1. May 2013 Shadow Economies in 10 Transition and 6 Developing OECD Countries: What are the Driving Forces? by Friedrich Schneider and Andreas Buehn (May, 2013) ShadEcTransition_DrivForces2013.ppt 1 of 45 Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider E-mail: friedrich.schneider@jku.at Phone: 0043-732-2468-8210 Dr. Andreas Buehn E-mail: a.buehn@uu.nl Phone: 0031-(0)30-253-9434  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA

2. Outline 1.Introduction 2.Some theoretical remarks about the shadow economy 2.1Definition 2.2Measuring the shadow economy 2.3Estimation of the size of the shadow economy 2.4Problems and critique of the MIMIC method 2.5Main Causes of the shadow economy 2.6Indicators of the shadow economy 3.Results 3.1Econometric results 3.2 The size of the shadow economy in 10 transition, 6 developing and 23 highly developed OECD countries 3.3The driving forces of the shadow economy 4.Policy Conclusions May 20132 of 45  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA

3. (1)Shadow economic activities are facts of life around the world. (2)Most advanced economies try to control these activities through measures such as punishment, prosecution, economic growth or education. (3)Gathering information about who is engaged in underground activities, the frequency of these activities but also about the driving forces determining those activities is crucial for efficient decisions regarding the allocations of a country’s resources in this area. 1. Introduction May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 3 of 45

4. Goal of this paper: (i)Updating estimates for the shadow economy in 10 transition, 6 developing and 23 highly developed OECD countries until the year 2010. (ii)Discussing the development of the shadow economy in those countries until 2010. (iii)Analysing the most influential factors on (driving forces of) the shadow economies in these countries. 1. Introduction May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 4 of 45

5. 2.1 Definition Most authors trying to measure the shadow economy face the difficulty of how to define it. (i)One commonly used working definition is all currently unregistered economic activities that contribute to the officially Gross National Product. (ii)One of the broadest definitions is: "those economic activities and the income derived from them that circumvent or otherwise avoid government regulation, taxation or observation. (iii)We use the following more narrow definition of the shadow economy: 2. Some theoretical remarks May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 5 of 45

6. 2.1 Definition The shadow economy includes all market-based legal production of goods and services that are deliberately concealed from public authorities for any of the following reasons: (1)to avoid payment of income, value added or other taxes, (2)to avoid payment of social security contributions, (3)to avoid having to meet certain legal labour market standards, such as minimum wages, maximum working hours, safety standards, etc., and, (4)to avoid complying with certain administrative procedures, such as completing statistical questionnaires or other administrative forms. 2. Some theoretical remarks May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 6 of 45

7. 2.2 Measuring the shadow economy Three methods of measurement: 1.Direct procedures using the micro level and aiming at determining the size of the shadow economy. An example of this method are surveys. 2.Indirect procedures that make use of macroeconomic indicators following the development of the shadow economy over time. 3.Statistical models that use statistical tools to estimate the shadow economy as an “unobserved” variable. 2. Some theoretical remarks  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA May 20137 of 45

8. 2.3 Estimation of the size of the shadow economy MIMIC Estimation Procedure Modeling the shadow economy as an unobservable (latent) variable. Description of the relationships between the latent variable and its causes in a structural model:. Link between the latent variable and its indicators is represented in the measurement model: η: latent variable (shadow economy) x: q vector of causes in the structural model y: p vector of indicators in the measurement model γ: q vector of coefficient of the causes in the structural model λ: p vector of coefficient in the measurement model ς, ε: error terms in the structural model and the measurement model, respectively 2. Some theoretical remarks May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 8 of 45

9. 2.3 Estimation of the size of the shadow economy MIMIC Estimation Procedure (cont.) ►Specification of structural equation: [Shadow economy ] = [ γ 1, γ 2, γ 3, γ 4, γ 5, γ 6, γ 7, γ 8 ] · ►Specification of measurement equation: Employment Quota λ 1 ε 1 Change of local currency = λ 2 · + ε 2 O fficial GDP growth λ 3 ε 3 [Share of direct taxation] [Share of indirect taxation] [Share of social security burden] [Burden of state regulations] + ς [Quality of state institutions] [Tax morale] [Unemployment quota] [GDP per capita] Shadow Economy 2. Some theoretical remarks May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 9 of 45

10. Figure 2.1 Path diagram of the MIMIC model Share of Direct taxation Burden of state regulation Employment quota Change of local currency per capita “Official” GDP growth Share of Indirect taxation and of social security contribution Tax morale Unemployment quota GDP per capita (in US$) Shadow Economy + ε1ε1 ε2ε2 ε3ε3 + + + + - - - + 2. Some theoretical remarks  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA April 2013May 201310 of 45

11. 2.3 Estimation of the size of the shadow economy Estimation procedure: 1.The estimation of the shadow economy is based on a combination of the MIMIC procedure and the currency demand method. 2.The first assumes that the shadow economy is an unobservable phenomenon (latent variable) which is estimated using causes of illicit employment, e.g. tax burden, regulation intensity, and indicators reflecting illicit activities, e.g. currency demand and employment quota. 3.Then the currency demand method is used to calibrate the relative estimates into absolute ones by using two or three absolute values of the absolute size of the shadow economy. 2. Some theoretical remarks April 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA May 201311 of 45

12. 2.3 Estimation of the size of the shadow economy 4. Calibration Procedure (i)This step requires an additional procedure so called benchmarking or calibration procedure. Unfortunately, no consensus exists in the literature which benchmarking procedure to use. (ii) In the first step, the MIMIC model index of the shadow economies is calculated using the structural equation (1), i.e., by mutiplying the coefficients of the significant causal variables with the respective time series. 2. Some theoretical remarks April 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA May 201312 of 45

13. 2.3 Estimation of the size of the shadow economy For the numerical example of specification 2 in Table 3.1 the structural equation is given as x 1t is size of government, x 2t is the share of direct taxation, x 3t and x 4t are the fiscal and business freedom indices, and x 5t represents GDP per capita. (iii) In the second step, this index is converted into absolute values of the shadow economies taking base values in a particular base year. 2. Some theoretical remarks  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA April 2013May 201313 of 45

14. 2.3 Estimation of the size of the shadow economy (iv)Using the exogenous shadow economy estimates of Schneider (2007) derived from a currency demand approach, the size of the shadow economy at time t can be calculated as: where denotes the value of the MIMIC index at t according to equation (1), is the value of this index in the base year 2000, and is the exogenous currency-demand-approach-estimate (base value) of the shadow economies in 2000. 2. Some theoretical remarks  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA April 2013May 201314 of 45

15. 2.4 Problems and critique of the MIMIC method (1)When applying the MIMIC method, there is no clear division between causal variables, which directly influence (drive) the shadow economy and indicator variables, in which shadow economy activities are reflected. Hence one caveat of the MIMIC method is, that there is not a theoretically oriented guiding rule which are indicator and which are causal variables. (2)A further disadvantage of the MIMIC procedure is that it “produces” only relative estimates of the size of the shadow economy. (3)Estimation results are quite often not robust. 2. Some theoretical remarks  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA May 201315 of 45

16. 2.5 The main causes of the shadow economy (1) Tax and Social Security Contribution Burdens The concrete measurement of the tax and social security contribution burdens is not easy to capture. In order to have some general comparable proxies for this, we use the following variables: a)Personal income tax revenues (% of GDP); positive sign expected. b)Payroll taxes (% of total tax revenue); positive sign expected. c)Indirect taxes (% of total tax revenue; positive sign expected. (2)Institutional “Soft” Factors a)Tax morale; negative sign expected. 2. Some theoretical remarks

17. 2.5 The main causes of the shadow economy (3) Intensity of Regulations a)Business freedom: It ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 is least business freedom and 100 maximum business freedom; negative sign expected. b)Rule of law: Rule of Law index summarizes the quality of contract enforcement, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence; (-2.5 = no compliance and 2.5 = total compliance); negative sign expected. 2. Some theoretical remarks  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA May 201317 of 45

18. 2.5 The main causes of the shadow economy (4) State of the Official Economy a)GDP per capita growth based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), measured in constant 2005 values in $; negative sign expected. b)Unemployment rate (in percent of total labour force); positive sign expected. c)Self-employment (self-employed workers as proportion of total employment); positive sign expected. 2. Some theoretical remarks May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 18 of 45

19. 2.6 Indicators of the shadow economy (1)GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2005 values in $); negative sign expected. (2)Currency in circulation (M0 over M1); positive sign expected. (3)Labour force participation rate; negative sign expected. 2. Some theoretical remarks May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 19 of 45

20. Table 3.1: OECD countries included in the sample; estimation period: 1998/99-2010 AustraliaHungaryPoland AustriaIcelandPortugal BelgiumIrelandRomania BulgariaItalySlovak Republic CanadaJapanSlovenia ChileKoreaSpain CyprusLatviaSweden Czech RepublicLithuaniaSwitzerland DenmarkLuxembourgTurkey EstoniaMaltaUnited Kingdom FinlandMexicoUnited States FranceNetherlands GermanyNew Zealand GreeceNorway 3. Results - 3.1 Econometric results

21. Table 3.2.1: MIMIC model estimations (standardized coefficients) – Part 1 3. Results - 3.1 Econometric results Specification123 Causes Personal income tax 0.27*** (3.27) 0.33*** (3.99) 0.37*** (4.30) Payroll taxes -0.08 (0.98) -0.11 (1.35) _ Indirect taxes 0.24*** (2.75) 0.22*** (2.66) 0.31*** (3.85) Tax morale -0.31*** (3.29) -0.22*** (2.40) -0.26*** (2.84) Unemployment 0.63*** (5.92) 0.65*** (6.30) 0.63*** (5.96) Business freedom -0.29*** (3.35) -0.26*** (3.11) -0.29*** (3.36) Self-employment 0.29*** (2.68) 0.30*** (2.88) 0.34*** (3.17) Rule of Law -0.14* (1.81) -0.14* (1.83) -0.10 (1.31)

22. Table 3.2.1: MIMIC model estimations (standardized coefficients) – Part 2 3. Results - 3.1 Econometric results Specification123 Causes GDP growth _ 0.30*** (3.62) 0.31*** (3.70) Education ̶ __ Corruption ̶̶ ̶ Indicators GDP pc -0.52 -0.48 Currency in circulation 0.09 (1.39) 0.07 (1.07) 0.10* (1.75) Labour force participation -0.56*** (6.42) -0.55*** (6.58) -0.52*** (6.36) Observations 151 Degrees Freedom 44 5442 Chi-square 88.88 89.6824.10 RMSEA 0.08 0.060.00 Note: The sample includes 39 OECD countries and the estimation period is 1998 to 2010. Absolute z-statistics are reported in parentheses. *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.

23. Table 3.2.2: MIMIC model estimations (standardized coefficients) – Part 1 3. Results - 3.1 Econometric results Specification45 Causes Personal income tax 0.40*** (4.80) 0.39*** (4.74) Payroll taxes _ _ Indirect taxes 0.21*** (2.67) 0.24*** (2.97) Tax morale -0.22*** (2.51) -0.21*** (2.38) Unemployment 0.55*** (5.56) 0.53*** (5.47) Business freedom -0.35*** (4.06) -0.35*** (4.20) Self-employment 0.33*** (3.18) 0.27*** (2.57) Rule of Law -0.08 (1.03) _

24. Table 3.2.2: MIMIC model estimations (standardized coefficients) – Part 2 3. Results - 3.1 Econometric results Specification45 Causes GDP growth 0.27*** (3.35) 0.29*** (3.52) Education -0.31*** (3.51) -0.26*** (2.83) Corruption _ 0.14 (1.56) Indicators -0.51-0.50 GDP pc 0.10* (1.69) 0.08 (1.26) Currency in circulation -0.50*** (6.48) -0.51*** (6.46) Labour force participation -0.51-0.50 Observations 151 Degrees Freedom 52 Chi-square 32.5134.57 RMSEA 0.00 Note: The sample includes 39 OECD countries and the estimation period is 1998 to 2010. Absolute z-statistics are reported in parentheses. *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively.

25. (1)In most countries, the shadow economy increases in the year 2009, which is due to the world financial and economic crisis. (2)The countries with the largest shadow economies are Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey with 34.6%, 32.2%, and 30.6%, respectively; average values over 1999- 2010. 3. Results – 3.2 Size and Development of the Shadow Economy of 10 transition, 6 developing and 23 highly developed OECD Countries May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 25 of 45

26. (3)The following table 3.3.1 present the size and development of the shadow economies of 10 transition and 6 developing countries: (i)The Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic have the lowest shadow economies with an average value of 17.5% and 17.6% of official GDP, respectively. (ii)Bulgaria has the largest with an average value of 34.6%, followed by Romania with 32.2%, Turkey (30.6%), Mexico (30.0%), Cyprus (27,7%) and Malta (27.3%). May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 3. Results – 3.2 Size and Development of the Shadow Economy of 10 transition, 6 developing and 23 highly developed OECD Countries 26 of 45

27. Table 3.3.1:Size and development of the shadow economy (in % of GDP) 1) in 10 transition and 6 developing OECD countries – Part 1 Country/Year199920002005200820092010Ø Bulgaria37.336.934.133.732.131.934.6 Chile19.919.818.919.120.519.819.4 Cyprus29.228.727.7 26.925.427.7 Czech Rep.19.319.117.815.215.715.517.6 Estonia-25.623.420.824.322.521.7 Hungary25.425.124.023.1 24.1 Korea, Rep.28.327.526.325.624.524.726.3 Latvia23.923.621.522.620.021.522.1 Lithuania27.227.124.426.023.625.4 Malta27.427.127.327.026.728.127.3 3. Results – 3.2 Size and Development of the Shadow Economy of 10 transition, 6 developing and 23 highly developed OECD Countries

28. Table 3.3.1:Size and development of the shadow economy (in % of GDP) 1) in 10 transition and 6 developing OECD countries – Part 2 Country/Year199920002005200820092010Ø Mexico 2 30.830.129.930.0 Poland27.727.626.924.724.623.826.4 Romania34.334.431.731.530.030.932.2 Slovak Rep.18.9 17.616.015.8 17.5 Slovenia27.327.125.824.623.523.725.7 Turkey32.732.130.028.629.429.030.6 Average of 16 countries 27.326.925.524.824.4 25.7 Average of 39 OECD countries 20.920.719.919.219.3 20.0 Source: Own calculations 1)Estimates before 2007 are taken from Buehn and Schneider (2012). 2)Data for 2009 and 2010 are not available for all causes, hence 2009 and 2010 estimates are a linear interpolation of the 2008 estimate and the country average. 3. Results – 3.2 Size and Development of the Shadow Economy of 10 transition, 6 developing and 23 highly developed OECD Countries

29. Table 3.3.2:Size and development of the shadow economy (in % of GDP) 1) in 23 highly developed OECD countries – Part 1 Country/Year199920002005200820092010Ø Australia14.414.313.713.213.513.413.8 Austria10.09.8 9.59.710.69.8 Belgium22.722.221.820.320.520.721.5 Canada16.316.015.514.915.515.415.6 Denmark18.418.017.615.316.2 17.3 Finland18.418.117.416.416.716.817.4 France15.715.214.814.014.514.614.8 Germany16.416.0 14.814.615.115.7 Greece28.528.726.926.025.325.127.0 Iceland16.015.915.113.814.714.415.2 Ireland16.115.915.615.917.516.516.1 Italy27.827.1 26.726.526.726.9 Japan 2 11.411.210.711.0 Luxembourg10.09.89.79.19.39.6 Netherlands13.313.113.212.712.913.613.2 3. Results – 3.2 Size and Development of the Shadow Economy of 10 transition, 6 developing and 23 highly developed OECD Countries

30. Table 3.3.2: Size and development of the shadow economy (in % of GDP) 1) in 23 highly developed OECD countries – Part 2 Country199920002005200820092010Ø New Zealand13.012.812.111.812.0 12.2 Norway19.219.118.517.718.618.218.6 Portugal23.022.723.321.922.022.222.7 Spain23.022.722.422.924.523.522.8 Sweden19.619.218.617.717.918.118.6 Switzerland8.88.68.57.27.88.08.3 United Kingdom 12.812.712.412.112.912.012.5 United States8.88.78.58.69.39.18.7 Average of 23 countries 16.716.416.115.415.8 16.1 Average of 39 OECD countries 20.320.719.919.218.3 20.3 Source: Own calculations 1)Estimates before 2007 are taken from Buehn and Schneider (2012). 2)Data for 2009 and 2010 are not available for all causes, hence 2009 and 2010 estimates are a linear interpolation of the 2008 estimate and the country average. 3. Results – 3.2 Size and Development of the Shadow Economy of 10 transition, 6 developing and 23 highly developed OECD Countries

31. (1)We now present the average relative impact of the driving forces in 10 transition and 6 developing OECD countries between 1998 and 2010. (2)Indirect taxes contribute the most to variations of the shadow economy in Mexico, Malta, Bulgaria, Estonia and Cyprus. (3)The unemployment rate is a very important relative impact in the Slovak Republic, in Poland and in Bulgaria. 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 31 of 45

32. (4)In Korea and Turkey, the state of the official economy measured by self-employment is the most important driving force. (5)Tax morale – a “soft” factor – is very important in Lithuania and Romania. (6)GDP growth is a minor factor in either of the 10 transition and 6 developing countries. 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 32 of 45

33. (7)Table 3.4.1 shows the average relative influence (in %) of the causal variables on the size and development of the shadow economies for 10 transition and 6 developing countries between 1999 and 2010. (8)Table 3.4.1 shows also that indirect taxation, self- employment and unemployment are the most influential determinants of the shadow economy for the majority of countries. 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 33 of 45

34. (9)The average values indicate that indirect taxes have by far the biggest influence (33.1%) across countries. (10)It is followed by: (i)self-employment with an average relative impact of 25.2%, (ii)the unemployment rate (18.7%), (iii)tax morale (8.4%), (v)the business freedom index (7.0%), (vi)the personal income tax (6.4%), and (vi)GDP growth with an average relative impact of 1.2% only. 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 34 of 45

35. (11)The personal income tax shows a large variance with respect to the relative impact on the shadow economy; it has a relatively large impact in Hungary (12.3%) and in Estonia (10.0%), while it is negligible in Chile (1.8%) and Mexico (2.3%). (12)The relative impact of indirect taxes is largest in Mexico (42.1%), followed by Malta (39.7%); the relative impact of indirect taxes is smallest in Romania (24.5%) and Korea (27.3%). 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 35 of 45

36. (13)The tax morale variable has the highest relative impact in Lithuania with an average value of 17.5% and the lowest in Turkey (0.7%). (14)The unemployment variable has the largest impact in the Slovak Republic (34.9%), followed by Poland (26.1%); it is smallest in Mexico (5.9%), Korea (9.8%) and Cyprus (11.2%). (15) Self-employment is on average most important in Korea (44.3%), Turkey (41.4%), Romania (37.7%) and Mexico (33.8%) 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 36 of 45

37. Country Average size of the shadow economy Relative impact of Personal income tax Indirect taxes Tax morale Unem- ployment Self- employ- ment GDP growth Business freedom Bulgaria 34.65.137.75.725.917.51.96.2 Chile 19.41.835.35.517.332.70.86.7 Cyprus 27.24.335.99.111.229.90.88.7 Czech Rep. 17.67.830.79.419.023.51.28.3 Estonia 21.710.036.011.721.810.41.88.3 Hungary 24.112.334.96.418.618.51.28.0 Korea 26.35.727.33.49.844.31.48.0 Latvia 22.28.232.313.323.314.61.86.6 Lithuania 25.49.028.817.519.917.11.56.1 Malta 27.35.939.73.220.021.20.89.3 Table 3.4.1: Average relative impact (in %) of the causal variables on the shadow economy of 10 transition and 6 developing OECD countries over 1999 to 2010 – Part 1 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy

38. Country Average size of the shadow economy Relative impact of Personal income tax Indirect taxes Tax morale Unem- ployment Self- employ- ment GDP growth Business freedom Mexico 30.02.342.110.25.933.80.45.3 Poland 26.46.127.87.826.125.71.35.3 Romania 32.24.224.514.213.137.71.15.2 Slovak Rep. 17.54.831.76.434.913.71.57.1 Slovenia 25.29.633.99.615.421.71.28.6 Turkey 30.64.931.40.716.441.40.64.6 Average over 16 countries 25.56.433.18.418.725.21.27.0 Average over 38 OECD countries 20.213.129.49.516.922.10.98.1 Table 3.4.1: Average relative impact (in %) of the causal variables on the shadow economy of 10 transition and 6 developing OECD countries over 1999 to 2010 – Part 2 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy

39. Country Average size of the shadow economy Relative impact of Personal income tax Indirect taxes Tax morale Unem- ployment Self- employ- ment GDP growth Business freedom Australia 13.821.325.47.415.819.30.99.9 Austria 9.818.527.411.612.120.50.89.1 Belgium 21.519.220.219.116.517.30.47.2 Canada 15.622.117.57.719.222.40.710.4 Denmark 17.334.633.54.09.59.90.38.2 Finland 17.419.729.18.718.615.20.87.9 France 14.812.824.315.523.215.10.48.6 Germany 15.716.624.28.324.316.90.69.1 Greece 27.05.821.810.418.037.60.75.7 Iceland 15.219.939.76.57.117.90.68.2 Ireland 16.112.536.47.912.521.31.08.5 Italy 26.915.618.99.018.631.00.16.8 Table 3.4.2: Average relative impact (in %) of the causal variables on the shadow economy of 22 highly developed OECD countries over 1999 to 2010 – Part 1 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy

40. Country Average size of the shadow economy Relative impact of Personal income tax Indirect taxes Tax morale Unem- ployment Self- employ- ment GDP growth Business freedom Luxembourg 9.613.233.420.010.411.91.29.8 Netherlands 13.213.632.513.010.419.70.810.0 New Zealand 12.221.825.48.411.922.90.69.1 Norway 18.621.231.512.510.813.00.510.5 Portugal 22.78.129.98.714.631.10.47.2 Spain 22.810.617.910.429.223.80.67.5 Sweden 18.623.530.68.715.213.20.88.0 Switzerland 8.317.730.79.09.623.80.58.7 UK 12.518.230.88.114.318.00.69.9 United States 8.727.55.113.222.016.00.915.4 Average over 22 countries 16.317.926.610.415.619.90.68.9 Average over 38 countries 20.213.129.49.516.922.10.98.1 Table 3.4.2: Average relative impact (in %) of the causal variables on the shadow economy of 22 highly developed OECD countries over 1999 to 2010 – Part 2 3. Results – 3.3 The Driving Forces of the Shadow Economy

41. May 2013 Summarizing: The average relative impact of the causal variables on the shadow economy across the 10 transition and 6 developing countries between 1999 and 2010 is the following: (i)indirect taxes have by far the largest relative impact (33.1%), (ii)followed by self-employment (25.2%), (iii)unemployment (18.7%), (iv)tax morale (8.4%) and (v)business freedom (7.0%). 4. Policy Conclusions  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 41 of 45

42. (1)Besides the indirect tax and personal income tax burden, which the government can directly influence by policy actions, self-employment and unemployment are very important. (2)Unemployment may be controllable by the government through economic policy in a traditional Keynesian sense. (3)The impact of self-employment on the shadow economy is only partly controllable and may be ambiguous from a welfare perspective. 4. Policy Conclusions May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 42 of 45

43. (4)Government can deregulate the economy or incentivize “to be your own entrepreneur”, which would make self- employment easier. (5)Such actions however need to be accompanied with a strengthening of institutions and tax morale to reduce the probability that self-employed shift reasonable proportions of their economic activities into the shadow economy. (6)Our paper clearly shows that a reduction of the shadow economy can be achieved using various channels the government can influence. 4. Policy Conclusions May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 43 of 45

44. (7)The main challenge still is to bring shadow economic activities into the official economy in a way that goods and services previously produced in the shadow economy are still produced and provided but in the official economy. (8)Only then, the government gets additional taxes and social security contribution. 4. Policy Conclusions May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 44 of 45

45. Thank you for your attention! May 2013  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA 45 of 45

46. Figure A.1:Size and development of the shadow economy of Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Spain May 201346 A.1 Appendix  Prof. Dr. Friedrich Schneider, University of Linz / AUSTRIA

47. Table A.1:The relative impact of the causal variables on the shadow economy of AUSTRIA over 1998 to 2010 Austria Year Personal Income Tax (PIT) Indirect taxes Tax morale Un- employ- ment Self- employ ment GDP growth Business freedom 199819.2%28.1%8.4%12.3%21.5%1.7%8.9% 199919.6%28.7%8.7%10.9%21.6%1.5%9.0% 200019.0%28.8%9.5%10.4%21.5%1.8%9.0% 200517.2%27.1%12.4%14.4%19.7%0.8%8.4% 200818.4%25.5%14.6%10.6%20.4%0.8%9.8% 200917.2%25.1%14.2%13.0%19.4%1.9%9.2% 2010 17.8%25.6%14.5%12.0%20.4%0.8%8.8% Average 18.4%27.2%11.8%12.1%20.5%1.1%9.0% A.1 Appendix

48. Table A.2:The relative impact of the causal variables on the shadow economy of FRANCE over 1998 to 2010 FRANCE Year Personal Income Tax (PIT) Indirect taxes Tax morale Un- employ- ment Self- employ ment GDP growth Business freedom 1998 11.0%22.2%16.6%26.4%14.6%1.1%8.0% 1999 11.5%22.1%16.7%26.3%14.3%1.1%8.1% 2000 12.6%23.3%17.3%24.1%14.4%1.2%7.2% 2005 13.7%24.8%15.0%22.9%15.3%0.5%7.9% 2008 14.0%25.3%13.5%20.6%15.6%0.3%10.6% 2009 12.7%24.3%12.7%23.8%15.2%1.4%9.9% 2010 13.4%25.1%13.2%22.2%15.6%0.4%10.2% Average12.8%24.3%15.4%23.1%15.1%0.7%8.7% A.1 Appendix

49. Table A.3:The relative impact of the causal variables on the shadow economy of GERMANY over 1998 to 2010 GERMANY Year Personal Income Tax (PIT) Indirect taxes Tax morale Un- employ- ment Self- employ ment GDP growth Business freedom 1998 17.0%21.4%11.8%25.8%16.4%1.0%6.7% 1999 17.2%22.6%11.4%23.4%16.0%0.9%8.4% 2000 17.8%23.0%11.0%21.8%16.4%1.4%8.6% 2005 14.2%23.5%7.2%29.3%17.3%0.4%8.0% 2008 18.0%26.3%5.7%21.1%17.4%0.6%11.0% 2009 17.1%26.6%5.6%21.1%16.8%2.0%10.7% 2010 17.1%26.0%5.6%21.8%17.1%1.8%10.7% Average 16.5%24.1%8.3%24.2%16.9%0.9%9.1% A.1 Appendix

50. Table A.4:The relative impact of the causal variables on the shadow economy of ITALY over 1998 to 2010 ITALY Year Personal Income Tax (PIT) Indirect taxes Tax morale Un- employ- ment Self- employ ment GDP growth Business freedom 1998 13.6%18.1%8.5%23.6%29.9%0.4%5.9% 1999 14.6%18.4%8.3%22.8%29.5%0.5%5.9% 2000 14.0%18.4%8.5%21.7%30.2%1.2%6.1% 2005 15.4%19.8%9.2%17.1%31.6%0.0%6.7% 2008 17.6%18.5%9.3%15.3%31.0%0.8%7.6% 2009 17.1%17.6%9.0%17.2%29.4%2.1%7.5% 2010 17.4%18.7%9.3%15.6%31.0%0.3%7.7% Average 15.6%18.8%9.0%18.4%30.9%0.6%6.8% A.1 Appendix

51. Table A.5:The relative impact of the causal variables on the shadow economy of SPAIN over 1998 to 2010 SPAIN Year Personal Income Tax (PIT) Indirect taxes Tax morale Un- employ- ment Self- employ ment GDP growth Business freedom 1998 8.7%18.2%8.0%35.2%22.9%1.3%5.7% 1999 9.0%20.4%8.1%31.7%23.2%1.4%6.2% 2000 9.1%21.5%8.7%29.8%23.0%1.5%6.5% 2005 11.2%18.7%11.7%24.1%25.4%0.8%8.0% 2008 12.1%14.7%12.0%28.7%23.8%0.3%8.6% 2009 9.8%11.5%10.4%39.6%19.8%1.6%7.3% 2010 11.7%14.3%11.7%31.0%22.9%0.2%8.1% Average 10.7%17.8%10.6%28.7%23.8%0.9%7.6% A.1 Appendix