Pollcy, Re"srch, and External Affairs WORKING PAPERS Public Economic Country Economics Department The World Bank May 1991 WPS 689 Do Tax Policies Stimulate Investment'-, in Physical and Research and Development Capital? -1 C,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anwar Shah and John Baffes Among tax policies designed to stimulate investments in Paki- stan, the investment tax credit has not been cost-effective. But allowing full expensing for research and development costs has been. uwPolicy.Rseavch. and Extana AConplcx didi tts PRE WoddngPipeps todisnninatethefindings of wozk in poess and to encouage the exchange of ideas among Bank taff and all othera inted fit development ines. These papers ery the names of the autos, reflect only thr iews, mnd should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and concions are the authors' own. They should not be auhbuted to the Wodd Bank, its Board of Diretors, its nanaganent, or any of its mnember coutnies. Poliy, R.aroh, and Ext4nl Affirs Pbflb Ec6nomks WPS 689 This paper - a product of the Public Economics Division, Country Economics Department -is pan of a larger effort in PRE to evaluate tax incentives for industrial and technological development. Copies are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, X 20433. Please contact Ann Bhalla, room N10-053, extension 37699 (25 pages, with tables). Tax policy instruments are often used to stimu- and their implications for revenues foregono by late private investment in developing counties. the government. But researchers have not explf A'd how well such policies have met stated policy objectives. The model results yield an objective, empiri- cally derived cost-benefit ratio that is superior to To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tax standard cost-benefit analysis and King-Fullerton incentives for industrial and technological type marginal effective tax rate analysis. development, Shah and Baffes specify a dynamic, prodfiction structure model with endogenous Shah and Baffes apply this model MMnpiri- capacity utilization. cally for Pakistan. Yhe results suggest that the invesment tax credit has not been effective at Taxes and incentives are part of the user cost stimulating investments in Pakistan. The private of capital, and thereby affect producer decisions investment stimulated has been less thanwthe about choice of inputs, technology, and capital government revenues foregone. accumulation. Allowing full expensing for rsarch and Empirical estimates of this model allow one development expenditures, on the other hand, to infer both the impact of investtment incentives has been cost-effective. The PRE Working Paper Series diuiinates the fiTndings of otod wnder way in di Banls Poliqy, Reseucl ad Exmtl AffairsComplex. Anobjective,of theseries is togetthesefingsoutqly,ersentaifpisarelo wesuhmnffliypolishd. The findings, iiterpretations, mid conclusions in thm papers do not necessarily epesat ofkid Bank poliy. Ploduced by thec PRE Dissektin Center Table of Contents I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1 II. Corporate Tax Incentives in Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 111. The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . ......... 3 L. Flexible Accelerator . . ......... . . . . ...... . 4 ii. Empirical Model . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 6 IV. Data, Estimation and Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 V. Empirical Results . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 VI. The Impact of Tax Policies on Investment in Physical and Knowledge Cadital ................... . 14 VII. Policy Implications . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 19 References . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .. .. 20 Appendix A: Derivation of Input Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix Bs Data Description and Construction of Variables . . . . 24 *This is one of a series of paper commissioned by the World 3ank Research Project (RPO #675-10), An Evaluation of Tax Incentives for Industrial al. I Technological Development". The project is directed by Anwar Shah of the Public Economics Division, World Bank. We are grateful to Bela Balassa and Terean Baysan for comments. I. Introduction Tax policy instruments are frequently used to stimulate private Lnvestments in developing countries. The impact of such policies in meeting stated policy objectives remains an unexplored area of research. This paper specifies an empirical framework to evalute the cost effectiveness of incentive. for industrial and technological development offered through the tax code. It takes a first step in quantifying the impact of investment incentives in stimulating additional investment and also draws implications of such measures for government revenues. Its major point of departure from previous studies on this subject for developing countries is that it models a dynamic production structure with endogenous capacity utilization. Taxes and incentives enter into the user cost of capital and thereby affect producer decisions as to the choice of inputs, technology and capital accumulation. Empirical estimation of this model allows one to infer the impact of investment incen*ives as well as revenue foregone implications of such tax expenditures. Thus the model results yield an empirically derived cost-benefit ratio which due to its objective nature is superior to standard cost-benefit analysis and "king-Fullerton type marginal effective tax rate analysis (for developed country applications see Shah (1986) and Bernstein (1987)). Pakistan has been chosen as a case study for an empirical examination of the effectiveness of investment incentives in view of the policy emphasis on these instruments and also because of excellent time series and cross section industry level data. Section II describee in brief the regime of tax incentives for industrial and technological development in Pakistan. Section III describes the theoretical model aw well as presents an empirical specification. Section IV describes the data and estimation and testing procedures. Section V presents empirical results. Finally, Section VI carries out policy simulations and draws ove-all policy implications from the analyses presented in this paper. 1 Thn *,aper concludes that the investment tax credit has not been an effective instrument for stimulation of investment in Pakistan and that the private investment stimulation offered by this measure, falls short of the revenues foregone by the government. Full expensing allowed for R&D expenditures, on the other hand, has been found to be a cost-offective instrument of tax policy. II. Corporate Tax Incentives in Pakistan Pakistan has followed a stable corpe-ete tax rate regime since early 1960e. Corporate income tax rate at 30% and a super tax at 25% have been maintained consistently during the last two decades. Only in the fiscal year 1989-90, was the super tax rate brought down to 15%. Foreign direct investment receives tax treatmert equivalent to domestic investment. Louses are allowed to be carried forward six years but no carryback of such louses is permitted. A sales tax at 12.5% is payable on all domestically manufactured goods by the producer and on imported goods by the importer. Currently (1989-90), import duties at differential rates are imposed on imported machinery and equipment. These rates vary from 20% to 50% if similar machinery was not manufactured in Pakistan and a higher rate of 80% applies to imported machinery with domestic substitutes. Businesses are further subject to a large number of miscellaneous licensing fees and charges. The regime of fiscal incentives through the corporate income tax has experienced significant changes over time. From time to time, Pakistan has relied upon a variety of fiscal incentives to stimulate investment. These include accelerated capital consumption allowances for certain physical assets, full expensing for R&D investments, tax rebates, regional and industry specific tax holidays and investment tax credits. These are briefly discussed belows Tax Holidays: Tax holiday for two years for specific industries (e.g., engineering goods) and specific regions (most of the country except major metropolitan areas) was introduced in 1959-60. The holiday period was subsequently raised to four years in 1960-61. These tax holidays were eliminated 2 in 1972-73 but reinstated again in 1974-75. Presently tax holidays for fivc years are permitted to engineering goods, poultry farming and processing, dairy farming, cattle or sheep breeding, fish farming, dates processing and manufacture of .gricultural machinery industries and also to all industries in designated areas of the country. Investment tax credits: Industries are eligible for varying tax credite according to location. A general tax credit for balancing, modernization, and replacement of plant and equipment was introduced at 15% rate in 1975-76 but its application was restricted to designated areas. Since 1976- 77, the credit was made available regardless of location and type of industry. This credit was withdrawn in 1989-90 and reinstated again in 1990-91. Tax rebates: Companies exporting goods manufactured in Pakitan are entitled to a rebate of 55% of taxes attributable to such sales. Accelerated Capital Consumption Allowances: Capital consumption allowances follow accelerated schedules for machinery and equipmernt, transport vehicles and housing for workers (25%), oil exploration equipment (100%), ship building (20-30%), and structures (10%) on a declining balance method. Expenditures relating to research and development, transfer and adaptation of technologies and royalties are eligible for full expensing. Of the incentives enumerated earlier, only the two genera:. _..centives, namely, investment tax credit for physical investment and full expensing of ROD expenditures are the subjects of investigation in this paper. Since these two types of incentives are widely used in both the developed and the developing world*, an evaluation of their impacts are expected to yield lessons of general interest to policy makers in Pakistan and elsewhere. The following sections present an empirical examination of this issue. III. The Model A flexible accelerator type dynamic factor demand model with endogenous capacity utilization (see Epstein and Denny, 1983), as described in the following section, is eminently suitable to examlne the impact of tax policies on 3 investment in a developing economy. The model employs a flexible and non- restrlctive technology and capturee short run divergence of fixed factors from th(tAr equilibrium values as well as the speed of such adjustments.1 The theoretical und. pinnings and empirical form of this model is discussed in the following: L. A Flexible Accelerator Model Consider that a typical firm in manufacturing industry faces the following short-run cost function (C ( ))s (1) C(K,I,W,Y) - min (W'Ss Y - F(3,K,I)) where S denotes the vector of perfectly adjustable factors, R denotes the vector of quasi-fixed stocks, I denotes gross investment in those stocks, Y is the level of output while W is the price vector associated with the perfectly adjustable inputs. F(3SK,X) describes the technology and satisfies all classical properties: twice continuously differentiable, increasing in (3, K) and decreasingr in 1. The fact that it 4s decreasing in I reflects the assumption that the quasi-fixed factors are subject to increasing internal costs of adjustment (see Treadway (1970, 1974) and Mortensen (1973)). C(K,I,W,Y) is the instantaneous cost functlon which satisfies: C x 0; C is increasing in (Y, I) and decreasing in Kg C is convex in I and concave in W. At any point in time the firm takes inuut prices, output, and state of technology as given and minimizes the discounted sum of future costs over an .&nfinite horizon. Specifically, the firm selects the investment path that solves: (2) V(K,Y,P) - Ninimum L (|0 (C(K,,W,Y) + P'K)dt: K - I - &8g; Kt|m no where 8 is a diagonal matrix composed of the depreciation ratesl 81 is the depreciation rate of the ith stocks P is the user cost (rental rate) vector corresponding to Kg r is the real rate of discount, which is assumed to be constant. We asgume static expectations with respect to output and prices, i.e., 4 the current 'evel of output and prices will prevail forever. The rmainLng notations are as followas (1) denotes transposLtion: ('1) denotes Lnversions a dot over a functLon (e.g. K) denote. differentiation wlth respect to time. Boldface-type letters represent vectors or matrices. FLnally, subscripts of functions denote dLfferentiatLon (e.g. ;pdenotes differentiation of V wlth respect to the vector P. Note that the user cost of capital embodies the provLsLons in the tax codes and is defined as follows (see Auerbach, 1990): P - q (r + 8)(1 - 7 - 7z)( l-7) 1 where q - purchase price of capital r - weLghted average real cost of debt and equlty finance 8 - economlc depreciation rate 7 - investment tax credit rate Y - corporate tax rate s - present value of depreciation allowances 0 - a profitabllity parameter. V(K, Y,P) is the value function and is characterized by the following set of propertLes (for notational convenience we suppress Lts arguments):2 V 2 0 i se concave ln Ps (r44)Vk - P - V0K C Ot Vi < 0S LV- Yyk O- After defining the value function we can apply the following analogue of Shophard's lemma (McLaren and Cooper, 1980)s (3a) K (K,?,P) - Vpk (j - K), (3b! * (K,Y,?) - -rn, + vKJCx. Expressions (3a-3b) define the polLcy functionw or the optimal stock profiles for both quasL-flxed (3a) and perfectly adjustable (3b) factors. Upon application of a specLfic functLonal form, (3a-3b) will yleld the set of dynamic Lnput demands. 5 ii. Empirical Model In order to empirically implement the model we have to approximate (2) by a functional form. We specify the following quedratic value function (Epstein and Denny, 1983): (4) V(K,y,P) = (1/2j [P'0 We] [W y +w [P IW] [ V7 ~ -1 ° 0 + [P w [r"P &P + ~ we]L 0 r!i [:F Bpp, ApkS Avku 5,,, B"PK, HPI and Fp denote appropriately dimensional matrix parameters; B'pp = Bpp, S;, = s,,, and 'w - BP. Applying Shephard's lemma analogue (3a) to the value function (4) results in: (5a) K (K,Y,P) = (r - P )K + rk (p pP + w W) Y + Gp- K'- K'(K*,Y,P) denoteo the levels of net investment, i.e., the dynamic factor demands. Further, applying (3b) to (4) will yield the demands for the perfectly adjustable inputs: (5b) 3 (K,Y,P) = -r(3".W + BpW9)Y - rk,k(K - r1K) - Fp. Equations (5a) and (5b) form the basis for estimation. Appendix A offers a detailed description of the steps involved to arrive at (5a) and (5b). Notice that an application of Euler equation to (2) will yield the flexible accelerator adjustment paths for K. (6) K ' K(r)(K - t(Y,P)) where X(r) is the matrix describing the adjustment mechanism and K(Y,P) denotes the steady state levels of capital stocks. Then, we can express the set of input demands defined in (5a) ln terms of (3) if w& eett (7a) X(r) - r - Apk, and (7b) K(Y,P) - -(r - Apk) (rApb(BD,P + OW)Y + p)' where (7a-7b) express (Sa) in the flexible accelerator form. 6 IV. Data, XNttuation, asd TGstLng Procedure Data in the current study cover the 1956-1985 time period for total private sector manufacturing industries Ln Pakistan and were obtained from various Pakistan government publicatLons. A total of five inputs were Lncluded in ths study: three quasi-fixed (land and buildings, machinery and equpiment, and R&D) and two perfectly adjustable (labor ond intermediate inputs). Basic data on input shares and their growth rates are presented in Table 1. A detaLled descriptlon of the data as well as the derivation of *.he rental rates of capital used in the analysis is offered in Appendix B. Since ,he model of the previous section was developed in a continuous time framework, some modifications had to be made to render it estimable. First, K was replaced by the discrete approxLmation (Kt - Kt..) and the system of equations (5a-5b) was modified accordingly. Second, the time trend, which a measure of output augmenting technical change, enters the equations as a discrete approximation of the exponential function e -t. Finally, a disturbance error term is additively appended to each equation. These disturbance terms reflect random errors in optimization and are assumed to possess classical statistical properties. While the introduction of such an error structure is an ad hoc procedure, it shares the merit of keeping estimation straightforward, while focusing on economic characteriutics of the model. Since (5a) is a closed form solution for endogenous variables, seemingly unrelateco regressions (SUR) were used to estimate the model. In particular the nonlinear ITSUR procedure available in SAS was utilized to simultaneolsly estimate the parameters of each equation.3 Because the covariance matrix was iterated to convergence, the estimated parameters are asymptotically equivalent to full informatin likelihood estimates (under the assumptions of the error and model structure). Price elasticities are calculated as enj - (aKj/8Pj)(Pj/Ki)r where Pj refers to the rental rate of input j. Those expressions pertain to short-run elasticities. To obtain the long-run elasticities we estimate the steady state level of stocks, x. This results in the substitution of the matrix A pk 7 Table Is Average Growth Rates of Inputs and Input Shares in the Pakistani Manufacturing Industry. Period 1K 1(3 K4 Ks Average Annual Growth Rates of Inputs (in percontages) 1956-65 12.7 11.2 11.5 6.2 8.4 1966-75 .1 3.6 4.2 4.2 8.0 1976-85 3.2 1.2 15.8 -0.2 13.4 Average Input Shares in Total Cost (in percentages) 1956-65 14.39 32.59 0.34 39.26 13.37 1966-75 13.67 38.02 0.41 35.13 12.78 1976-85 8.49 34.24 0.50 38.71 18.07 SOURCEs Calculated from data described in AppendIx B. NOTES: Xi - land and buildings; K2 - machinery and equipment; K3 - R&D; K4 - labor; K5 - intermediate inputs. 8 by the matrix (a - r) APk in (6). Long-run elasticlties are then derlved in a straightforward fashion. Output as well as tax elasticitles are obtalned in a similar manner. V. Empirieal Results Tables 2 and 3 report parameter entimatem regarding the quasi-fixed and perfectly adjustable factors.4 Of these, adjustment coefficients are of special interest. These coefficients give the speed of adjustment of the capital lnputs to their respective long-run equllibrium levels. Specificallyt the land and buildings coefficient (Ml,) is -0.18 which indicates that about 18% of the adjustment process takea place within a year or alternatively it taku.. -ore than five yerrs for the full adjuutm3nt to occur. On the contrary, the coefficient associated with machinery and equipment (M22) indicates that the full adjustment will occur in slightly lo.aa than two years. Finally, th6 R&D adjustment coefficient (M33) indicates that 26% of the adjustment process will occur withln a year. The relatively slow adjustment of R&D as opposed to machinery and equipment is consistent with studies for Canada (Bernstein, 1986) and the US and Japan (Nadiri and Prucha, 1989). Another r.uslt of interest is the cross- adjustment cotiffcients of land and buildings and machinery and equipment with R&D. Contrary to the above mentioned studiem, here we find that a deficient stock of R&D induces substantial decrease in physical capital. Table 4 reports short- and long-run prLce and output elasticitles. The short-run response of capital use to own rental rate changes is very small and negative as expected. Long-run responses on the other hand are substantially larger and exceed unity for structures. Increases in output have a positive long-run effect on all inputs wlth the elasticity exceeding unity for physical assets and R&D capital. Table 5 reports the corporate tax rate and investment tax credit elasticitLes. As expected, corporate income tax rate increases adversely affect 9 Table 2: Reduced Porn Parameter 3stiaates -- guasi-FLxed Factors. Parameter Estimate Parameter Estimate M11 -0.1897 E23 1.6952 (0.77) (0.53) M12 -0.0476 E31 -0.0003 (0.44) (0.08) M13 10.2074 E32 -0.0028 (0.70) (0.47) M21 -0.1012 E33 -0.0050 (0.23) (0.67) M22 -0.5562 Gil -0.2756 (2.74) (0.87) M23 60.1381 G12 0.3451 (2.29) (0.87) M31 0.0059 021 -1.4481 (2.37) (2.42) M32 -0.0003 G22 1.3963 (0.29) (1.95) M33 -C.2634 G31 0.0062 (1.77) (1.76) Ei -0.0900 G32 -0.0011 (0.24) (0.28) E12 -0.1414 0.0379 (0.24) (2.30) E13 0.1993 Hi -40.5454 (0.27) (1.01) B21 0.5306 H2 -219.2600 (0.79) (2.71) E22 -0.8115 H3 -0.3226 (0.77) (0.79) NOTES Numbers in parenthesis denote absolute t-ratios. The subscripts denote: 1 - land and buildings; 2 - machinery and equipment; 3 - R&D; 4- labor; and 5 - intermediate inputs. 10 TALE 3t Reduced Form Parameter Estimates -- Perfectly Adjustable Factors Parameter Estimate Parameter Estimate Rl -0.1362 Q23 0.3310 (0.45) (0.76) R12 0.3479 Sit 0.1395 (0.75) (1.83) R21 a 0.4364 812 0.0872 (2.87) (1.58) R22 -0.5728 S13 4.3916 (2.43) (0.95) Q11 0.1558 821 0.1188 (0.34) (3.09) Q12 -1.2225 S22 0.0772 (0.27) (2.78) Q¶3 0.2409 823 0.2250 (0.28) (0.10) Q21 -0.1964 P1 1527.4000 (0.86 (16.17) Q22 0.2508 F2 380.3700 (0.60) (7.99) NOTES Numbers in parentheses denote absolute t-ratios. The subscripts are defined in Table 2. 11 TAWLE 4t Short- and Long-Run Price and Output Blasticities--Calculated at Sample means. SR LR SR LR e11 -0.083 -1.703 41 0.049 0.110 (0.075) (1.530) (0.045) (0.101) 812 -0.141 -0.214 842 -0.075 -0.074 (0.133) (0.202) (0.072) (0.071) 813 0.232 0.700 C43 0.095 0.096 (0.220) (0.664) (0.093) (0.094) 814 -0.410 -0.657 C44 -0.075 -0.180 (0.481) (0.770) (0.092) (0.221) Ci5 0.429 3.010 845 0.146 0.130 (0.353) (2.481) (0.125) (0.111) C21 0.148 -0.819 £51 -0.125 -0.165 * (0.126) (0.695) (0.058) (0.076) C22 -0.244 -0.214 852 0.168 0.135 (0.217) (0.190) (0.082) (0.154) C23 0.245 0.169 e5 0.258 -0.050 (0.221) (0.153) (0.116) (0.023) 824 -0.699 -0.422 65 0.423 0.828 ; (0.819) (0.494) (0.274) (0.537) 825 0.532 2.390 855 -0.514 -0.811 (0.401) (1.806) (0.155) (0.246) 831 -0.007 -0.851 ,1* -0.049 1.693 (0.004) (0.489) (0.311) (2.156) 832 -0.064 0.150 42Q -0.206 1.614 (0.039i (0.090) (0.704) (1.999) C33 -0.133 -0.163 no -0.011 1.287 (0.074) (0.091) (0.102) (1.133) 934 0.207 0.511 ,4 0.140 0.082 (0.147) (0.362) (0.099) (0.041) en -0.033 1.268 1150 0.210 0.218 (0.013) (0.516) (0.276) (0.425) MlO!3E SR and LR denote short- and long-run elasticLtLe.. The subscripts are explained in Table 1. In addition: 7 m corporate rate and 7 - investment tax credit. esj denotes the percentage change ln input L due to one percent change in the rental rate of input j. '1fa denotes the percentage in lnput use i due to one percent output change. Numbers Ln parenthesis denote standard errors. 12 2ABLE 5S Short- and Long-Run Tax glasticitles--Calculated at Sample Umns SR LR -0.031 -0.237 0.100 (0.028) (0.201) (0.110) f2. -0.017 -0.142 eO 0.094 (0.014) (0.139) (0 077) -0.006 -0.058 +st -0.044 (0.005 (0.029) (0.040) * -0.002 -0.003 -0.041 (0.003) (0.003) (0.037) -0.003 -0.011 (0.003) (0.008) 0.018 0.151 (0.018) (0.147) 52y 0.007 0.081 (0.008) (0.078) * 0.005 0.054 (0.004) (0.033) -0.001 0.002 (0.002) (0.002) tsy 0.002 0.008 (0.002) (0.005) NOTEBs SR and LR denote short- and long-run elasticities. The subscripts are explained in Tables 1 and 4. e, denotes the percentage change in input use 1 due to one percent change in r. ti, denotes the percentage change in input use i due to one percent change in 'y. e1, denotes the percentage change in the rental rate of input i due to one percent change in T-. * denotes the percentage change in rental the rate of input i due to one percent change in y. Since y was introduced in 1976-77, the respective elasticity is the average of 9 observations only. 13 factor utilization in both areas whereas increases in investment tax credit have the opposite effects. These effects as indicated by elasticity values are uniformly small. VI. The Impact of Taz Policies On Investsent in Physical and Knowledge Capital The estimated model can be used to evaluate the investment impact of alternate tax policy instruments per dollar of foregone revenues and using this criterion to rank instruments in terms of their relative efficacy. For this purpose, model parameters were used to simulate the impact of three policy changes. First policy simulation assumes an increase in investment tax credit from 15% to 30% and estimates the impact on factor demands for such a change for three most recent years (see Table 6). A doubling of investment tax credit expectedly leads to uneven changes in demand for various sectors with the machinery and equipment receiving the most stimulus and R&D investment the least augmentation. While this policy change results in a major increase in aggregate investment, foregone revenues exceed the investment stimulus by a small margin. Incremental benefit-cost ratio is estimated to equal 0.95 with such a policy initiative. Pakistan offers full expensing option for R&D investment. This measure according to the calculations presented in Table 7 is seen to be a cost-effective instrument for R&D investment stimulation. Incremental benefit-cost ratio is estimated to be greater than one (1.49). A third simulation assumes a corporate tax rate reduction from 55% to 30%. Such a tax reduction is estimated to have the greatest positive impact in the short run for machinery and equipment and least for structures (see Table 8). Foregone revenues associated with such a change are estimated to exceed changes in aggregate investment by a significant margin. The incremental benefit-cost ratio is calculated to be less than one (0.71). 14 VIz. Policy Implications This paper examined the tax sensitivity of investment in physical and R&D capital in Pakistan and found that while such investment was sensitive to various tax measures, the elasticity values were without exception quite small. Further, incremental benefit-cost ratio associated with changes in investment tax credit and corporate tax rate was smaller than one. Full expensing option for R&D investment was found to be cost effective. Pakistan currently follows a high tax and low incentives regime in major metropolitan areas and a high tax and high incentives regime in selected less developed areas. The analyses presented in this paper suggests that fiscal incentives for investment were generally not cost effective and therefore public policy emphasis should be on creating a stable low tax regime.5 In terms of short run investment stimulation, investment tax credit was found to be more efficient than the corporate tax rate reductions. 15 MuELs 6: Short-Run Effects of a Major Sncreass in Physical Ilvestmsat Tax Credit* Effects at Existina Outout Levels p6rcent Cumulative 1983-85 (Million Ru2eesl A. On Factor Demand s Structures 8.8 4,484 Machinery and Equipment 15.7 25,201 A&D 4.9 241 B. Total Change in Investment 29,926 C. Foregone Revenues 31,416 D. Incremental Benefit-Cost Ratio (B + C) 0.95 NOTEs * Model calculations by assuming an increase in investment tax from 15% to 30%. 16 TAJL 7: implications of Full UxpeunLsg Optiou for R&D Ivestment and Oovezrnaat Revenues 1983-85 (cumulative thousands rupees) A. R&D Investment Gains 443,130 B. Lose in Government Revenues 298,041 Benefit-Cost Ratio (A + 3) 1.49 17 Table Os Short-Run ffeocts of a Major Reduction in Corporate Incoas Tax Rate* Effects at Exim:ina Outout Levels P2rce" Cumulative 1983-85 (Million Rupees) A. On Factor Demands Structures 3.24 1,763 Machinery and Bquipment 13.66 21,671 R&D 3.96 192 B. Total Changes in Investment 23,832 C. Foregone Revenues 33,511 D. Incremental Benefit-Cost Ratio (B + C) 0.71 NOTBE * These calculations are based on model simulations assuming corporate tax rate reduction from 55% to 30%. 18 ENDNOTES 1 Recent advances in dynamic duality (see Rpstein (1981), Epstein and Denny (1983)) have facilitated empirical applications of such models, so that the structure of the industry can be examined wlthout imposing severs restrictions on the technology. 2. A complete characterization of the properties of the value function &s well as the cost function can be found in Epstein and Denny (1983), whil- the profit function can be found in Epstein (1981)). 3. Because of the nonlinear nature of the model and the large number of parameters to be estimated, some simplifications were made. First, the model was estimated in reduced form. We estimated expressions (All) and A12) as described in Appendix A. Second, the two blocks of equations were estimated separately, i e., we first estimated the three oquations corresponding to the quasi-fixed factors and then the ones corresponding to the parfectly adjustable factors. Finally, in order to account for heteroikedasticity, we divided the stocks by the output, so the system was expressed in input/output ratio form. 4. The results reported here are based on static expectations. In addition we run the model by using first and second order autoregressive expectation schemes regarding rental rates and output. Results regarding land and buildings and machinery and equipment were fairly insensitive in terms of adjustment rates and elasticities. On the contrary R&D showed a high degree of sensitivity. 5. A referee has argued that this conclusion dose not strictly follow from the model results. 19 Auerbach, A. "The Cost of Capital and Investment in Developing Countrieu,"Working Papers Series 410, Public Economics Division, The World Bank, April 1990. Berndt, B. and C. Horrison. "Short Run Labour ProductivLty in a DynamicHodel." Journal of Econometrics. 16(1981)0339-365. BernsteLn J.I. Research and Dovelopment, Tax Inaentives, and the Structure of Production and Financing. UnLversLty of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1986. Eloner, R. and I. Nadiri. "Investment Behavlor in Neoclassical Theory." Reviow of Economics and Statiatics. 50(1968)t369-382. Epstoen, L.G. and M.G.S. Denny. "The Multivarlate Flexible Accelerator Model:Its Empirical RestrLctions and an Application to U.S. Manufacturing." sconometrica. 51(1983):647-674. Epstein, L.G. and A.J. Yatchew. "The Empirical Determination of Technology and Expectations: A SimplifLed Procodure." Journal of Econometrics. 27(1985)t235-258. Epstein, L.G. "Duality Theory and Functional Forms for Dynamic Factor Demands." Review of Economic Studles. 48(1981)S81-95. Government of Pakistan. Pederal Bureau of Statistics. Census of Manufacturing Zndustries, Varlous Issues. Karachi. Government of Pakistan. Finance Division. Economic Survey StatIstical Supplements 1987-88. Islamabad. Lucas, R. "Optimal Investment Policy and the Flexible Accelerator." International Economic Review. 8(1967):78-85. Meeose, R. "DynamLc Factor Demand Schedules for Labor and Capltal Under Rational Expectations." Journal of Econometrics. 14(1980):141-158. Mohnen, P.A., M.I. Nadirl, and I.R. Prucha. "R&D, Productlon Structure and Rates of Return in the U.S., Japanese and German Manufacturlng Sectors: A Non-separable Dynamic Factor Demand Model." European Economic Review. 30(1986):749-771. Mortensen, D.T. "Generalized Costs of Adjustment and Dynamic Factor Demand Theory." Econometrica. 41 (1973) t657-665. McLaren, K. and R. Cooper. "Zntertemporal Duality: Application to the Theory of the Firm." Econometrica. 48(1980):1755-1762. Nadlri, M.I. and I.R. Prucha. "Comparison and Analysis of Productivlty Growth and R&D Investment in the Electrlcal Machinery Industrles of the Unlted States and Japan." Nimeo, New York University and University of Maryland, January 1989. Nadiri, I. and S. Rosen. "Interrelated Factor Demand FunctLons." American Economic Review. 59(1969):457-471. shah, Anwar (1986). Research and Development Investment, Industrial Structure, Economic Performance and Tax PolLcLes. Finance Canada. Discussion Paper, Ottawa, November. 20 Treadway, A.B. "Adjustment Costs and Variable Inputs in the Theory of Competitive Firm." Journal of Economlo Thoory. 2(1970)t329-347. Treadway, A.S. "The Globally Optimal Flexible Accelerator." Journal of Economic Theory. 7(1974)tl7-39. 21 APPENDIX As DERIVATION OF INPUU DEMANDS Rewrite the value function defined in (6) ass (Al) V(K,Y,P) M (1/2)(P'B P + W'B' P + P'S W + W'BWW)Y + P'A>KS + W'Aw K + P r-1A 18 + W,r-lF pk p p and consider tgain the Shephard's lemma analogue regarding the quasi-fixed inputs, (A2) (K,Y.P) - Vpk(rVj - K) Differentiating (Al) with respect to P and transposing the resulting expression gives. (A3) Vp . (BppP I BW W)Y + Ap+K ApkHp. Differentiating VI with respect to R and inverting yields: (A4) -1 A Vpk Jpk Substituting (A3) and (A4) into (A2) results in: (A5) K (K,Y,P) - Apk(r((Bppp + BwoW)Y + ApkK + r ApkRP) - R). Rearranging terms in (AB) yields the dynamic factor demands: (A6) K (R,Y,P) (r - &pk)K + rApk(BppP + "WPW)Y + 3p. The Shephard's lemma analogue regarding the perfectly adjustable inputs is given bys (A7) I (K,Y,P) = -rV% + V kK Differentiating (Al) with respect to W and transposing the resulting expression gives: (AS) V4 - (B W + B P)Y + P'AK + ak +r + Fp. v NW PMe pk vk p Differentiating J. with respect to K yields (A9) Vwk A wk. substituting (AS) and (A9) into (A7) and rearranging terms results in the 22 input demands for the perfectly adjustable inputes (AlO) 3* (K,,P) = -r(3.W + SpW)y - rk(K p p1.) - F . To avoid nonlinearities in the estimation, we expressed (A6) and (AIO) in reduced forms ass (All) (K,?,P) UK + (NP + OW)Y + a and p (A12) 8* (K,?,?) (RW + QP)Y + S(K - r 1) - Fp. where f - (r - ap) 3 rAmpopp, O a rA p f - -rB,,, R - -rS., and 8- -rAw" A descriptive exposition of the reduced form matrix parameters has as followss Ml 1 "12 "I]3 11 "12 2213 1 [I "12 [, J W N 1 22 "23 , N B 1 22 "23 , O- 021 22 . 1F [x1 "32 "33] 3 1 32 33,J 1 a32j .83 Rl a i12] rIi Q12 013] 2 1 12 8131 [t1 = 2 2 1 0 QI, a8W - , . I L t22k 1 222 Q223 *21 S22 8W23. P L2 The structural form parameters of (All) and (A12) are then recovered from the reduced form as Apk (r - 3), Bpp a (r - ) (r - M) lr LaG, B. - -r n1, Rp"" -r 1R, and Akk 1 -r 18 where Ml, , 0, Q, R, and 8 are the estimated reduced form matrix parameters. 23 APPENDIX Bs DATA DESCRIPTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF VARIABLES Most of the data used in this study were obtained from various issues of Census of Manufacturing Industries and the Economic Survey Statistical Supplements 1987-88 and cover 1956-1985 period. The construction of variables was done as followes Land and Buildings: Quantity of land and buildings was constructed by dividing stocks by the investment deflator. Stocks were constructed by employing the perpetual inventory method, with depreciation rate set equal to 0.05. As a starting value of stocks we used the 1956 end-of-year book value of land and buildings. The rental rate of land and buildings was calculated by invoking the following formula (see Auerbach, 1990): Pt - qt(r+8)(1-y- rz)((l--)0) 1, where: Pt - user cost (rental rate) of land and buildings; qt - investment deflator; r - weighted average of thie real costs of debt and equity finance where the weight is given by the shareholders, equity to total capital employed ratio (constructed from data reported in various published and unpublished sources; ranging between 0.047 and 0.110; 8 - depreciation rate (set to 0.05); 7 -investment tax credit (introduced in 1977, 0.15); i - corporate tax rate including super tax rate (equal to 0.55 as reported in budget speeches); z - present value of investment allowances received by the firm; e - profitability parameter (set to 0.90). Machinery and Equipments Quantity and rental rate of machinery and equipment were constructed analogously to that of land and buildings variables except that the depreciation rate used is 0.10. R&D: Quantity of RhD was constructed by dividing R&D stocks by the price of R&D. R&D stocks were constructed using the perpetual inventory method with the depreciation rate set qual to 0.10. R&D expenses were obtained from United Nations (Industrial StatLstics Yearbook) and various Government of Pakistan data sources. When data on R&D investment was not available we used the royalties and other fees expenses. Rental rate of R&D was calculated invoking the formula for rental rate described earlier and setting z - 1.0 and a - 0.10. 24 Labors Quantity of labor was measured as the total number of days worked durlng the year. The prLe- index was constructed by dlvidLng total employmont cost during th year by number of days worked. IntermedLate Inputst Intermediate inputs include electricity, petroleum fuel, natural gas, and lmported and domestically pdoduced mlicellaneous materials. Aggregate prle¢ and quantity indices were constructed from these components by using the TornquLst approximation of DLvisia index. Outputs Quantity of output was constructed by dividing total value of output by the manufacturing output deflator. 25 PRF Working Paper Saries Contact TA Author for paper WPS663 Bank Holding Companies: A Better Samuel H. Talley May 1991 Z. Seguis Structure for Conducting Universal 37665 Banking? WPS664 Should Employee Participation Be Barbara W. Lee May 1991 G. Orraca-Tetteh Part of Privatization? 37646 WPS665 Microeconomic Distortions: Static Ram6n I6pez May 1991 WDR Office Losses and their Effect on the 31393 Efficiency of Investment WPS666 Agriculture and the TransItion to the Karen M. Brooks May 1991 C. Spooner Market Jose Luis Guasch 30464 - Avishay Braverman Csaba Csaki WPS667 VERs Under Imperfect Competition Jalme de Melo May 1991 D. Ballantyne and Foreign Direct Investment: David Tarr 337947 A Case Study of the U.S.-Japan Auto VEVt WPS668 Inflation Tax and Deficit Financing Hinh T. Dinh May 1991 L. Santano in Egypt Maroelo Giugale 80553 WPS669 Are High Real Interest Rates Bad for Nemat Shafik May 1991 M. Divino World Economic Growth Jalaleddin Jal&ii 1 33739 WPS670 Inflation Adjustments of Financial Yaaqov GoldschmWdt May 1991 C. Spooner Statements: Application of Jacob Yaron 30464 Intemational Accounting Standard 29 WPS671 Lessons from the Heterodox MiguoA A. Kiguel o May 1991 E. Khine Stabilization Programs Nissan Liviatan 39361 WPS672 The Macroeconomics of>ubit Roumeenislam May 1991 R. Luz Sector Defickits: The Case of Ghana Deborah L Wetzel 34303 WPS673 The Macroeconomics of Public Nadeem U. Haque May 1991 R. Luz Sector Deficits: T-he Case of Peter Montiel 34303 Pakistan WPS674 Distributional Effects of Adjustment franoois Bourguignon May 1991 WDR Office Pol;cles: Simulations for Two Jaime de Melo 31393 Archetype Economies Aidko Suwa C, WPS675 Are Buybacks Back? Menu-Driven Ishae Diwan May 1991 S. King-W'atson Debt-Reduction Schemes with Mark M. Spigel 33730 Heterogenous Creditors PRF Working Paper Seroes Contact A1t Do for p 'r WPS676 Higher Education in the Republic Viswanathan Selvaratnam May 1991 C. Cristobal of Yemen: The University of Sanaa Ornpom L. Regel 33640 WPS677 On Economic Transformation in East- Andres Solimano May 1991 E. Khine Central Europe: A Historical and 39361 International Perspective WPS678 Economic Growth: A Review of the David Renlt May 1991 R. Luz Theoretical and Empirical Literature 34303 WPS679 Poverty Alleviation In Mexico Santiago Levy May 1991 M. Stroude 38831 WPS680 On Hunger and Public Action Martin Ravallion May 1991 C. Spooner 30464 WPS681 Political-Economy Arguments for Arvind Panagarlya May 1991 K. Cabana UniformTariff Dani Rodrlk 37947 WPS682 Intertemporal Substitution, Risk Patricio Arrau May 1991 S. King-Watson Aversion, and Private Savings in Sweder van W*Jnbrgen 31047 Mexico WPS683 Vocational Schooling, Occupational Shoshana Neuman May 1991 C. Cristobal Matching, and Labor Market Eamings Adrian Ziderman 33640 in Israel WPS68A, The Value of Intra-household Survey Lawrence Haddad May 1991,, J. Sweeney Data for Age-based Nutritonal RaviKanbur 31021 Targeting WPS685 Children and Intra-household Ravi Kanbur May 1991 J. Sweeney Inequality: A Theoretical Analysis 31021 WP6686 Lending for Learning: Twenty Years Adriaan Verspoof °, May 1991 C. Ciistobal of World Bank Support for Basic 33640 Education WPS687 Brazilian Frozen Concentrated Carios Albito Primo Braga May 1991 N. Ags Orange Juice: The Folly of Unfair Simao Davi Silber 37947 Trade Cases WPS688 Macroeconoiics of Public Sector Felipe Moranda, May 1991 S. Jonnakuty Deficits: The Case of Zimbabwe Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel 39074 WPS689 Do Tax Pokcies Stimulate Investment AnwarShah May 1991 A. BhalIa in Physical and Research and John Baffes 37699 Development Capital? o ' -'; o e .o 04,. '..