Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD Tel. +33 (0)1 42 30 09 60
13/15 Chaussée de la Muette Fax +33 (0)1 42 88 78 38
75016 Paris email: [email protected]
France www.biac.org
BIAC Economic Policy Survey 2014
Structural Reforms and Implementation
5 May 2014
Contents
BIAC Economic Policy Survey 2014: Quick Facts ................................................................. 2
I. Context and objectives ................................................................................................... 3
II. Main findings .................................................................................................................. 4
a) Business Priorities for Reform .................................................................................... 4
b) Implementation of OECD recommendations ............................................................. 10
c) Regulatory policymaking processes ......................................................................... 11
III. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 16
Annex: Methodological Notes .............................................................................................. 18
2 | P a g e
BIAC Economic Policy Survey 2014: Quick Facts
The BIAC Economic Policy Survey 2014 presents information gathered from business in 23
countries around the world. The survey was carried out from January-April 2014 and released on 5
May 2014.
3 | P a g e
I. Context and objectives
The revival of the global economy from the 2008-09 financial and economic crisis remains
slow, uneven and fragile, despite some signs of improvements in major advanced
economies. The level of real GDP in the G20 is still 2% below the downside scenario
projected in 2010, indicating that the world economy is on a path to years of lower potential
growth unless urgent and decisive actions are taken.1 Investment in the G20 remains 18%
below pre-crisis trend, while global FDI flows stand 30% below their 2007 peak.2,3
Unemployment rates remain high (7.6% on average across the OECD; 12% in the Euro
area), and 15.7% youth unemployment across the OECD.4
In parallel, new OECD analysis shows that the pace of countries’ reforms across product
and labour markets has generally slowed in recent years and has been largely piecemeal.5
In the context of a weak and prolonged economic recovery, BIAC has carried out a survey of
national business and employer organisations in order to shed light on aspects of our
economies where business believes reforms are urgently needed.
Business in 23 countries around the world participated in the BIAC survey.6 They were each
asked to: [a] select 5 top priorities for reform in their country and explain their choice; [b]
indicate to which extent they agree with the OECD’s top priority reforms for their countries
and the degree to which they have been implemented; and [c] comment on the form and
effectiveness of regulatory policymaking in their countries.
The 2014 BIAC survey builds upon the success of a prior survey carried out in late 2012.
This year’s survey provides a timely contribution to the development of country-specific
structural reform priorities that will feature in the 2015 OECD “Going for Growth” publication.
In parallel, the BIAC survey provides valuable information to the 2015 inaugural OECD
“Regulatory Policy Outlook” publication. These OECD landmark publications will act as
influential and complementary forces to policy discussions at the country level.
What follows is a synthesis of main findings from the survey. A separate compilation of
detailed country-specific responses are provided for the confidential use of the OECD
Secretariat only.
1 IMF (2014) “Macroeconomic and Reform Priorities”, prepared by IMF Staff with inputs from the
OECD and the World Bank. 2 Ibid.
3 OECD (2014) “FDI in Figures”, February 2014.
4 OECD (2014) “Harmonised Unemployment Rates”, March 2014.
5 OECD (2014) “Economic Policy Reform 2014: Going for Growth Interim Report”, OECD Publishing.
6 National business and employer organisations participated from 22 respondent countries: Brazil,
Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, and United Kingdom. A 23
rd response was also received from the BIAC China Task Force leadership.
4 | P a g e
Number of reform priorities selected per area
of economy policy
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Agriculture and energy subsidies
Rule of law
Housing policies
Public support for childcare, pre-school educationand parental leave policies
Employment protection legislation
Labour taxation
Unemployment benefits
Sickness and disability schemes
Innovation policies/Raising effectiveness of R&Dpolicies
Retirement schemes
Wage formation and minimum cost of labour
Public infrastructure
Active labour market policies ( ALMP)
Human capital
Efficiency of general taxation/tax structure
Public sector efficiency
Product market regulation
II. Main findings
a) Business Priorities for Reform
Using an OECD Economics Department categorisation, Figure 1 shows the number of
reform priorities selected by business respondents according to different areas of economic
policy.7 The following paragraphs point to selected highlights from Figure 1.
Figure 1: Business priorities for reform – Scores by area
7 Figure 1 shows data based on responses only to a depth of level 1 categorisation (not level 2) to
allow greater comparability between different areas of economic policy. See Methodological Annex for further details.
5 | P a g e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Reduce economy-wide regulatory burdens
Reduce sector-specific regulatory burdens
Barriers to FDI and international trade
Number of reform priorities selected
per area of product market regulation
Extract from OECD-based business organisation:
“The key issue is to stop the ‘overproduction’ of legal
regulations and too frequent amendments. Business
expects stable and predictable rules that allow rational
planning of their activities.”
Extract from OECD-based business organisation:
“Improving the investment environment…can be
achieved [in part] by streamlining permit and licensing
procedures. This would naturally lead to a decrease in
bureaucratic steps and therefore costs.”
Extract from business
organisation in a major emerging
economy: “The additional burden of
the state bureaucracy and its
relationship with private entities,
marked by excessive and complex
procedures, result in a hostile
environment to business that
hinders investment and increases
transaction costs for goods and
services.”
Product market regulation
Similar to the results of the 2012 edition of the BIAC survey, respondents in 2014 still attach
greatest importance to reforming product market regulation. In fact, 17 out of the 23
participating business organisations (over 70%) selected product market regulation among
their top five priority areas for reform in their countries.
Reform of product market regulation refers to reducing economy-wide regulatory burdens,
reducing sector-specific regulatory burdens and addressing barriers to foreign direct
investment (FDI) and international trade. Again echoing the results of the 2012 BIAC survey,
Figure 2 shows that respondents in 2014 put greatest emphasis on the need to reduce
economy-wide regulatory burdens in the context of product market reforms.
Figure 2: Business priorities for reform in the area of product market regulation
We can look to the detailed country responses for information on what sorts of regulatory
burdens are facing companies in different parts of the world. For example:
6 | P a g e
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Improve transparency of regulation
Reduce the scope of public ownership/stateintervention
Streamline permit and licensing systems
Reduce cost and barriers to entry
Strengthen the competition framework
Energy and other network sectors
Ease of business exit
Retail trade and professional services
Total score
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Enhance public healthcare sector efficiency
Improve monitoring mechanisms
Improve efficiency at sub-central level
Enhance efficiency and transparency of publicprocurement
Total score
Figure 3 provides more detail on the specific aspects of economy-wide and sector-specific
regulatory burdens. The results suggest that business tends to prioritise reforms that reduce
the scope of public ownership/state intervention, improve the transparency of
regulation, and streamline permit and licensing systems, among others.
Figure 3: Aspects of regulatory burdens where business believes reforms are required
Public sector efficiency
Figure 1 reveals that business organisations in many countries believe that reforms are
needed to improve public sector efficiency. In this context, Figure 4 presents scores for
public procurement, efficiency at sub-central level, monitoring mechanisms, and healthcare.
Figure 4: Business priorities for reform in the area of public sector efficiency
7 | P a g e
Extract from OECD-based business organisation: “The proliferation of divergent regulation
stemming from regional and local layers of the administration further compiles the problem [of heavy
bureaucracy] by obliging enterprises to fulfil different criteria for the same activity to operate in
different regions or municipalities.”
Extract from OECD-based
business organisation:
“The high cost of healthcare
is partially paid for by
employers. Therefore it is
important that the [rise] of
health cost is contained.”
Extract from OECD-based
business organisation: “The
level of efficiency…is very
low. One of the main reasons
[is] the lack of efficient
monitoring mechanisms. This
is a problem because there
are no sanctions for the worst
practices, but also because
there is no incentive for
efficient behaviour.”
Extract from business in a
major emerging economy:
“Access to [the] public
procurement market remains
a major concern for foreign
invested enterprises. [This is]
due to the definition of
‘domestic’ goods and related
local content requirements, as
well as the government
explicitly barring foreign
companies from bidding on
public contracts.”
4
5
7
Combat tax evasion and broaden taxbases/ reduce tax expenditure
Shift tax burden away from labour andcapital toward consumption, immovable
property and the environment
Reduce distortions and fragmentation ofthe tax system
Total score
The following selected extracts illustrate some of the challenges facing companies as a
result of public sector inefficiencies:
Efficiency of general taxation/tax structure
Business respondents place strong emphasis on reforms to the efficiency of general
taxation and the overall tax structure, as shown in Figure 1. The sorts of reforms
requested by business include, for example, reducing distortions and fragmentation of the
tax system, shifting the tax burden away from labour and capital, and combating tax evasion
and broadening the tax base. Survey responses are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Business priorities for reform in the area of general taxation
8 | P a g e
Extract from OECD-based business
organisation: “The tax code is overly complex
as a result of piecemeal changes to tax
legislation by successive governments and the
enactment of temporary provisions and
hundreds of tax preferences. A lack of a formal
system to consolidate the tax reporting of
corporate groups or to otherwise transfer
corporate profits and losses among related
companies is also hindering competitiveness.”
Extract from business organisation in a
major emerging economy: “A costly and
complex tax system reduces competitiveness
and discourages investment. […] Apart from
having a strong bearing on the production of
goods and services, the tax structure is
complex, often resulting in cumulative taxes.
The challenge…is to strike a balance between
the need of the State to collect taxes and that
of ensuring a sound business environment.”
Extract from OECD-based business organisation: “Tax literature highlights that corporate taxes
and high marginal rates of income taxes are economically inefficient forms of taxation. These forms of
taxation drive away more activity and are more harmful to economic output than taxes on
consumption or property.”
Extract from OECD-based
business organisation:
“Vocational education offers
the potential to reduce youth
unemployment [...] A change
in mindset is required to
remove the stigma attached
to technical and vocational
occupations.”
Extract from OECD-based
business organisation:
“Education is the number
one priority issue […],
starting with the need to
improve teaching quality,
improve curricula and
reduce inequalities.”
Extract from business
organisation in a major
emerging economy: “The
poor quality of basic
education, the low supply of
vocational training, and
shortcomings in higher
education hinder the
innovative capacity of
enterprises and productivity.”
Human capital and labour utilisation
Reforms relating to human capital and labour utilisation rank high among business
priorities, as shown in Figure 1.
According to the survey responses for those who selected human capital as a key reform
area, business organisations put strong emphasis on reforms to expand vocational
education and training and its overall effectiveness and relevance to business.
Business organisations also prioritise reforms to primary and secondary education, as
shown in Figure 6, where the need to improve teaching quality receives strong attention,
among others.8
8 The BIAC Education Survey (June 2013), which collected responses from 28 national business and
employer organisations around the world, pointed to similar findings. It found that respondents put strong priority on improving curricula and strengthening teaching quality, but also on improving co-operation between employers and education policymakers, as well as greater linkages to labour market needs.
9 | P a g e
Total score
Total score
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Other
Housing policies
Public support for childcare, pre-school educationand parental leave policies
Employment protection legislation
Unemployment benefits
Labour taxation
Sickness and disability schemes
Retirement schemes
Wage formation and minimum cost of labour
Active labour market policies (ALMP)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Ensure adequate resources and infrastructure
Improve school accountability and autonomy
Improve incentives for secondary educationcompletion
Reduce inequality in education opportunities
Improve curricula and evaluation
Improve teaching quality
Total score
Figure 6: Aspects of primary and secondary education where business believes reforms are
needed
The main aspects of labour utilisation where business believes reforms are needed tend to
centre on active labour market policies (ALMP), wage formation and minimum cost of
labour, and retirement schemes, among others, as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Aspects of labour utilisation where business believes reforms are required (extract
from Figure 1)
10 | P a g e
Extract from OECD-based business organisation: “Given the higher proportion of youth who
remain unemployed, barriers that keep young workers from entering the workforce must be reduced.”
Extract from OECD-
based business
organisation: “As far
as the recruitment
conditions [are
concerned], a more
flexible and easier
hiring scheme should
be fostered.”
Extract from business organisation in a
major emerging economy: “The legal
and institutional system governing the
labour market is outdated, inflexible and
legally uncertain, undermining the
competitiveness of enterprises and
jeopardising the country’s economy
growth. Modern, clear, and safe rules are
required to promote economic efficiency
and the well-being of workers.”
Extract from OECD-
based business
organisation:
“Progress on labour
market activation reform
has been unacceptably
slow – the correct plans
are in place but more
rapid implementation is
needed.”
Extract from business organisation in a major emerging economy: “The following problems
should be discussed […] : strengthening the financial stability of the pension system through the
insurance payments and other sources of financing; [and] increasing the retirement age taking into
account life expectancy, principles of gender equality and other factors influencing the pension
system.”
Strongly agree 31%
Agree 46%
Neutral 19%
Disagree 2%
Strongly disagree 2%
b) Implementation of OECD recommendations
As shown in Figure 8, business and employers’ organisations generally agree with the
OECD Going for Growth 2013 country-specific reform priorities. In fact, 77% of the OECD’s
recommendations met with either “strong agreement” or “agreement”, and 19% met with
“neutral” reactions. This suggests that the vast majority of the OECD Going for Growth
2013 recommendations were perceived by business to be well-formulated. This finding
is in line with the 2012 BIAC Economic Policy Survey.
Figure 8: Business support for OECD Going for Growth 2013 country-specific reform
priorities (based on 22 responses)
11 | P a g e
Not implemented at all 35%
Partly implemented
61%
Fully implemented 4%
In terms of the perceived degree of implementation of the OECD Going for Growth 2013
recommendations as of February 2014, respondents perceive full implementation for only
4% of the 2013 reform priorities (see Figure 9). The majority of reform priorities are
perceived to be partly implemented (61%), while 35% are considered to have not been
implemented at all. These results again closely echo findings from the BIAC Economic
Policy Survey 2012 with respect to the OECD Going for Growth 2011 recommendations.
Figure 9: Perceived degree of implementation of the OECD Going for Growth 2013 priorities
for reform (based on 22 responses)
In summary, while business tends to support the vast majority of OECD country-specific
recommendations, it would appear that there is a significant shortfall in countries’
implementation of these recommendations. These findings suggest that the OECD should
examine the factors that could enhance implementation; one such factor – the effectiveness
of regulatory policymaking processes – is examined in the following section of this report.
c) Regulatory policymaking processes
Recognising the importance of private sector engagement in order to enhance the design
and implementation of policy and regulatory reforms, respondents to the BIAC survey were
asked to comment on various aspects of the process for developing new regulations.
Figure 10 shows that, when developing new regulation, only 32% of respondents perceive
that minimum periods for consultation are respected by the government. While 45%
indicate that minimum periods are sometimes respected, a significant proportion (23%)
considers that minimum periods are rarely respected by the government.
12 | P a g e
Never 0%
Rarely 23%
Sometimes 45%
Often 32%
Not enough information to
judge 0%
Never 0%
Rarely 38%
Sometimes 48%
Often 14%
Not enough information to
judge 0%
Results also show that only 14% of respondents consider that the allocated time for
consultation is sufficient (see Figure 11). While 48% of respondents perceive that the
consultation period is sometimes sufficient, 38% feel it is rarely sufficient.
Figure 10: Percentage of business respondents who perceive that governments respect
minimum periods for consultation (based on 21 responses)
Figure 11: Percentage of business respondents who perceive that the allocated time for
consultation is sufficient (based on 21 responses)
13 | P a g e
Never 0%
Rarely 5%
Sometimes 24%
Often 71%
Not enough information to
judge 0%
While Figures 10 and 11 raise concerns about the timing aspects of the consultation
process, business respondents were significantly more positive when asked whether the
instructions for the consultation process were clear. Figure 12 shows that 71% of
respondents believe that the instructions on how to respond to consultations are
clear (for example, when, where and in what format to submit their answers).
Figure 12: Percentage of business respondents who perceive that the instructions on how to
respond to consultations are clear (based on 21 responses)
Less clear however is how information provided during consultations will be used. Figure 13
shows that, when governments develop new regulation, only 29% of respondents
consider that it is clear how the information businesses provide during consultation
will be used. It was found that 24% feel this is rarely clear, and 9% express it is never clear.
It also appears that while documents for consultation are often easily accessible
(according to 43% of respondents), almost a quarter of respondents (24%) state that
this is rarely the case (see Figure 14).
14 | P a g e
Never 5%
Rarely 24%
Sometimes 28%
Often 43%
Not enough information to
judge 0%
Figure 13: Percentage of business respondents who perceive that consultation processes
make clear how the collected information will be used (based on 21 responses)
Figure 14: Percentage of business respondents who perceive that documents relating to
consultations are easily accessible (based on 21 responses)
Never 9%
Rarely 24%
Sometimes 38%
Often 29%
Not enough information to
judge 0%
15 | P a g e
Never 9%
Rarely 57%
Sometimes 19%
Often 10%
Not enough information to
judge 5%
B. Complete regulatory impact assessment (An impact assessment that includes analysis of all elements recommended in the government's national
guidelines on RIA)
Never 9%
Rarely 27%
Sometimes 36%
Often 23%
Not enough information to
judge 5%
A. Partial regulatory impact assessment (An impact assessment that includes analysis of some but not all elements recommended in the government’s national
guidelines on RIA)
In addition to improving the effectiveness of consultation processes, another important factor
that can support the implementation of reforms would be to carry out regulatory impact
assessments (RIAs). Figure 15 suggests there is room for improvement in governments’
efforts to carry out such assessments. Results show that only 23% of respondents
consider that partial RIAs are carried out often, compared to 36% who state that they
are carried out either rarely or never. This finding is even more striking when
respondents are asked whether complete RIAs are carried out, where 66% report
rarely or never.
Figure 15: Percentage of business respondents who consider that proposed changes in
regulation are accompanied by a partial or complete regulatory impact assessment (based on 21 responses)
16 | P a g e
Finally, recognising that companies in different countries operate internationally,
respondents were invited to comment on certain aspects of international regulatory co-
operation. A strong majority of respondents (87%) indicate that it is important for
business that governments align regulations internationally (based on 22 responses).
Interestingly, 50% of respondents indicated that they have been using the OECD’s 2012
Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance to promote
regulatory reform with their respective governments (based on 20 responses). This level
of usage suggests there is still strong potential to further promote internationally-agreed
OECD instruments in order to support reform in many countries around the world.
III. Conclusions
The results of the BIAC Economic Policy Survey 2014 reinforce several important business
messages to policymakers:
Governments in many countries need to urgently introduce reforms in product
market regulation (notably to reduce economy-wide and sector-specific
regulatory burdens), where actions should be taken to reduce the scope of public
ownership/state intervention, improve the transparency of regulation, and streamline
permit and licensing systems, among other reforms.
Other key priorities for structural reform in many countries include:
o Improving public sector efficiency (including enhancing the efficiency and
transparency of public procurement).
o Increasing the efficiency of general taxation and the overall tax
structure (including reduction of distortion and fragmentation of the tax
system).
o Strengthening human capital through particular emphasis on reforms to
expand and improve vocational education and training, as well as reforms to
primary and secondary levels of education (including focus on teaching
quality, curricula, and assessment).
o Improving labour utilisation through reforms of active labour market
policies, wage formation, retirement schemes, among others.
The reforms described above are considered top priorities by many national business
and employer organisations for their respective governments in 2014. Through their
implementation, together with other appropriate reforms, companies will be better
able to invest, trade, innovate and create jobs – all of which are essential drivers for
economic recovery. The country-specific reform priorities should be considered in the
OECD Going for Growth 2015 publication.
17 | P a g e
Governments’ commitment to implementing such reforms in a timely fashion is
critical in order to deliver much-needed business confidence. The finding that 35%
of the OECD’s 2013 reform priorities are considered by business respondents to
have not been implemented at all, and only 4% full implemented – echoing a similar
trend from BIAC’s Economic Policy Survey 2012 – suggests that there is significant
room for supporting governments in implementing important reforms. This is an
important aspect which merits greater attention in OECD analysis.
One important factor for increasing the implementation of proposed reforms would be
to improve the effectiveness of the regulatory consultation process. This could
improve the design of new regulations and help to ensure key stakeholder support for
their implementation. In order to increase the quality of consultations, many
governments need to step up their respect for minimum periods of consultation, allow
greater time for consultation, explain how the information provided during
consultations will be used, and make documents for consultation more easily
accessible.
Another important factor for ensuring the successful introduction of new reforms
would be to carry out regulatory impact assessments (RIAs). Unfortunately,
results from the BIAC Economic Policy Survey 2014 suggest that business in over a
third of respondent countries consider that partial RIAs are rarely or never carried
out, and business in two-thirds of respondent countries consider that complete RIAs
are rarely or never carried out. There is therefore significant room for improvement in
governments’ efforts to carry out RIAs.
Finally, recognising that businesses operate globally, there should be greater
alignment of regulations internationally in order to enable companies to operate
more efficiently and effectively across borders. This calls for improved international
regulatory co-operation. The OECD has a significant role to play in this area and the
use of its instruments should be expanded, including the OECD 2012
Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance.
18 | P a g e
Annex: Methodological Notes
Timeline
The survey was launched in late January 2014 and concluded in April 2014.
Respondents
22 national business and employer organisations from all continents participated in the
survey on a voluntary basis. Only one response per country was accepted.
While the sample size remains relatively small, it is important to consider that each
participating business and employer organisation holds thousands of companies across
several economic sectors in their respective memberships. In completing the survey, it was
expected that the organisations would ensure well-balanced and representative responses.
In the absence of a BIAC observer organisation in China, the leadership of the BIAC China
Task Force was invited to provide a 23rd response. Similar to other participants, the BIAC
China Task Force leadership was tasked to reflect as much as possible the established
views of the broader BIAC China Task Force membership. However, unlike the other
participating organisations, the BIAC China Task Force leadership response presents solely
the views of OECD-based business operating in China and not domestic business.
Confidentiality
In order to encourage respondents to freely put forth their respective views and priorities,
including comments on the implementation of reforms and the nature of their engagement in
consultation processes, it was decided to ensure the confidentiality of their responses.
Thus a confidential set of country-specific responses is made available to the OECD
Secretariat for its internal use only, in order to support its preparation of the OECD Going for
Growth 2015 and OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015 publications.
For the purposes of this synthesis report, the names of participating organisations and their
responses have been anonymised.
Survey structure
The survey was structured into four main parts:
I. Selection of top 5 priorities for reform in respondent’s country
II. Explanation for selection in Part I
III. Perspectives on the implementation of the OECD’s Going for Growth 2013
recommendations in respondent’s country
IV. Perspectives on how regulatory policymaking processes operate in practice in
respondent’s country
With respect to Part I (Selection of the top 5 priorities for reform in respondent’s country), the
survey template presented a categorisation of different areas for potential reform which
mirrors the categorisation that will feature in the OECD Going for Growth 2015 publication –
see Table 1 below. Respondents were asked to select their top five priorities in Level 1, and
as many related Level 2 priorities as considered necessary.
19 | P a g e
Table 1: Categorisation of reform priorities
Reform Area Level 1 detail Level 2 detail
Product market regulation
Reduce economy-wide regulatory burden
Reduce cost and barriers to entry
Ease business exit
Improve transparency of regulation
Streamline permit and licensing systems
Reduce the scope of public ownership/state intervention
Reduce sector-specific regulatory burdens
Energy and other network sectors
Retail trade and professional services
Barriers to FDI and international trade
Human capital
Primary and secondary education
Ensure adequate resources
Improve teaching quality
Improve school accountability and autonomy
Improve curricula and evaluation
Postpone early tracking
Limit grade repetition
Improve incentives for secondary education completion
Reduce inequality in education opportunities
Tertiary education
Increase university autonomy
Introduce an evaluation system for universities
Introduce/raise tuition fees with income-contingent payback
Improve incentives for earlier completion/encourage early admission
Expand access/enrolment/reduce inequalities in access
Vocational education and training Expand vocational education and training
20 | P a g e
Enhance VET effectiveness and its link to business
Efficiency of general taxation/tax structure
Shift tax burden away from labour and capital toward consumption, immovable property and the environment
Reduce distortions and fragmentation of the tax system
Combat tax evasion and broaden tax bases/reduce tax expenditure
Public sector efficiency
Enhance public healthcare sector efficiency
Improve monitoring mechanisms
Improve efficiency at sub-central level
Enhance efficiency and transparency of public procurement
Rule of law
Innovation policies/Raising effectiveness of R&D policies
Increase and/or reform R&D tax incentives
Improve targeting of public support
Improve access to venture capital
Strengthen collaboration between research centres/universities and industry
Public infrastructure
Increase capacity
Introduce road pricing/congestion charges
Promote private sector participation
Agriculture and energy subsidies
Agriculture subsidies
Energy subsidies
Reduce barriers to agricultural imports
Labour Average and marginal taxation of labour income
Reduce overall or marginal labour taxation
21 | P a g e
Remove tax and benefit disincentives to full-time female/second earners/lone parents participation
Remove tax and benefit disincentives to low earner participation
Reduce labour tax wedge for low income earners, other specific groups
Public support for childcare, pre-school education and parental leave policies
Expand the provision of childcare, pre-school education
Enhance targeting of childcare pre-school education support
Reform parental leave policies
Housing policies
Reform planning/zoning regulations
Reduce rent controls
Improve targeting or reduce the use of housing subsidies/improve targeting in the provision of social housing
Reduce/eliminate preferential tax treatment for housing investment
Retirement schemes
Phase out early retirement schemes
Increase statutory or minimum retirement age
Lengthen contributory requirements/make benefits more actuarily neutral
Adjust benefits/retirement age in line with life expectancy
Sickness and disability schemes
Strengthen gate-keeping for sickness and disability systems
Reduce generosity of the benefits
Improve return to work of recipients
Unemployment benefits
Reduce replacement rates over the unemployment spell/reduce benefit duration
Tighten conditions for unemployment benefits
22 | P a g e
Expand coverage/generosity
Active labour market policies (ALMPs)
Expand ALMPs/expand training under ALMPs
Strengthen activation of the unemployed
Improve efficiency and quality of training by promoting employers’ involvement
Introduce or expand evaluation of ALMP spending
Wage formation and minimum cost of labour
Reform wage bargaining to better align wages with productivity conditions at aggregate, regional, firm and skill-specific levels
Reduce relative level or growth rate of minimum wages vis-à-vis median wages
Reduce minimum cost of labour
Employment protection legislation
Re-balance job protection between permanent and temporary contracts
Improve the efficiency and predictability of legal procedures in labour courts
Other job protection reforms to reduce informality
Other
Financial market reform