity
and population growth in developing countries continue to exert enormous
pressure on their natural environments, the role of the environment is
neglected in the estimation of national income. Such neglect at the
macroeconomic level is at least in part, an important cause of
environmental degradation in developing countries. Since the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 at Rio and
even as early as middle of the 1980s, a substantial literature had
developed on methods to integrate the environment into the economic
development process. The main assertion in this literature is that
natural resources represent a form of capital that is analogous to the
stock of manufactured capital. Sustainable income can be determined by
allocating a portion of income to allow for the deprecation of natural
capital [Ahmed, El Serafy, and Lutz (1989) and Solow (1992)]. Indonesia
had average real GDP growth rates of more than five percent per year up
to the early 1990s [World Bank (1994)]. But income inequality (measured
by the Gini coefficient) has been high. Although inequality continues to
be quite high, especially between rural and urban populations, Indonesia
has been successful in poverty alleviation up to mid 1990s. In 1976
almost 40 percent of its population was below the poverty line, which in
1993 decreased to less than 14 percent [Todaro (1994)]. Income
distributional consequences of economic growth would continue to be one
of the main policy issues in Indonesia. This is due to its large
population size, presence of different ethnic and religious groups,
large diversity between rural and urban groups, variety of natural
resources scattered over the country, huge distances and the effects of
a far-flung archipelago [Akita, Lukman, and Yamada (1999)].

Empirical papers show that labor income and capital income are differently taxed all over the world. We investigate whether this may correspond to individual preferences. We tackle this question in an overlapping generations general equilibrium model with heterogeneous agents: young versus old and low skilled versus high skilled individuals. Taxes finance unemployment benefits and government consumption. High skilled agents prefer capital income taxes, while young unskilled and old agents prefer labor income taxation.

Graphic presentation concerning Missouri sales, personal income, and corporate taxes. Data representations include maps, charts, tables and graphs.

LLOYD ULMAN AND ROBERT J. FLANAGAN, Wage Restraint: A Study of Incomes Policies in Western Europe (University of California Press, 1971)JOAN MITCHELL, The National Board for Prices & Incomes (Secker & Warburg, 1972)ALLAN FELS, The British Prices and Incomes Board (Cambridge University Press, 1972)HUGH CLEGG, How to Run an Incomes Policy and Why We Made Such a Mess of the Lust One (Heinemann, 1971)MICHAEL PARKIN AND MICHAEL T. SUMNER (eds.), Incomes Policy and Inflation (Manchester University Press, 1972)FRANK BLACKABY (ed.), An Incomes Policy for Britain (Heinemann, 1972)

INCOME INEQUALITY: AN ALARMING U.S. TREND -- INCOME INEQUALITY: AN ALARMING U.S. TREND -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME BETWEEN 1979 AND 2007 -- NOTES AND DEFINITIONS -- PREFACE -- SUMMARY -- Increased Concentration of Market Income -- Income at the Very Top of the Distribution -- The Role of Government Transfers and Federal Taxes -- Increased Concentration of after-Tax Income -- TRENDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME BETWEEN 1979 AND 2007 -- Introduction -- CBO's Analysis -- Increased Dispersion of Households' after-Tax Income