This study estimates the efficiency cost of the most important tax categories for Pakistan. This is done by computing the marginal excess burden (MEB) of relevant taxes by employing a Global Computable General Equilibrium model based on the Social Accounting Matrix, 2010–2011. The simulations’ results support the necessity for significant changes to Pakistan’s tax system. The MEB of raising one dollar of tax revenue in the existing tax structure of Pakistan is 13.28 cents. That is, for every dollar of additional tax revenue rise, Pakistan’s economy would incur 13.28 cents of excess burden, which is a deadweight loss to the economy. Moreover, the results also revealed that the tariffs or trade-related taxes have considerably higher distortionary costs per unit of revenue raised. However, the goods and services tax on domestic commodities and income tax have considerably low distortionary costs per unit of revenue raised. This study suggests that the tax authorities of Pakistan should move away from the trade taxes as revenue-raising devices to the broadly based income and consumption taxes on the efficiency point of view.
AguiarA., NarayananB., & McDougallR. (2016). An overview of the GTAP 9 data base. Journal of Global Economic Analysis, 1(1), 181–208.
2.
AhmadE., & MohammedA. (2012). Pakistan, the United States and the IMF: Great game or a curious case of Dutch disease without the oil? [Working Paper No. 57]. Asia Research Centre.
3.
AmirH., Asafu-AdjayeJ., & DucphamT. (2013). The impact of the Indonesian income tax reform: A CGE analysis. Economic Modelling, 31, 492–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.12.018
4.
ArnoldJ. M., BrysB., HeadyC., JohanssonS., SchwellnusC., & VartiaL. (2011). Tax policy for economic recovery and growth. The Economic Journal, 121(550), F59–F80.
5.
AuriolE., & WarltersM. (2012). The marginal cost of public funds and tax reform in Africa. Journal of Development Economics, 97(1), 58–72.
6.
Avi-YonahR. S. (2005). The three goals of taxation. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.796776
7.
BakijaJ. (2014). Social welfare, redistribution, and the tradeoff between efficiency and equity, with developing country applications. Williams College.
8.
BallardC. L., ScholzJ. K., & ShovenJ. B. (1987). The value-added tax: A general equilibrium look at its efficiency and incidence. In FeldsteinM. (Ed.), The effects of taxation on capital accumulation (pp. 445–480). University of Chicago Press.
9.
BallardC. L., ShovenJ. B., & WhalleyJ. (1985). General equilibrium computations of the marginal welfare costs of taxes in the United States. The American Economic Review, 75(1), 128–138.
10.
BankmanJ., & WeisbachD. A. (2006). The superiority of an ideal consumption tax over an ideal income tax. Stanford Law Review, 58, 1413. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/2036/
11.
BarriosS., PycroftJ., & SaveynB. (2013). The marginal cost of public funds in the EU: The case of labour versus green taxes [Working Paper No. 35]. Publications Office of the European Union.
12.
BaylorM., & BeauséjourL. (2004). Taxation and economic efficiency: Results from a Canadian CGE model. Department of Finance, Canada.
13.
BhagwatiJ. N. (1969). The generalized theory of distortions and welfare. MIT Press.
14.
BhattiA. A., BatoolZ., & NaqviH. A. (2015). Fiscal policy and its role in reducing income inequality: a CGE analysis for Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review, 54(4), 843–862.
15.
BoughanmiH., & KhanM. A. (2019). Welfare and distributional effects of the energy subsidy reform in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries: The case of Sultanate of Oman. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(1), 228–236.
16.
BrowningE. K. (1976). The marginal cost of public funds. Journal of Political Economy, 84(2), 283–298.
17.
BrowningE. K. (1987). On the marginal welfare cost of taxation. The American Economic Review, 77(1), 11–23.
18.
BurfisherM. E. (2017). Introduction to computable general equilibrium models. Cambridge University Press.
19.
BurkiA. A., MemonR., & MirK. (2015). Multiple inequalities and policies to mitigate inequality traps in Pakistan. Oxfam International.
20.
CaoL., HoskingA., KouparitsasM., MullalyD., RimmerX., ShiQ., WendeS. (2015). Understanding the economy-wide efficiency and incidence of major Australian taxes [Working Paper No. 2015-01]. The Treasury, Australian Government.
21.
CarrollR. (2009). The excess burden of taxes and the economic cost of high tax rates (Tax Foundation Special Report No. 170). Tax Foundation.
22.
ChandoevwitW., & DahlbyB. (2006). The marginal cost of public funds for excise taxes in Thailand. eJournal of Tax Research, 5(1), 135–155.
23.
ClareteR. L., & RoumassetJ. A. (1987). A Shoven–Whalley model of a small open economy. Journal of Public Economics, 32(2), 247–261.
24.
CreedyJ., & MokP. (2017). The marginal welfare cost of personal income taxation in New Zealand. New Zealand Economic Papers, 52(3), 323–338.
25.
DahlbyB. (2008). The marginal cost of public funds: Theory and applications. MIT Press.
26.
DahlbyB., & FeredeE. (2012). The effects of tax rate changes on tax bases and the marginal cost of public funds for Canadian provincial governments. International Tax and Public Finance, 19(6), 844–883.
27.
DahlbyB., & FeredeE. (2018). The marginal cost of public funds and the Laffer curve: Evidence from the Canadian provinces. FinanzArchiv, 74(2), 173.
28.
De QuatrebarbesC., BoccanfusoD., & SavardL. (2016). Beyond representative households: The macro-micro impact analysis of VAT designs applied to Niger. Economic Modelling, 57(C), 76–92.
29.
DevarajanS., & RobinsonS. (2002). The impact of computable general equilibrium models on policy. In WhalleyJ., SrinivasanT. N., & KehoeT. J. (Eds.), Frontiers in Applied General Equilibrium Modeling. Cambridge University Press.
30.
DiewertW. E., & LawrenceD. A. (1995). The excess burden of taxation in New Zealand. Agenda:A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 2(1), 27–34.
31.
Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). (2021). Tax expenditure report. Federal Board of Revenue, Pakistan.
32.
FeldsteinM. (1999). Tax avoidance and the deadweight loss of the income tax. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(4), 674–680.
33.
GoulderL., & Williams IIIR. (2003). The substantial bias from ignoring general equilibrium effects in estimating excess burden, and a practical solution. Journal of Political Economy, 111(4), 898–927.
34.
GuerraA. I., Varela-CandamioL., & López-RodríguezJ. (2022). Tax reforms in Spain: Efficiency levels and distributional patterns. Economic Systems Research, 34(1), 41–68.
35.
GunningJ. W., & KeyzerM. (1995). Applied general equilibrium models for policy analysis. In BehrmanJ. & SrinivasanT. N. (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (Chap. 35, Vol. 3, pp. 2025–2107). Elsevier.
36.
HarbergerA. C. (1974). Taxation and welfare. University of Chicago Press.
37.
HarrisonG. W., RutherfordT. F., & TarrD. G. (1997). Economic implications for Turkey of a customs union with the European Union. European Economic Review, 41(3–5), 861–870.
38.
HusainI. (2018). Governing the ungovernable: Institutional reforms for democratic governance. Oxford University Press.
39.
JuddK. L. (1987). The welfare cost of factor taxation in a perfect-foresight model. Journal of Political Economy, 95(4), 675–709.
40.
KemalM. A. (2016). The role of taxation in Pakistan’s revival. Pakistan Development Review, 55(3), 245–247.
41.
KhanF. (2016). Pakistan’s self-inflicted economic crises. In FairC. C. & WatsonS. J. (Eds.), Pakistan’s enduring challenges (pp. 178–202). University of Pennsylvania Press.
42.
KhanM. A., TahirA., KhurshidN., HusnainM. I. U., AhmedM., & BoughanmiH. (2020). Economic effects of climate change-induced loss of agricultural production by 2050: A case study of Pakistan. Sustainability, 12(3), 1216.
43.
KhanM. A., WalmsleyT., & MukhopadhyayK. (2021). Trade liberalization and income inequality: The case for Pakistan. Journal of Asian Economics, 74, 101310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2021.101310
44.
KhanS., Amir KhanM., Ul Haq PaddaI., & Iftikhar Ul HusnainM. (2021). Impact of goods and services, tax (GST) on income inequality in Pakistan: A CGE approach. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 21(3), 229–248.
45.
LiN., ZhangX., ShiM., & HewingsG. J. (2019). Does China’s air pollution abatement policy matter? An assessment of the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region based on a multi-regional CGE model. Energy Policy, 127, 213–227.
46.
LinB., & JiaZ. (2020). Economic, energy and environmental impact of coal-to-electricity policy in China: A dynamic recursive CGE study. Science of the Total Environment, 698, 134241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134241
47.
LipseyR. G., & LancasterK. (1956). The general theory of second best. The Review of Economic Studies, 24(1), 11.
48.
LovelyM. E. (1994). Crossing the border: Does commodity tax evasion reduce welfare and can enforcement improve it?The Canadian Journal of Economics, 27(1), 157.
49.
LovelyM. E. (2017). Crossing the border: Does commodity tax evasion reduce welfare and can enforcement improve it?World Scientific Studies in International Economics, 19–36.
50.
Martinez-VazquezJ., & CyanM. (2015). Pakistan’s enduring agenda for tax reforms. The role of taxation in Pakistan’s revival (pp. 1–74). Oxford University Press.
51.
MinorP., & WalmsleyT. (2013). MyGTAP: A program for customizing and extending the GTAP database for multiple households, split factors, remittances, foreign aid and transfers [GTAP Working Papers No. 4321]. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
52.
MitkovaV., & JánošováM. (2019). The tax burden CGE Analysis for Slovakia and Slovenia. Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy, 65(4), 35–46.
53.
MohamedI. A. (2012). Using computable general equilibrium for the assessment of impacts of value-added tax in Sudan. SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2047103
54.
MurphyC. (2016). Efficiency of the tax system: A marginal excess burden analysis [Working Paper No. 4]. Tax and Transfer Policy Institute.
55.
OkunA. M. (2015). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Brookings Institution Press.
56.
RutherfordT., & PaltsevS. (1999). From an input-output table to a general equilibrium model: Assessing the excess burden of indirect taxes in Russia. Department of Economics, University of Colorado.
57.
SchiffM., & ValdésA. (1992). The political economy of agricultural pricing policy. Vol. 4: A synthesis of the economics in developing countries. Johns Hopkins University Press.
58.
ShagdarE. (2015). The marginal welfare burden of Mongolia’s tax system. The Northeast Asian Economic Review, 3(2), 55–68.
59.
ShagdarE., & NyamdaaO. (2017). Impacts of import tariff reforms on Mongolia’s economy: CGE analysis with the GTAP 8.1 data base. GTAP Purdue University.
60.
ShovenJ. B., & WhalleyJ. (1984). Applied general-equilibrium models of taxation and international trade: An introduction and survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 22(3), 1007–1051.
61.
TokarickS. (2004). What do we know about tariff incidence? [Working Paper No. WP/04/182]. International Monetary Fund.
62.
TokarickS. (2007). How large is the bias against exports from import tariffs?World Trade Review, 6(2), 193–212.
63.
TranC., & WendeS. (2017). On the marginal excess burden of taxation in an overlapping generations model [Working Paper No. 7]. Tax and Transfer Policy Institute.
64.
VerikiosG., PatronJ., & GharibnavazR. (2017). Decomposing the marginal excess burden of Australia’s goods and services tax [Working Paper No. 201702]. Griffith University.
65.
WallsM. A. (1991). Dynamic firm behavior and regional deadweight losses from a US oil import fee. Southern Economic Journal, 57(3), 772–788.
66.
WeihongH., LinglingP., & XinjiletuaY. (2018). Research on the economic impact of New Energy fiscal and tax policies based on CGE model: A case from Mongolia. E3S Web of Conferences, 53, 01044.
