Estimating the Size of the Shadow Economies Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research Report ESTIMATING THE SIZE OF THE “market-based production of goods and services, wheth- SHADOW ECONOMIES OF HIGHLY- er legal or illegal, that escapes detection in the official estimates of GDP.” One of the broadest definitions in- DEVELOPED COUNTRIES: cludes: “those economic activities and the income de- SELECTED NEW RESULTS rived from them that circumvent government regulation, taxation or observation” (Dell’Anno 2003; Dell’Anno and Schneider 2004). 1 FRIEDRICH SCHNEIDER This article uses the following, narrower, definition of the shadow economy.3 The shadow economy includes Introduction all market-based legal production of goods and services that are deliberately concealed from public authorities Empirical research into the size and development of the for the following reasons: global shadow economy has grown rapidly (Feld and Schneider 2010; Gerxhani 2003; Schneider 2011, 2015; (1) to avoid payment of taxes, e.g. income taxes or value Schneider and Williams 2013). The goal of this paper added taxes, is to present the latest shadow economy estimates for (2) to avoid payment of social security contributions, 36 highly-developed countries over 2003–2016 and to (3) to avoid certain legal labor market standards, such as discuss their different developments. The article begins minimum wages, maximum working hours, safety with some theoretical considerations, including a defini- standards, etc., and tion of the shadow economy and a brief discussion of its (4) to avoid complying with certain administrative main causes. This is followed by a short description of procedures, such as completing statistical question- the various measurement methods and estimates of the naires or other administrative forms. size of the shadow economies of 36 highly-developed countries over 2003–2016. Finally, the last section offers Theorizing about the shadow economy a summary and some concluding remarks. Individuals are rational calculators who weigh up costs and benefits when considering breaking the law. Their Theoretical considerations decision to partially or completely participate in the shadow economy is a choice overshadowed by uncer- Defining the shadow economy tainty, as it involves a trade-off between gains if their activities are not discovered and losses if they are dis- Researchers attempting to measure the size of the covered and penalized. Shadow economic activities SE shadow economy face the question of how to define thus negatively depend on the probability of detection p it (Schneider 2015; Schneider and Enste 2000, 2002; and potential fines f, and positively on the opportunity Schneider and Williams 2013; Alm, Martinez-Vazquez costs of remaining formal denoted as B. The opportu- and Schneider 2004; Feld and Schneider 2010). One nity costs are positively determined by the burden of commonly used working definition is all currently un- taxation T and high labor costs W – individual income registered economic activities that would contribute to generated in the shadow economy is usually categorized the officially calculated (or observed) Gross National as labor income rather than capital income – due to la- Product if observed.2 Smith (1994, 18) uses the definition bor market regulations. Hence, the higher the tax burden and labor costs, the more incentives individuals have to 1 Johannes Kepler University of Linz. 2 This definition is used, for example, by Feige (1989, 1994) and avoid these costs by working in the shadow economy. Schneider (2011, 2015). Do-it-yourself activities are not included. For estimates of the shadow economy and do-it-yourself activities for 3 Compare also the excellent discussion of the definition of a shadow Germany, see Buehn, Karmann and Schneider (2009). economy in Pedersen (2003) and Kazemier (2006). CESifo DICE Report 4/2016 (December) 44 Research Report The probability of detection p itself depends on enforce- Methods for estimating the size of the shadow economy ment actions A taken by the tax authority and on facili- tating activities F accomplished by individuals to reduce Estimating the size of a shadow economy is a difficult the detection of shadow economic activities. This dis- and challenging task. This article only outlines various cussion suggests the following structural equation: procedures for estimating the size of a shadow econo- my.6 Three different categories of measurement meth- ! + ! ! + + + ( " % " %+ ods are most widely used, and each is briefly discussed. SE = SE*p$A,F'; f ;B$T,W '- ) # & # &, Direct approaches Hence, shadow economic activities may be defined as those economic activities and income earned that cir- These are microeconomic approaches that either employ cumvent government regulation, taxation or observa- well-designed surveys and samples based on voluntary tion. More narrowly, the shadow economy includes mon- replies, or tax auditing and other compliance methods. etary and non-monetary transactions of a legal nature; Sample surveys designed to estimate the shadow econ- hence all productive economic activities that would gen- omy are widely used.7 The main disadvantages of this erally be taxable were they reported to the state (tax) au- method are the flaws inherent in all surveys. For exam- thorities. Such activities are deliberately concealed from ple, the average precision and results depend heavily on public authorities to avoid payment of income, value the respondent’s willingness to cooperate, it is difficult added or other taxes and social security contributions, to assess the amount of undeclared work from a direct or to avoid compliance with certain legal labor market questionnaire, most interviewees hesitate to confess standards such as minimum wages, maximum working to fraudulent behavior, and responses are of uncertain hours, or safety standards and administrative proce- reliability. dures. The shadow economy thus focuses on productive economic activities that would normally be included in Indirect approaches the national accounts, but which remain underground due to tax or regulatory burdens.4 Although such legal These approaches, which are also called indicator ap- activities would contribute to a country’s value added, proaches, are mostly macroeconomic and use various they are not captured in national accounts because they economic and other indicators that contain informa- are produced in illicit ways. Informal household eco- tion about the development of the shadow economy nomic activities such as do-it-yourself activities and over time. Relating them to the definition of the shad- neighborly help are typically excluded from the analysis ow economy, they provide value added figures. In most of the shadow economy.5 cases, legally-bought material is often included; hence, they provide upper-bound estimates with the danger of What are the most important determinants influencing a double counting problem due to the inclusion of the the shadow economy? Table 1 offers an overview of legally-bought material. Therefore a wide (broad) defi- these factors. nition of the shadow economy is applied; especially as some criminal activities like human trafficking are also included. There are currently five indicators that leave some traces of the shadow economy.8 6 The extensive discussion over the pros and cons of the various meth- ods used to measure/estimate the shadow economy is not documented here due to space reasons; compare, for example, Feld and Schneider (2010), Schneider (2015) and Schneider and Williams (2013). 4 Although classical crime activities such as drug dealing are inde- 7 The direct method of voluntary sample surveys was extensively pendent of increasing taxes and the causal variables included in the used for the first time for Norway by Isachsen, Klovland and Strom empirical models are only imperfectly linked (or causal) to classical (1982), and Isachsen and Strom (1985). For Denmark this method is crime activities, the footprints used to indicate shadow economic activ- used by Mogensen et al. (1995) in which they report “estimates” of the ities such as currency in circulation also apply for classic crime. Hence, shadow economy of 2.7% of GDP for 1989, 4.2% of GDP for 1991, 3.0% macroeconomic shadow economy estimates do not typically distin- of GDP for 1993 and 3.1% of GDP for 1994. See also newer studies like guish legal from illegal underground activities; but instead represent Feld and Larsen (2005, 2008, 2009) that estimate similar sizes for the the whole informal economy spectrum. shadow economy of Germany. The advantages and disadvantages of 5 From a social perspective, maybe even from an economic one, soft this method are extensively dealt with by Pedersen (2003), Mogensen forms of illicit employment such as moonlighting (e.g. construction (1985) and Mogensen et al. (1995) in their excellent and very carefully work in private homes) and its contribution to aggregate value add- conducted investigations. ed may be assessed positively. For a discussion of these issues, see 8 Due to space constraints, these approaches are merely given a men- Thomas (1992) and Buehn, Karmann and Schneider (2009). tion and not explored in greater detail. Compare Schneider (2015). 45 CESifo DICE Report 4/2016 (December) Research Report Table 1 The main causes determining the shadow economy Causal variable Theoretical reasoning References (1) Tax and social The distortion of the overall tax burden affects labor-leisure E.g. Johnson, Kaufmann and security contribution choices and may stimulate labor supply in the shadow economy. Zoido-Lobatón (1998a,b); Giles burdens The bigger the difference between the total labor cost in the of- (1999a); Tanzi (1999); Schneider ficial economy and after-tax earnings (from work), the greater (2003, 2005, 2015); Dell’Anno the incentive to reduce the tax wedge and work in the shadow (2007); Dell’Anno, Gomez-Antonio economy. This tax wedge depends on social security burden/pay- and Alanon Pardo (2007); Schneider ments and the overall tax burden, making them a key determinant and Williams (2013). in the existence of the shadow economy. (2) Quality of public The quality of public institutions is another key factor in the de- E.g. Johnson et al. (1998a,b); Fried- institutions velopment of the informal sector.