About: Accounting period is a(n) research topic. Over the lifetime, 157 publication(s) have been published within this topic receiving 2245 citation(s).
Papers published on a yearly basis
Abstract: In this paper, genuine savings rates in developing countries, a formal model of green national accounting demonstrates that 'genuine' saving, net saving less the value of resource depletion and environmental degradation, is a useful indicator of sustainability. Country-level and regional calculations of genuine savings are presented for the period 1970-1993. Sub-Saharan Africa stands out as the region where the greatest dissipation of wealth is occurring. After developing the basic theory of genuine savings, this paper presents empirical estimates for developing countries. These calculations account for resource depletion and carbon dioxide emissions, using consistent time series data for the period 1970-93. The paper concludes with a discussion of the policy issues raised by greener national accounting.
Abstract: This paper compares income inequality and income mobility in the Scandinavian countries and the United States during 1980–90. The results suggest that inequality is greater in the United States than in the Scandinavian countries and that this inequality ranking of countries remains unchanged when the accounting period of income is extended from one to eleven years. The pattern of mobility turns out to be remarkably similar, in the sense that the proportionate reduction in inequality from extending the accounting period of income is much the same. But we do find evidence of greater dispersion of first differences of relative earnings and income in the United States. Relative income changes are associated with changes in labor market and marital status in all four countries, but the magnitude of such changes are largest in the United States.
Abstract: N this paper the distribution of before-tax income among consumer units in ten other countries is compared with that of the United States, and an attempt is made to explain the differences that are observed. The comparisons are made by selecting, from the relative wealth of American data, distributions that match those for other countries as closely as possible with respect to the strata of society covered, the concept of the incomereceiving unit, the definition of income, and general technique (e.g., whether tax returns or sample surveys or both were the basic source of information). The results are presented in a highly summarized form in Table i. The measures of inequality, the source materials, the way in which different bodies of data were matched, and the biases affecting particular comparisons are discussed in detail elsewhere.' Although we shall summarize some of the general sources of bias affecting the comparisons, our main attention in this paper will be devoted to the explanation of international differences in equality. While the comparisons in Table I still contain unknown margins of error, it seems likely that Denmark, Israel (Jewish population only), and the Netherlands have less inequality than the United States (with more certainty about Denmark than the others); Great Britain, Japan, and Canada about the same degree of inequality (with the first probably having a little less and the last a little more inequality than the United States); and Italy, Puerto Rico, Ceylon, and El Salvador more inequality than the United States (in most probable order of increasing inequality). The position of the last four countries tends to confirm the results of earlier comparisons indicating greater inequality in underdeveloped countries than in developed ones.2 Indeed, the remaining biases in the comparisons probably work in the direction of understating the relative equality in the distribution of income in the United States vis-a-vis the other countries, and, more generally, in the developed vis-a-vis the underdeveloped countries. Among the factors that tend to bias the comparisons so as to underestimate the extent to which the underdeveloped countries have less equality are (i) the frequent inclusion of non-money incomes in the data of developed countries and their exclusion in many distributions of the undeveloped countries, (2) the possibility that the lengthening of the accounting period beyond one year might reduce inequality more in the developed than in the underdeveloped countries, (3) the effect of old age pensions prevalent in the rich but not in the poor countries -in splitting off older individuals from units containing economically active persons and thus increasing the relative number of lowincome units in the rich countries, and (4) the likelihood that high incomes tend to escape measurement to a greater degree in underdeveloped countries which tend to have less efficient tax administration. The major factors working in the opposite direction are (i) the omission of incomes accruing mainly to high income units in the form of capital gains, expense accounts, and other tax-free forms, and (2) the existence of international differences in price structure of such a character that interclass differences in prices reduce the observed inequality in the distribution of money incomes more in poor than in rich countries. Considering the varied aspects of inequality measured by our five indexes, the results ' See Chapter VII of the author's Structure of Income, a forthcoming volume in the monograph series of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School Study of Consumer Expenditures, Incomes and Savings. The Study has been supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The author wishes to acknowledge helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper made by R. A. Easterlin, I. Friend, L. R. Klein, and S. Kuznets. Mr. Manoranjin Dutta did the statistical work. 2T. Morgan, "Distribution of Income in Ceylon, Puerto Rico, the United States and the United Kingdom," Economic Journal, LXIII (December I953), 82I-34; and S. Kuznets, "Regional Economic Trends and Levels of Living," F. M. Hauser, ed., Population and World Politics (Glencoe, Ill., I958), 79-II7.
23 Aug 2007
Abstract: Although host governments and the investors may share one common objective-the desire for the project to generate high levels of revenue-their other goals are not entirely aligned. Host governments aim to maximize the rent for their country over time, while achieving other development and socioeconomic objectives. Investors' aim is to ensure that the return on investment is consistent with the risk associated with the project, and with their corporations' strategic objectives. To reconcile these often conflicting objectives, more and more countries rely on transparent institutional arrangements and flexible, neutral fiscal regimes. This paper examines the key elements of the legal and fiscal frameworks utilized in the petroleum sector and aims to outline desirable features that should be considered in the design of fiscal policy with the objective of optimizing the host government's benefits, taking into account the effect that this would have on the private sector's investment. Chapters 2 and 3 provide background material on, respectively, the stages of an oil and gas project and the type of legal arrangements normally used in the petroleum sector. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the tax and non-tax instruments used in petroleum fiscal regimes are discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 outlines the features of successful fiscal regimes, while system measures and economic indicators are described in Chapter 6. Finally, in Chapter 7, a sensitivity analysis is used to illustrate some typical fiscal systems' design issues.
Abstract: Accounting for carbon fluxes from land use and land cover change (LULCC) generally requires choosing from multiple options of how to attribute the fluxes to regions and to LULCC activities. Applying a newly developed and spatially explicit bookkeeping model BLUE (bookkeeping of land use emissions), we quantify LULCC fluxes and attribute them to land use activities and countries by a range of different accounting methods. We present results with respect to a Kyoto Protocol-like “commitment” accounting period, using land use emissions of 2008–2012 as an example scenario. We assess the effect of accounting methods that vary (1) the temporal evolution of carbon stocks, (2) the state of the carbon stocks at the beginning of the period, (3) the temporal attribution of carbon fluxes during the period, and (4) treatment of LULCC fluxes that occurred prior to the beginning of the period. We show that the methodological choices result in grossly different estimates of carbon fluxes for the different attribution definitions.