A multinational analysis of tax rates and economic activity.
Smith, Lawrence C., Jr. ; Smith, L. Murphy ; Gruben, William C. 等
INTRODUCTION
The relationship between taxes and economic activity is a complex
one. While there are various types of taxes, such as income tax, sales
tax, and property tax, the tax that receives the most scrutiny is the
income tax. Income tax rates vary significantly among countries. The
relationship between taxes, particularly the income tax, and economic
activity is a factor in the economic progress and development of a
national economy.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between
tax rates in selected countries and economic activity, including GDP
growth, unemployment, and savings. The sample of countries used in the
study consists of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries. This study provides some background
information regarding the OECD. This study also offers a brief review of
past research concerning taxation and its impact on economic activity.
Results are mixed but reveal some meaningful relationships between
tax rates and economic activity. At the macro level, these relationships
should be considered by policy makers who are considering changes to tax
laws. At the micro level, these relationships should be considered by
corporate managers who are making decisions on where to set up business
operations. The two levels are plainly connected, as macro level
decisions of policy makers will affect the micro level decisions of
corporate managers.
TAXES
Taxes can be dichotomized into direct taxes and indirect taxes. The
income tax is a direct tax. Indirect taxes include the sales tax, also
called consumption tax. Other indirect taxes include the value added tax
(VAT), excise tax, estate tax, gift tax, employment tax, and user fees.
In Europe, VAT is a major source of tax revenue. The VAT is applied at
each stage of production for the value added to the goods. As with all
taxes, the tax burden ultimately falls on the consumer because companies
can reclaim taxes paid.
The income tax is the most widely used as a source of revenues for
national governments around the world. The income tax has a direct
impact on corporate profit, that is, reducing it. Determining how much
tax an individual or a corporation pays depends on more than the tax
rate alone. Other key factors include what income is taxable and what
expenses are deductible. Regarding corporations, a key concern is when
taxes are assessed and payable to the government. In the US, for
example, earnings of foreign subsidiaries are generally not taxed until
dividends are paid by the subsidiary located in the foreign country to
the parent corporation located in the US. This postponement of taxes is
referred to as deferral.
To fund growth in the size of federal governments, in recent
decades, the amount of income tax collected has substantially increased
in most countries. In the US, for example, total government expenditures
relative to GDP are now more than three times higher than before the
Great Depression. Total government expenditures rose to 42.7 percent of
GDP in 2009, a proportion higher than any year except for three years of
World War II, 1943 to 1945 (Chantrill 2010). Prior to the Great
Depression, state and local government expenditures were much higher
than federal expenditures. Subsequent to 1939, that situation is the
opposite. Government expenditures on defense as a percentage of GDP are
at historic lows, comparable to the 1920s. Most US government
expenditures are on nondefense items such as health, income support, and
education. That is true in most countries.
Another important issue regarding taxation regarding multinational
companies is on what foreign source income is tax assessed. There are
two approaches to taxation of foreign source income: the territorial
approach and the worldwide approach. Under the territorial approach,
only income earned within the nation's borders is taxed. For
example, in Hong Kong, only income earned there is subject to Hong Kong
tax. Under the worldwide approach, both domestic and foreign source
income is taxed. For instance, in the US, a corporation must pay taxes
on its earnings made domestically within the US but also on earnings
from foreign sources, such as the earnings of the corporation's
foreign subsidiaries.
A problem associated with the worldwide approach to taxation is
that it can lead to double taxation. For example, the earnings of a
foreign subsidiary of a US company will be taxed in the foreign country
and also in the US. This double taxation can be minimized through tax
credits and tax treaties. Minimizing double taxation is important, as
double taxation is a major disincentive to establishing business
operations in other countries. In addition, corporate earnings are
actually taxed a third time, when the corporation distributes dividends
to its shareholders, thus leading to triple taxation.
ORGANIZATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD)
The countries included in this study are members of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD
countries were used in the study for several reasons, principally
because they have been used in numerous other research studies, economic
data is available, and their experiences regarding tax and economic
activity should be of interest to anyone interested in this subject. The
OECD is a Paris-based international economic organization that includes
30 countries. OECD members are mostly high-income economies with a high
Human Development Index (HDI) and considered developed nations (OECD
2010a, Wikipedia 2010).
The OECD had its origin in the Organization for European Economic
Cooperation (OEEC), led by Robert Marjolin of France, which helped
administer the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe after
World War II. Subsequently, membership was extended to non-European
nations. In 1961, the OEEC was reformed into the OECD by the Convention
on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The
OECD's headquarters is located at the Chateau de la Muette in
Paris, France (OECD 2010a, Wikipedia 2010).
The mission of the OECD is to bring together the governments of
countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the
world to do the following:
* Support sustainable economic growth
* Boost employment
* Raise living standards
* Maintain financial stability
* Assist other countries' economic development
* Contribute to growth in world trade
The OECD provides a structure in which governments can compare
policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good
practice and coordinate domestic and international policies. In 1989,
following political changes in Central and Eastern Europe, the OECD
began assisting these countries to prepare market economy reforms. In
1990, the Centre for Cooperation with European Economies in Transition
(now succeeded by the Centre for Cooperation with Non-Members) was
established, and in 1991, the Program "Partners in Transition"
was initiated for the cooperation with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and
Poland. During 1994-2000 Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Mexico, and the Republic of Korea became members of the OECD (OECD
2010a). Member countries of the OECD are shown in Exhibit 1.
The OECD shares expertise and exchanges views with more than 100
other nations. In 2007, the OECD countries agreed to invite Chile,
Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia to open discussions for membership
and offered enhanced engagement to Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and
South Africa. Although enhanced engagement is not the same as accession
to the OECD, it has the potential to lead to future membership. Approval
of so-called "road maps" marks the start of accession talks
with Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia (OECD 2010a).
For over four decades, the OECD has been one of the world's
largest and most reliable sources of comparable statistics and economic
and social data. In addition to collecting data, the OECD monitors
trends, analyzes and forecasts economic developments, and studies social
changes or evolving patterns in trade, environment, agriculture,
technology, and taxation. The OECD is one of the largest publishers in
the area of economics and public policy.
Regarding taxation, collaboration among OECD nations has fostered
the growth of a global web of bilateral tax treaties. The OECD publishes
and updates a model tax convention which serves as a model for bilateral
negotiations concerning tax coordination and cooperation. The model
generally allocates the right to tax to the country from which capital
investment originates (i.e., the home, or resident country) rather than
the country in which the investment is made (the host, or source
country). Consequently, the model is most effective for two countries
which have reciprocal investment flows, but can be very unbalanced when
one of the signatory countries is economically weaker than the other
(Wikipedia 2010).
Beginning in the late 1990s, the OECD has made efforts to reduce
harmful tax practices, focusing on activities of tax havens (while
generally accepting policies of its member nations which would generally
encourage tax competition). Mixed results have followed these efforts.
The main objection is that the sanctity of tax policy is a matter of
sovereign entitlement (Christians 2008). The OECD identifies nations it
considers uncooperative in the efforts to improve transparency of tax
affairs and meaningful exchange of information. This
"blacklist" of uncooperative nations is officially titled
"The List of Uncooperative Tax Havens" (BBC News 2000).
Following reform efforts by these nations, all had been removed from the
blacklist as of May 2009 (OECD 2009). Thus, the OECD program seems to
have generated the desired result.
Tax havens remain a subject of concern to the OECD and other
countries. Recently, a number of countries requested that the OECD
investigate about 40 new tax havens in the world where undeclared
revenues are hidden and which host many of the non-regulated hedge funds
that have come under fire during the 2008 financial crisis. Some
countries, including Germany and France have asked that the OECD
specifically add Switzerland to a blacklist of countries which encourage
tax fraud (Euronews 2008).
Other areas in which the OECD has made notable efforts to improve
global economic activity include coordinating international action on
corruption and bribery, creating the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which
took effect in February 1999. This Convention has been ratified by 38
countries, all 30 OECD countries and 8 non-OECD countries (OECD 2010b).
The OECD has implemented an anti-spam task force, which submitted a
detailed report, with several background papers on spam problems in
developing countries. The OECD is studying the effects of the
information economy and the future of the Internet economy. The OECD
publishes the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) which
is an assessment that facilitates comparison of educational performances
among countries (OECD 2010a).
The structure of the OECD consists of three major bodies: (1) OECD
Member Countries, (2) OECD Secretariat, and (3) OECD Committees. Each
member country is represented by a delegation led by an ambassador. The
OECD Secretariat is led by the Secretary-General. Delegates from member
countries participate in committee and other meetings, chiefly arranged
by the Secretariat. OECD Committee members are usually subject-matter
experts from member and non-member countries. Representatives of all 30
OECD member countries plus representatives from some observer countries
attend specialized committee meetings regarding policy areas, such as
financial markets, trade, and economics. The OECD has approximately 200
committees, working groups and expert groups (Wikipedia 2010).
RELATED LITERATURE
Extensive research has been conducted regarding taxation and its
relationship to economic activity, both at the micro, firm level, and
the macro, national and international level. Tax policies have been used
to create incentives for corporations to engage in various types of
business activity. Of particular importance is the use of tax policies
to provide incentives for businesses to relocate operations from one
nation to another (cf., Wilson 1999 and Stewart 2009). International
business and related taxation have been a part of business activity
since early times, including ancient Asia, Mesopotamia, and among
nations along the Mediterranean Sea. In modern times, international
trade rapidly increased in the years following World War Two (Gray et
al. 2001).
In foundational work on taxes and economic activity, Richman (1963)
notes that countries may simultaneously want to tax the worldwide
capital income of domestic residents, suggesting that taxes paid to
foreign governments should be merely deductible from domestic taxable
income. Prior research on international taxation examine its impact on
multinational firms in developed countries (Adams and Whalley 1977), its
relationship to foreign direct investment (Hartman 1984, 1985), its
relationship to saving s (Gordon 1986), its relationship to strategic
decision making (Bond and Samuelson 1989), and its economic premises
(Ault and
Bradford 1990).
In a seminal study regarding taxation and production, Diamond and
Mirrlees (1971) observe that small open economies result in extremely
high costs in efforts to tax the returns to local capital investment,
since local factors bear the burden of such taxes in the form of
productive inefficiencies. Janeba (1995) analyzes the issues of
corporate tax competition among countries, double taxation, and foreign
direct investment. Wilson (1999) reviews theories of tax competition
among countries. Baccheta and Espinosa (2000) examine international tax
treaties. Gordon and Hines (2002) evaluate research findings on
international taxation, noting connections and inconsistencies between
theoretical and empirical observations. DeArcangelis and Lamartina
(2003) identify fiscal policy shocks associated with different
categories of expenditure and taxation, and simulate their impact on
economic activity.
Kaplow (2005) studies the question of whether first-best
prescriptions for government policy require modification because
redistributive income taxation distorts labor supply and cannot achieve
the distributive ideal. He suggest that perhaps second-best rules for
public goods provision, corrective taxation, public sector pricing, and
other government activity should reflect concerns about distribution and
labor supply distortion. Haufler et al. (2006) examine the increase in
foreign direct investment and the expanding activity of multinational
firms in exposing national corporate tax bases to cross-country profit
shifting, which can lead to rising profitability in the corporate
sector.
Schreiber and Fuehrich (2007) examine a proposal by the European
Commission to establish a common corporate tax base for the purpose of
decreasing compliance and administrative costs for European groups.
Under the Commission's proposal separate entity accounting would be
replaced by a profit allocation based on formula apportionment. Given
that formula apportionment is based on the source principle, the group
is motivated to invest in low tax member states. Consequently, some
member states would potentially confront decreases in both real economic
activity and tax revenue.
Devereux (2008) reviews economic principles for optimality of the
taxation of international profit, from both a domestic and international
viewpoint. He makes the case for traditional systems based on the
residence of the investor or the source of the income and that nothing
short of total harmonization across countries can achieve global
optimality. He argues that conditions for national optimality are more
difficult to identify, but are most likely to imply source-based
taxation.
Haufler et al. (2008) present a simple political economy model
where the median voter decides on a redistributive income tax rate.
Based on their analysis, economic integration may raise or lower the
equilibrium tax rate, and it is more likely to raise the tax rate of a
low-tax country. The results are consistent with empirical observations
that effective corporate tax rates have not fallen in all OECD
countries, and that corporate tax revenues have generally risen. Zaman
(2008) observes that widely accepted approaches to business and taxation
in the West may be incompatible with practices in Islamic countries.
Stewart (2009) discusses tax law and policy for indigenous economic
development, with emphasis on business taxation. Kenny and Winer (2009)
examine tax systems worldwide, including tax bases, collection costs,
and political regime.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Using data available from the OECD (OECD 2010a) and the Tax
Foundation (Tax Foundation 2010), data was compiled regarding income tax
rates and gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the total market value of
all the goods and services produced within the borders of a nation
during a specified period. Exhibit 2 shows the federal, state, combined
federal and state income tax rates along with GDP for four years, 2005
to 2008, for the 30 nations comprising the OECD. As shown, the average
federal income tax rate is 25.49 percent, the average state income tax
rate is 2.51 percent, and the average combined federal and state income
tax rate is 27.65 percent. Average GDP increased from $1.184 billion in
2005 to $1.455 billion in 2008.
As shown in Exhibit 2, among the nations of the world, the US is
one of only eight nations that include additional corporate income taxes
assessed by state or local levels of government. The cost to business of
these state-level taxes is partly reduced because they can be deducted
from federal taxes. Nevertheless they add a second layer of tax and also
add considerable complexity for multi-state and multinational businesses
(Hodge 2008). Beyond the burden of simply paying the amount of taxes
owed, complexity of taxes present huge difficulties to corporations,
leading to significant compliance costs (Lassila and Smith 1997).
Exhibit 3 shows the change in GDP by country by year for the 30
countries of the OECD. The average change in GDP from 2005 to 2006 was
7.45 percent, from 2006 to 2007 was16.05 percent, and 2007 to 2008 was
9.12 percent. Exhibit 4 shows the percent change in GDP by country by
year and split into two groups. The countries with the higher combined
income tax are compared to the countries with the lower combined income
tax. T-tests were used to analyze differences. In the higher tax group,
which includes Japan with the highest combined tax rate of 39.54
percent, the average combined tax rate is 33.01 percent. In the lower
tax group, the average combined tax is 22.29 percent, which is
significantly different from the higher tax group (p<.001).
As shown in Exhibit 4, the average percent change in GDP was higher
in all three time periods for the lower tax group than for the higher
tax group. For example, in the first time period, 2005 to 2006, the
average percent change in GDP was 6.59 percent for the higher tax group
and 8.32 percent for the lower tax group. For 2006 to 2007, the average
percent change in GDP was 13.49 percent for the higher tax group and
18.61 percent for the lower tax group. For 2007 to 2008, the average
percent change in GDP was 7.75 percent for the higher tax group and
10.49 percent for the lower tax group. The difference was significant
only in the middle time period, 2006 to 2007 (p<.01).
Unemployment is defined as the percentage of the total labor force
that is unemployed but actively seeking employment and willing to work.
Exhibit 5 shows the combined tax compared to the unemployment rate for
Years 1 to 4 (i.e., 2005 to 2008). During these four years, the average
unemployment rate declined from a high of 7.05 percent in 2005 to 5.76
percent in 2008. Exhibit 6 shows the percent change in unemployment for
three time periods. The percent change in unemployment decreased by 7.09
percent from 2005 to 2006, decreased by 7.80 percent from 2006 to 2007,
and increased by 0.49 percent from 2007 to 2008.
Exhibit 7 shows the percent change in unemployment by country by
year, and split into two groups. The countries with the higher combined
income tax are compared to the countries with the lower combined income
tax. As shown, the average percent change in unemployment was a negative
6.17 percent for the higher tax rate countries for 2005 to 2006. The
average percent change was negative 7.06 percent for the lower tax rate
countries in the same time period. Thus, the rate of unemployment was
reduced more in the lower tax rate countries than in the higher tax rate
countries for this time period.
Changes in unemployment for the other two time periods maintained
the same relationship as in the first time period, that is, lower tax
countries experienced more favorable changes in unemployment. During
2006 to 2007, the change in unemployment was a negative 5.47 percent for
the higher tax rate countries and a negative 7.69 percent for the lower
tax rate countries. Thus, unemployment decreased more for the lower tax
rate countries than for the higher tax rate countries. During 2007 to
2008, the change in unemployment was a positive 4.85 percent for the
higher tax rate countries and a positive 0.77 percent for the lower tax
rate countries. Thus, unemployment increased more rapidly in the higher
tax rate countries. The changes in unemployment of the higher and lower
tax rate countries were significantly different in the second and third
time periods.
Gross savings is defined as gross disposable income less final
consumption expenditures. Exhibit 8 shows the gross savings as percent
of GDP by country by year for 2005 to 2007. The date for 2008 was
unavailable at the time of this writing. As shown, the gross savings
rate increased slightly from an average of 24.26 percent in 2005 to
26.59 percent in 2007. Exhibit 9 shows the gross savings rate by country
by year, and split into two groups. The countries with the higher
combined income tax are compared to the countries with the lower
combined income tax. Higher savings rates were found in all three years
for the lower tax rate countries, but the difference were not
significant.
Exhibit 10 shows the percent change in the savings rate (gross
savings as a percent of GDP) by country by year, and split into two
groups. The countries with the higher combined income tax are compared
to the countries with the lower combined income tax. During 2005 to
2006, the change in the savings rate was 8.99 percent for the higher tax
rate countries and 8.96 percent for the lower tax rate countries. During
2006 to 2007, the change in the savings rate was 5.68 percent for the
higher tax rate countries and 9.60 percent for the lower tax rate
countries. The difference between the groups was significant in the
second time period.
CONCLUSIONS
This study examines the relationship between tax rates in selected
countries and economic activity, including GDP growth, unemployment, and
savings. The sample of countries used in the study consists of the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.
This study provides some background information regarding the OECD. This
study also offers a brief review of past research concerning taxation
and its impact on economic activity.
During the time period of the study, 2005 to 2008, average GDP
increased from $1,184 billion to $1,455 billion. When comparing the
higher tax rate countries to lower tax rate countries, average increase
in GDP was higher for the lower tax rate countries. Over the time period
of the study, average unemployment decreased from 7.05 percent in 2005
to 5.76 percent in 2008. When comparing the higher tax rate countries to
lower tax rate countries, average percent change in the unemployment
rate was more favorable for the lower tax rate countries than the higher
tax rate countries. During the time period of the study, the average
gross savings rate increased from 24.26 percent to 26.50 percent.
Compared to higher tax rate countries, lower tax rate countries
experienced a significantly higher proportionate increase in the gross
savings rate.
Results are mixed but reveal some meaningful relationships between
tax rates and economic activity. Generally lower tax rate countries have
experienced more favorable economic activity, at least regarding the
variable examined in this study, than higher tax rate countries. At the
macro level, these relationships should be considered by policy makers
who are considering changes to tax laws. At the micro level, these
relationships should be considered by corporate managers who are making
decisions on where to set up business operations. The two levels are
plainly connected, as macro level decisions of policy makers will affect
the micro level decisions of corporate managers.
REFERENCES
Adams, J.D.R. and J. Whalley. 1977. The International Taxation of
Multinational Enterprises in Developed Countries. Westport, Conn:
Greenwood.
Ault, H.J. and D.F. Bradford. 1990. Taxing International Income: An
Analysis of the US System and its Economic Premises" in (ed.) A.
Razin and J. Slemrod Taxation in the Global Economy, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago: 1-46.
Baccheta, P. and M.P. Espinosa. 2000. Exchange of Information
Clauses in International Tax Treaties. International Tax and Public
Finance, Vol. 17: 275-293.
BBC News. 2000. Sanctions Threat to 'Tax Havens.' BBC
News, Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/business/806236.stm (June
26).
Bond, E.W. and L. Samuelson. 1989. Strategic Behaviour and the
Rates for International Taxation of Capital. Economic Journal, 99:398
(December): 1099-1111.
Chantrill, Christopher. 2010. US Government Spending As Percent of
GDP. US Government Spending, Website:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html (March
12).
Christians, Allison. 2008. Sovereignty, Taxation, and Social
Contract. Minnesota Journal of International Law, Vol. 18; Univ. of
Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1063. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1259975 (August 27).
De Arcangelis, Giuseppe and Serena Lamartina. 2003. Identifying
Fiscal Shocks and Policy Regimes in OECD Countries. ECB Working Paper
No. 281 (October). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=487422.
Devereux, Michael P. 2008. Taxation of Outbound Direct Investment:
Economic Principles and Tax Policy Considerations. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, Vol. 24, Issue 4 (Winter): 698-719. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1331834 or doi:grn036.
Diamond, P.A. and J. Mirrlees. 1971. Optimal Taxation and Public
Production, I: Production Efficiency, II: Tax Rules. American Economic
Review 61:8-27: 261-278.
Euronews. 2008. Calls from 17 Countries for New Tax Haven
Blacklist. Euronews, Website:
http://www.euronews.net/2008/10/21/calls-from-17-countries-for-new-tax-
haven-blacklist/ (October 21). Gordon, Roger H. 1986. Taxation of
Investment and Saving in a World Economy. American Economic Review, Vol.
76 (December): 1086-1102.
Gordon, Roger H. and James R. Hines Jr. 2002. International
Taxation . NBER Working Paper No. W8854 (April). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=305598.
Gray, Salter, and Radebaugh. 2001. Global Accounting and Control, A
Managerial Emphasis. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Haufler, Andreas, Alexander Klemm, and Guttorm Schjelderup. 2006.
Economic Integration and Redistributive Taxation: A Simple Model With
Ambiguous Results. CESifo Working Paper No. 1853. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=949428 (November).
Haufler, Andreas, Alexander Klemm, and Guttorm Schjelderup. 2008.
Redistributive Taxation, Multinational Enterprises, and Economic
Integration. NHH Dept. of Finance & Management Science Discussion
Paper No. 2008/4 (March 12). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1135569.
Hartman, D.G. 1984. Tax Policy and Foreign Direct Investment in the
United States. National Tax Journal, Vol. 37: 475-87.
Hartman, D.G. 1985. Tax Policy and Foreign Direct Investment.
Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 26: 107-121. Hodge, Scott. 2008. U.S.
States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes. Tax Foundation, Website:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html. (March 18).
Janeba, E. 1995. Corporate Income Tax Competition, Double Taxation
Reliefs, and Foreign Direct Investment. Journal of Public Economics,
Vol. 56: 311-325.
Kaplow, Louis. 2005. Income Taxation and Optimal Government Policy.
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, 2nd Edition;
Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 518 (October 19).
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=825568.
Kenny, Lawrence W. and Stanley L. Winer. 2009. Tax Systems in the
World: An Empirical Investigation into the Importance of Tax Bases,
Collection Costs, and Political Regime. Carleton Economic Working Paper
No. 01-03 (August 18). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=280097 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.280097.
Lassila, Dennis R. and Murphy Smith. 1997. Tax Complexity and
Compliance Costs of U.S. Multinational Corporations. Advances in
International Accounting, Volume 10: 207-237. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=247726.
OECD. 2009. List of Unco-operative Tax Havens. OECD, Website:
http://www.oecd.org/ (May).
OECD. 2010a. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.
OECD, Website: OECD.com.
OECD. 2010b. OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public
Officials in International Business Transactions. OECD, Website:
http://www.oecd.org/document/21/
0,3343,en_2649_34859_2017813_1_1_1_1,00.html (January 16).
Richman, P.B. 1963. Taxation of Foreign Investment Income: An
Economic Analysis. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.
Schreiber, Ulrich and Gregor Fuehrich. 2007. European Group
Taxation - Formula Apportionment versus Current Inclusion. Working Paper
(February). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=964009.
Stewart, Miranda. 2009. Tax Law and Policy for Indigenous Economic
Development. University of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No.
436 (December 7). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1519603.
Tax Foundation. 2010. Tax Data from the Tax Foundation. Tax
Foundation, Website: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/ (February ).
Wikipedia. 2010. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development. Wikipedia, Website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oecd#cite_note-10 (February 26).
Wilson, J.D. 1999. Theories of Tax Competition. National Tax
Journal, Vol 52, No. 2 (June): 269-304.
Zaman, Asad. 2008. Islamic Economics: A Survey of the Literature.
University of Birmingham: Religions and Development Research Programme,
Working Paper No. 22 (June 1). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1282786.
Lawrence C. Smith, Jr., Louisiana Tech University (Retired)
L. Murphy Smith, Texas A&M University
William C. Gruben, Texas A&M International University
Exhibit 1: OECD Member Countries
Founding members (1961):
Austria Luxembourg
Belgium Netherlands
Canada Norway
Denmark Portugal
France Spain
Germany Sweden
Greece Switzerland
Iceland Turkey *
Ireland United Kingdom
Italy United States
Admitted later (listed chronologically with year of admission):
Japan (1964) Czech Republic (1995)
Finland (1969) Hungary (1996)
Australia (1971) Poland * (1996)
New Zealand (1973) Republic of Korea (1996)
Mexico * (1994) Slovakia (2000)
Note: Currently there are 30 full members of the OECD. Among these,
Mexico, Poland and Turkey (identified with *) are characterized as
upper middle-income economies by the World Bank. The other 27 members
are characterized as high-income economies.
Exhibit 2: Income Tax Rates and Nominal GDP in US$ by Country by Year
Federal
Corporate Top State Combined
Income Tax Corporate Federal and
Rate Income Tax State Rate
Rank Country Adjusted Rate (Adjusted)
1 Japan 30 11.56 39.54
2 United States 35 6.57 39.27
3 Germany 26.38 17 38.9
4 Canada 22.1 14 36.1
5 France 34.43 0 34.4
6 Belgium 33.99 0 33.99
7 Italy 33 0 33
8 New Zealand 33 0 33
9 Spain 32.5 0 32.5
10 Luxembourg 22.88 7.5 30.38
11 Australia 30 0 30
12 United Kingdom 30 0 30
13 Mexico 28 0 28
14 Norway 28 0 28
15 Sweden 28 0 28
16 Korea 25 2.5 27.5
17 Portugal 25 1.5 26.5
18 Finland 26 0 26
19 Netherlands 25.5 0 25.5
20 Austria 25 0 25
21 Denmark 25 0 25
22 Greece 25 0 25
Czech
23 Republic 24 0 24
24 Switzerland 8.5 14.64 21.32
25 Hungary 20 0 20
26 Turkey 20 0 20
27 Poland 19 0 19
Slovak
28 Republic 19 0 19
29 Iceland 18 0 18
30 Ireland 12.5 0 12.5
AVERAGE 25.49 2.51 27.65
GDP GDP GDP
Nominal - Nominal - Nominal -
Rank Country US$ Yr1 US$ Yr2 US$ Yr3
1 Japan 4,552.19 4,362.58 4,380.39
2 United States 12,638.38 13,398.93 14,077.65
3 Germany 2,793.23 2,919.51 3,328.18
4 Canada 1,133.76 1,277.56 1,427.19
5 France 2,147.76 2,270.35 2,597.70
6 Belgium 376.99 400.30 459.03
7 Italy 1,780.78 1,865.11 2,117.52
8 New Zealand 109.49 106.11 129.00
9 Spain 1,132.13 1,235.92 1,442.91
10 Luxembourg 37.67 42.59 49.72
11 Australia 713.21 755.20 910.33
12 United Kingdom 2,282.89 2,442.95 2,800.11
13 Mexico 849.03 952.34 1,025.43
14 Norway 302.01 336.73 388.48
15 Sweden 366.01 393.15 453.32
16 Korea 844.87 951.77 1,049.24
17 Portugal 185.77 195.19 223.66
18 Finland 195.67 209.71 246.25
19 Netherlands 639.58 678.32 779.43
20 Austria 303.45 321.65 371.14
21 Denmark 257.68 273.87 310.06
22 Greece 246.22 267.71 312.75
Czech
23 Republic 124.55 142.61 174.22
24 Switzerland 372.48 391.23 434.09
25 Hungary 110.20 113.01 138.76
26 Turkey 482.69 529.19 649.13
27 Poland 303.98 341.67 425.32
Slovak
28 Republic 47.98 56.00 75.21
29 Iceland 16.30 16.65 20.32
30 Ireland 201.93 221.95 260.08
AVERAGE 1,184.96 1,249.00 1,368.55
GDP
Nominal -
Rank Country US$ Yr4
1 Japan 4,910.69
2 United States 14,441.43
3 Germany 3,673.11
4 Canada 1,499.55
5 France 2,866.95
6 Belgium 506.18
7 Italy 2,313.89
8 New Zealand 128.41
9 Spain 1,601.96
10 Luxembourg 54.97
11 Australia 1,013.46
12 United Kingdom 2,680.00
13 Mexico 1,088.13
14 Norway 451.83
15 Sweden 478.96
16 Korea 929.12
17 Portugal 244.64
18 Finland 271.87
19 Netherlands 876.97
20 Austria 414.83
21 Denmark 340.03
22 Greece 357.55
Czech
23 Republic 216.35
24 Switzerland 500.26
25 Hungary 155.93
26 Turkey 729.98
27 Poland 527.87
Slovak
28 Republic 95.40
29 Iceland 16.79
30 Ireland 267.58
AVERAGE 1,455.16
DATES: YR1 = 2005 YR2 = 2006 YR3 = 2007 YR4 = 2008
Sources: The Tax Foundation 2008; OECD 2010.
Exhibit 3: Change in GDP by Country by Year
Combined GDP
Federal and Constant -
State Rate % Change,
Rank Country (Adjusted) Yr1 to Yr2
1 Japan 39.54 (4.17)
2 United States 39.27 6.02
3 Germany 38.9 4.52
4 Canada 36.1 12.68
5 France 34.4 5.71
6 Belgium 33.99 6.18
7 Italy 33 4.74
8 New Zealand 33 (3.09)
9 Spain 32.5 9.17
10 Luxembourg 30.38 13.07
11 Australia 30 5.89
12 United Kingdom 30 7.01
13 Mexico 28 12.17
14 Norway 28 11.50
15 Sweden 28 7.42
16 Korea 27.5 12.65
17 Portugal 26.5 5.07
18 Finland 26 7.17
19 Netherlands 25.5 6.06
20 Austria 25 6.00
21 Denmark 25 6.28
22 Greece 25 8.73
23 Czech Republic 24 14.50
24 Switzerland 21.32 5.04
25 Hungary 20 2.55
26 Turkey 20 9.63
27 Poland 19 12.40
28 Slovak Republic 19 16.71
29 Iceland 18 2.11
30 Ireland 12.5 9.92
AVERAGE 27.65 7.45
GDP GDP
Constant - Constant - %
% Change, Change, Yr3
Rank Country Yr2 to Yr3 to Yr4
1 Japan 0.41 12.11
2 United States 5.07 2.58
3 Germany 14.00 10.36
4 Canada 11.71 5.07
5 France 14.42 10.36
6 Belgium 14.67 10.27
7 Italy 13.53 9.27
8 New Zealand 21.57 (0.45)
9 Spain 16.75 11.02
10 Luxembourg 16.74 10.56
11 Australia 20.54 11.33
12 United Kingdom 14.62 (4.29)
13 Mexico 7.67 6.11
14 Norway 15.37 16.31
15 Sweden 15.30 5.66
16 Korea 10.24 (11.45)
17 Portugal 14.59 9.38
18 Finland 17.43 10.40
19 Netherlands 14.91 12.51
20 Austria 15.39 11.77
21 Denmark 13.22 9.66
22 Greece 16.82 14.32
23 Czech Republic 22.16 24.19
24 Switzerland 10.95 15.24
25 Hungary 22.79 12.38
26 Turkey 22.66 12.46
27 Poland 24.48 24.11
28 Slovak Republic 34.30 26.86
29 Iceland 22.05 (17.37)
30 Ireland 17.18 2.88
AVERAGE 16.05 9.12
DATES: YR1 = 2005 YR2 = 2006 YR3 = 2007 YR4 = 2008
Exhibit 4: Percent Change in GDP by Country by Year Grouped by High/
Low Tax Rates
Combined GDP
Federal and Constant -
State Rate % Change,
Rank Country (Adjusted) Yr1 to Yr2
1 Japan 39.54 (4.17)
2 United States 39.27 6.02
3 Germany 38.9 4.52
4 Canada 36.1 12.68
5 France 34.4 5.71
6 Belgium 33.99 6.18
7 Italy 33 4.74
8 New Zealand 33 (3.09)
9 Spain 32.5 9.17
10 Luxembourg 30.38 13.07
11 Australia 30 5.89
12 United Kingdom 30 7.01
13 Mexico 28 12.17
14 Norway 28 11.50
15 Sweden 28 7.42
AVERAGE 33.01 6.58
16 Korea 27.5 12.65
17 Portugal 26.5 5.07
18 Finland 26 7.17
19 Netherlands 25.5 6.06
20 Austria 25 6.00
21 Denmark 25 6.28
22 Greece 25 8.73
23 Czech Republic 24 14.50
24 Switzerland 21.32 5.04
25 Hungary 20 2.55
26 Turkey 20 9.63
27 Poland 19 12.40
28 Slovak Republic 19 16.71
29 Iceland 18 2.11
30 Ireland 12.5 9.92
AVERAGE 22.29 8.32
GDP GDP
Constant - Constant - %
% Change, Change, Yr3
Rank Country Yr2 to Yr3 to Yr4
1 Japan 0.41 12.11
2 United States 5.07 2.58
3 Germany 14.00 10.36
4 Canada 11.71 5.07
5 France 14.42 10.36
6 Belgium 14.67 10.27
7 Italy 13.53 9.27
8 New Zealand 21.57 (0.45)
9 Spain 16.75 11.02
10 Luxembourg 16.74 10.56
11 Australia 20.54 11.33
12 United Kingdom 14.62 (4.29)
13 Mexico 7.67 6.11
14 Norway 15.37 16.31
15 Sweden 15.30 5.66
AVERAGE 13.49 7.75
16 Korea 10.24 (11.45)
17 Portugal 14.59 9.38
18 Finland 17.43 10.40
19 Netherlands 14.91 12.51
20 Austria 15.39 11.77
21 Denmark 13.22 9.66
22 Greece 16.82 14.32
23 Czech Republic 22.16 24.19
24 Switzerland 10.95 15.24
25 Hungary 22.79 12.38
26 Turkey 22.66 12.46
27 Poland 24.48 24.11
28 Slovak Republic 34.30 26.86
29 Iceland 22.05 (17.37)
30 Ireland 17.18 2.88
AVERAGE 18.61 10.49
DATES: YR1 = 2005 YR2 = 2006 YR3 = 2007 YR4 = 2008
Exhibit 5: Tax and Unemployment Rates by Country by Year
Combined
Federal and
State Rate Unemployment Unemployment
Rank Country (Adjusted) Rate Yr1 Rate Yr2
1 Japan 39.54 4.40 4.10
2 United States 39.27 5.10 4.60
3 Germany 38.9 11.10 10.30
4 Canada 36.1 6.80 6.30
5 France 34.4 8.90 8.80
6 Belgium 33.99 8.50 8.30
7 Italy 33 7.70 6.80
8 New Zealand 33 3.80 3.80
9 Spain 32.5 9.20 8.51
10 Luxembourg 30.38 na na
11 Australia 30 5.00 4.80
12 United Kingdom 30 4.60 5.40
13 Mexico 28 3.51 3.16
14 Norway 28 4.60 3.40
15 Sweden 28 6.00 5.40
16 Korea 27.5 3.70 3.50
17 Portugal 26.5 7.60 7.70
18 Finland 26 8.30 7.70
19 Netherlands 25.5 5.10 4.20
20 Austria 25 5.20 4.70
21 Denmark 25 5.00 4.10
22 Greece 25 9.60 8.80
23 Czech Republic 24 7.90 7.10
24 Switzerland 21.32 4.40 4.00
25 Hungary 20 7.20 7.50
26 Turkey 20 10.30 9.90
27 Poland 19 17.70 13.80
28 Slovak Republic 19 16.20 13.30
29 Iceland 18 2.60 2.90
30 Ireland 12.5 4.30 4.00
AVERAGE 27.65 7.05 6.44
Unemployment Unemployment
Rank ent Rate Yr3 Rate Yr4
1 3.90 4.00
2 4.60 5.80
3 8.60 7.50
4 6.00 6.10
5 8.00 7.40
6 7.50 7.00
7 6.10 6.70
8 3.70 4.20
9 8.30 11.34
10 na 4.80
11 4.40 4.20
12 5.30 5.30
13 3.39 3.50
14 2.50 2.60
15 6.10 6.20
16 3.20 3.20
17 8.00 7.60
18 6.80 6.40
19 3.50 3.00
20 4.40 3.80
21 4.00 3.40
22 8.10 7.20
23 5.30 4.40
24 3.60 3.40
25 7.40 7.80
26 10.30 11.00
27 9.60 7.10
28 11.00 9.60
29 2.30 3.00
30 4.00 5.20
5.86 5.76
DATES: YR1 = 2005 YR2 = 2006 YR3 = 2007 YR4 = 2008
Exhibit 6: Percent Change in Unemployment Rate by Country by Year
Combined % Change
Federal and in Unemployment
State Rate Rate
Rank Country (Adjusted) Yr1 to Yr2
1 Japan 39.54 (6.82)
2 United States 39.27 (9.80)
3 Germany 38.9 (7.21)
4 Canada 36.1 (7.35)
5 France 34.4 (1.12)
6 Belgium 33.99 (2.35)
7 Italy 33 (11.69)
8 New Zealand 33 0.00
9 Spain 32.5 (7.50)
10 Luxembourg 30.38 N/A
11 Australia 30 (4.00)
12 United Kingdom 30 17.39
13 Mexico 28 (9.84)
14 Norway 28 (26.09)
15 Sweden 28 (10.00)
16 Korea 27.5 (5.41)
17 Portugal 26.5 1.32
18 Finland 26 (7.23)
19 Netherlands 25.5 (17.65)
20 Austria 25 (9.62)
21 Denmark 25 (18.00)
22 Greece 25 (8.33)
23 Czech Republic 24 (10.13)
24 Switzerland 21.32 (9.09)
25 Hungary 20 4.17
26 Turkey 20 (3.88)
27 Poland 19 (22.03)
28 Slovak Republic 19 (17.90)
29 Iceland 18 11.54
30 Ireland 12.5 (6.98)
AVERAGE 27.65 (7.09)
% Change % Change
in Unemployment in Unemployment
Rate Rate
Rank Country Yr2 to Yr3 Yr3 to Yr4
1 Japan (4.88) 2.56
2 United States 0.00 26.09
3 Germany (16.50) (12.79)
4 Canada (4.76) 1.67
5 France (9.09) (7.50)
6 Belgium (9.64) (6.67)
7 Italy (10.29) 9.84
8 New Zealand (2.63) 13.51
9 Spain (2.47) 36.63
10 Luxembourg N/A N/A
11 Australia (8.33) (4.55)
12 United Kingdom (1.85) 0.00
13 Mexico 7.18 3.42
14 Norway (26.47) 4.00
15 Sweden 12.96 1.64
16 Korea (8.57) 0.00
17 Portugal 3.90 (5.00)
18 Finland (11.69) (5.88)
19 Netherlands (16.67) (14.29)
20 Austria (6.38) (13.64)
21 Denmark (2.44) (15.00)
22 Greece (7.95) (11.11)
23 Czech Republic (25.35) (16.98)
24 Switzerland (10.00) (5.56)
25 Hungary (1.33) 5.41
26 Turkey 4.04 6.80
27 Poland (30.43) (26.04)
28 Slovak Republic (17.29) (12.73)
29 Iceland (20.69) 30.43
30 Ireland 0.00 30.00
AVERAGE (7.85) 0.49
DATES: YR1 = 2005 YR2 = 2006 YR3 = 2007 YR4 = 2008
Exhibit 7: Percent Change in Unemployment by Country by Year--Grouped
by High/Low Tax Rates
Combined % Change
Federal and in Unemployment
State Rate Rate
Rank Country (Adjusted) Yr1 to Yr2
1 Japan 39.54 (6.82)
2 United States 39.27 (9.80)
3 Germany 38.9 (7.21)
4 Canada 36.1 (7.35)
5 France 34.4 (1.12)
6 Belgium 33.99 (2.35)
7 Italy 33 (11.69)
8 New Zealand 33 0.00
9 Spain 32.5 (7.50)
10 Luxembourg 30.38 N/A
11 Australia 30 (4.00)
12 United Kingdom 30 17.39
13 Mexico 28 (9.84)
14 Norway 28 (26.09)
15 Sweden 28 (10.00)
16 Korea 27.5 (5.41)
17 Portugal 26.5 1.32
18 Finland 26 (7.23)
19 Netherlands 25.5 (17.65)
20 Austria 25 (9.62)
21 Denmark 25 (18.00)
22 Greece 25 (8.33)
23 Czech Republic 24 (10.13)
24 Switzerland 21.32 (9.09)
25 Hungary 20 4.17
26 Turkey 20 (3.88)
27 Poland 19 (22.03)
28 Slovak Republic 19 (17.90)
29 Iceland 18 11.54
30 Ireland 12.5 (6.98)
AVERAGE 27.65 (7.09)
% Change % Change
in Unemployment in Unemployment
Rate Rate
Rank Country Yr2 to Yr3 Yr3 to Yr4
1 Japan (4.88) 2.56
2 United States 0.00 26.09
3 Germany (16.50) (12.79)
4 Canada (4.76) 1.67
5 France (9.09) (7.50)
6 Belgium (9.64) (6.67)
7 Italy (10.29) 9.84
8 New Zealand (2.63) 13.51
9 Spain (2.47) 36.63
10 Luxembourg N/A N/A
11 Australia (8.33) (4.55)
12 United Kingdom (1.85) 0.00
13 Mexico 7.18 3.42
14 Norway (26.47) 4.00
15 Sweden 12.96 1.64
16 Korea (8.57) 0.00
17 Portugal 3.90 (5.00)
18 Finland (11.69) (5.88)
19 Netherlands (16.67) (14.29)
20 Austria (6.38) (13.64)
21 Denmark (2.44) (15.00)
22 Greece (7.95) (11.11)
23 Czech Republic (25.35) (16.98)
24 Switzerland (10.00) (5.56)
25 Hungary (1.33) 5.41
26 Turkey 4.04 6.80
27 Poland (30.43) (26.04)
28 Slovak Republic (17.29) (12.73)
29 Iceland (20.69) 30.43
30 Ireland 0.00 30.00
AVERAGE (7.85) 0.49
DATES: YR1 = 2005 YR2 = 2006 YR3 = 2007 YR4 =2008
Exhibit 8: Tax and Gross Savings as a % of GDP by Country by Year
Combined Gross Gross Gross
Federal and Savings Savings Savings
State Rate as % of as % of as % of
Rank Country (Adjusted) GDP Yr1 GDP Yr2 GDP Yr3
1 Japan 39.54 25.08 24.91 24.88
2 United States 39.27 14.11 15.19 14.21
3 Germany 38.9 23.46 25.31 27.90
4 Canada 36.1 26.23 27.63 27.68
5 France 34.4 20.46 21.51 22.28
6 Belgium 33.99 23.13 24.58 25.60
7 Italy 33 22.47 22.80 23.50
8 New Zealand 33
9 Spain 32.5 31.17 32.15 31.98
10 Luxembourg 30.38
11 Australia 30 20.80 22.02
12 United Kingdom 30 14.61 14.54 15.55
13 Mexico 28
14 Norway 28 34.51 39.04 39.97
15 Sweden 28 25.04 29.16 32.21
16 Korea 27.5 31.95 30.71 31.36
17 Portugal 26.5 14.90 14.09 15.01
18 Finland 26 26.97 28.49 31.43
19 Netherlands 25.5 30.34 34.38 35.11
20 Austria 25 27.18 27.65 29.37
21 Denmark 25 28.24 28.86 27.52
22 Greece 25 12.33 13.81
23 Czech Republic 24 27.15 27.79 29.62
24 Switzerland 21.32 36.79 38.15
25 Hungary 20 21.17 23.03 25.52
26 Turkey 20
27 Poland 19 20.46 20.81 22.93
28 Slovak Republic 19 25.19 26.15 29.49
29 Iceland 18
30 Ireland 12.5 22.87 24.56 21.91
AVERAGE 27.65 24.26 25.49 26.59
DATES: YR1 = 2005 YR2 = 2006 YR3 = 2007 YR4 = 2008 - not available.
Exhibit 9: Tax and Gross Savings as a % of GDP by Country by
Year--Grouped by High/Low Tax Rates
Combined Gross Gross Gross
Federal and Savings Savings Savings
State Rate as % of as % of as % of
Rank Country (Adjusted) GDP Yr1 GDP Yr2 GDP Yr3
1 Japan 39.54 25.08 24.91 24.88
2 United States 39.27 14.11 15.19 14.21
3 Germany 38.9 23.46 25.31 27.90
4 Canada 36.1 26.23 27.63 27.68
5 France 34.4 20.46 21.51 22.28
6 Belgium 33.99 23.13 24.58 25.60
7 Italy 33 22.47 22.80 23.50
8 New Zealand 33
9 Spain 32.5 31.17 32.15 31.98
10 Luxembourg 30.38
11 Australia 30 20.80 22.02
12 United Kingdom 30 14.61 14.54 15.55
13 Mexico 28
14 Norway 28 34.51 39.04 39.97
15 Sweden 28 25.04 29.16 32.21
AVERAGE 33.01 23.42 24.90 25.90
16 Korea 27.5 31.95 30.71 31.36
17 Portugal 26.5 14.90 14.09 15.01
18 Finland 26 26.97 28.49 31.43
19 Netherlands 25.5 30.34 34.38 35.11
20 Austria 25 27.18 27.65 29.37
21 Denmark 25 28.24 28.86 27.52
22 Greece 25 12.33 13.81
23 Czech Republic 24 27.15 27.79 29.62
24 Switzerland 21.32 36.79 38.15
25 Hungary 20 21.17 23.03 25.52
26 Turkey 20
27 Poland 19 20.46 20.81 22.93
28 Slovak Republic 19 25.19 26.15 29.49
29 Iceland 18
30 Ireland 12.5 22.87 24.56 21.91
AVERAGE 22.29 25.04 26.04 27.21
DATES: YR1 = 2005 YR2 = 2006 YR3 = 2007 YR4 = 2008 - not available.
Exhibit 10: Percent Change in Gross Savings as a % of GDP
by Country by Year
Grouped by High/Low Tax Rates
Combined % Change In
Federal end Gross % Change In
State Rate Savings Gross Savings
Rank Country (Adjusted) Yr1 to Yr2 Yr2 to Yr3
1 Japan 39.54 1.36 2.21
2 United States 39.27 10.49 -4.42
3 Germany 38.9 11.35 12.97
4 Canada 36.1 8.34 2.69
5 France 34.4 7.66 5.94
6 Belgium 33.99 9.46 6.84
7 Italy 33 3.57 4.68
8 New Zealand 33 N/A N/A
9 Span 32.5 7.28 3.02
10 Luxembourg 30.38 N/A N/A
11 Australia 30 8.89 N/A
12 United Kingdom 30 2.33 9.68
13 Mexico 28 N/A N/A
14 Norway 28 15.72 5.58
15 Sweden 28 21.40 13.28
AVERAGE 33.01 8.99 6.68
16 Korea 27.5 1.09 7.35
17 Portugal 26.5 -4.14 8.57
18 Finland 26 10.81 14.98
19 Netherlands 25.5 17.17 5.80
20 Austria 25 5.25 9.98
21 Denmark 25 5.62 -3.08
22 Greece 25 17.04 N/A
23 Czech Republic 24 9.33 13.09
24 Switzerland 21.32 7.47 N/A
25 Hungary 20 13.01 12.19
26 Turkey 20 N/A N/A
27 Poland 19 8.06 17.62
28 Slovak Republic 19 12.65 24.52
29 Iceland 18 N/A N/A
30 Ireland 12.5 13.13 -5.39
AVERAGE 22.29 8.96 9.60
DATES: YR1 = 2006 YR2 = 2006 YR3 = 2007 YR4 = 2008 - Not Available.