There are a lot of ‘competitiveness’-related rankings of countries and states out there, from the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, to the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings. (We’ll address some of these in due course.) It’s interesting to note, for starters, that the highly taxed, highly regulated Scandinavian economies seem to do just as well as their low-tax, lightly regulated peers. Recently we made up a little graph to illustrate this, looking at the WEF’s ranking:
There’s no obvious trend here, is there? The high-tax countries seem to be just as ‘competitive’ as the low-tax ones, it seems, even on the WEF’s measures, (which are somewhat skewed toward the low-tax, light regulation model.) The non-trend you see in this graph is just as Martin Wolf, Paul Krugman and various others would have predicted.
“The current “race to the bottom” in which tax competition among developing countries takes place to attract corporate and foreign direct investment is having a negative impact on government budgets needed to finance the advancement of women’s rights.
We prefer the more economically literate term ‘tax wars‘ instead of tax ‘competition’, but no matter: there is a clear and powerful argument here. The key point is not that budget cuts affect everyone, including women, but that women are disproportionately affected by tax policies that are substantially the fruit of tax wars. It is not just about how much revenue is raised, either: it is about how revenue is raised. As it notes: