Suchergebnisse

In Latvia there is agroforestry, but it is not mentioned in local legislation. There are two main farming methods which could be also be classified as agroforestry, they are short rotation coppices and silvopastoral systems.

On August 21, 1991, following the failed Soviet putsch, the Latvian Supreme Soviet declared Latvia independent of the Soviet Union, beginning the process of building democracy. Like its two Baltic neighbors, Lithuania and Estonia, Latvia has enjoyed a happier transition to democracy and capitalism than other former Eastern bloc or Soviet republics. While disputes over policy, territorial boundaries, economic policy, and definition of citizenship have been problematic and while Latvia's economy bottomed out in 1992 and 1993, the country has enjoyed relative political calm and recent economic growth. While it may perhaps be early to talk about a stable, never-changing political system, Latvia's polity has come closer to institutionalization than other post-Soviet states except Estonia. Culturally Latvia is far from homogeneous--a potential political problem in the past, present, and future. According to official data, "Latvians" (ethnically defined) make up 57.7 percent of the population; Russians are 29.6 percent (a result of migration from other Soviet republics before 1991). The official language is Lettish ("Latvian"); Lithuanian and Russian are prevalent as well.

According to the Latvian Constitution (the Satversme), as well as, the Law On Referendum and on Legislative Proposals there are three types of popular votes in Latvia. In law theory these types are called: obligatory referendum, optional referendum and automatic referendum. All citizens of Latvia having the right to elect the Parliament (the Saeima) may participate in referendum and proposed laws.

Along with a more rapid economic growth tension can be observed in the Latvian labour market. Number of economically active population is decreasing because of negative natural increase of the population and emigration, while number of job vacancies is rising and labour shortages become more acute. As a result wages are rising rapidly, and it, in turn causes increase in production costs and negatively affects the competitiveness of domestic firms. Changes in productivity and labour costs from 2011 to 2016 show that the increase in labour costs exceeded productivity growth more than two times in the manufacturing as well in the total economy of Latvia. Convergence of labour costs is inevitable in the conditions of free labour movement (open labour market), thus further economic growth of Latvia will largely depend on its ability to reduce the productivity gap with the advanced economies. The purpose of the research is to evaluate the dynamics of labour productivity in Latvia and its level in comparison with the EU average, as well as to reveal the most important factors limiting productivity increase in Latvia. The tasks of the research is to determine the main factors that influence labour productivity in Latvia in last 10 years, to compare productivity levels in Latvia and other EU country and to evaluate the current policy measures to increase labour productivity in Latvia. Different quantitative and qualitative research methods are used in the analysis, for example analysis of scientific literature and economic policy planning documents, statistical data analysis methods, shift share analysis etc. The results of the research show that productivity growth rate in Latvia was one of the fastest in the EU during the last five years that enhanced productivity convergence with the advanced economies. Raise of the productivity level was mostly influenced by the improved business conjuncture and optimization of the number of employees at the sectoral/firms' level. Nevertheless, the contribution of structural ...

Latvia's Ministry of Finance requested the World Bank to collaborate on a review of the country's tax system as input for the design a medium-term tax strategy. The motivation behind the tax review is to find options to increase tax revenues by three percentage points of GDP to reach a target tax-to-GDP ratio of 33 percent in the medium term.1 In Latvia, tax revenues are lower than predicted for its income level and institutional development. Latvia's tax policy needs to be restructured to support economic development and raise living standards. The speed of convergence in Latvia to average income levels in the European Union (EU) was impressive until the 2008-2009 crisis, but since then output recovery has been fast but not rapid enough for real GDP to return to pre-crisis level. A critical challenge then is to boost productivity growth in the economy: the level of productivity is low relative to OECD economies and its growth has slowed notably since the crisis. Increasing labor productivity is particularly important if overall productivity is to rise: informality and inactivity reduce both labor activity and productivity. Increased investment in skills and good health are an important part of the labor productivity and participation story—particularly as Latvia rapidly ages. But reducing the reliance of the tax system on low-skilled labor is also a key policy challenge. Latvia's tax system puts substantially more of a burden on labor compared to capital or consumption. This is all the more concerning given that wages for much of the population are low and so the current flat income tax structure has implications for social inclusion and poverty. Inequality of (after-tax) disposable income in Latvia is one of the highest in the EU, with only Bulgaria, Romania and Lithuania having higher inequality. The tax system entails distributional choices and one of the objectives of the review is to look at options to improve the equity of the system. Here both vertical equity, i.e. taxing less those of lower income, and horizontal equity, i.e. taxing the same those in economically similar situations, are of importance. Governments are inevitably confronted with an equity-efficiency trade-off: higher taxes on the richer parts of the population, to raise revenue and to finance benefits for poorer groups, can distort the economic incentives for work, entrepreneurship, saving and risk-taking of middle- and higher-income individuals. At the same time, redistribution to low-income individuals, through tax credits or benefits, could weaken labor supply incentives. On the other hand, fairness, or equity is an important consideration for widespread acceptance and sustainability of the tax system.

The paper presents results of study aimed to evaluate issues of current development of bioenergy in Latvia, taking into account restrictions, which may affect future progress of main biomass sources. These restrictions are based on latest European Union (EU) regulations and recommendations; and worldwide concerns of scholars on sustainability, particularly environmental (e.g. biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, carbon sequestration) of bioenergy (biomass) development. The appropriate qualitative and quantitative research methods have been used in the process of study. The results of examination suggest that biomass possesses one of the greatest potentials for further increasing renewables production, particularly in Latvia. The characteristics and perspectives of main biomass sources' development are assessed for compliance with the EU latest regulations, recommendations and policies, particularly Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2014-2020, and they demonstrate [reveal?] several limitations. The restrictions under the CAP regulations' so-called 'greening' requirements mainly affect the production of energy crops, limiting monocultures' growing. For some types of biomass production (e.g. energy cultures, wood biomass), several limitations or restrictions are considered, in particular, those related to environmental issues such as biodiversity, soil properties, agro-ecosystems and landscape. Forest origin, non-food plants (e.g. perennial grasses) and different kind of residues and waste could be the most important, perspective and sustainable biomass sources in Latvia. Besides, the dominance of a single bioenergy source would be unsustainable in the long run, and diversifying of the energy system is preferred.