Some rights reserved 1 2 3 4 17 16 15 14 This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. Note that The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content included in the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of the content contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you.The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

This paper uses the 2013 Integrated Household Survey, collected by the Central Statistical Agency of Georgia (GeoStat), and data concerning government revenues and expenditures collected by the Ministry of Finance (MoF) along with other administrative agencies, and applies the CEQ methodology to analyze the progressivity of Georgia's tax and transfer systems. The effects of a variety of policies are individually described, including personal income tax (PIT), value added tax (VAT) and excise tax. In addition, this paper assesses direct and in-kind transfers made by the Georgian government. The distributional effect of indirect subsidies, which are confined to the capital city, Tbilisi, are also considered, as well as the Agricultural Card program. The results show a stark difference between direct and indirect taxation. Direct taxes are progressive, and income tax is largely borne by high-income deciles. Meanwhile, the burden of indirect taxation is more evenly distributed, with the poor losing a higher percentage of income. Thus, the tax system is regressive. Overall, fiscal policy is progressive and equalizing, even before in-kind transfers for early education, and the Medical Insurance for the Poor (MIP), and Universal Health Care (UHC) programs are taken into account. The Targeted Social Assistance Program (TSA) and old-age pensions play a significantly pro-poor role. Fiscal incidence reduces poverty (under $2.50 USD's per day) over 9 percentage points, the largest drop in poverty amongst the countries where CEQ analysis was performed. This paper concludes that excise taxes should be reassigned or eliminated to reduce regressivity, while PIT and the property tax could be broadened, which would expand the tax base.

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

Los documentos publicados en la serie "Documentos de trabajo" del BID son de la más alta calidad académica y editorial. Todos ellos fueron sometidos a una revisión de pares por expertos reconocidos en su campo, y fueron editados profesionalmente. Los puntos de vista y las opiniones que se presentan en este documento de trabajo son exclusivamente de los autores y no necesariamente reflejan los del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, de su Directorio Ejecutivo ni de los países que representan. Este estudio utiliza una reciente encuesta de hogares para medir los avances en materia de inclusión social durante la última década, incluyendo una revisión de los indicadores de pobreza, estructura del hogar, los activos laborales, de capital humano, físicos, y financieros. Dicha revisión resume las intervenciones del gobierno en salud, educación e infraestructura en los pueblos indígenas a la luz de los impactos sociales observados en los datos. Asimismo, se hace una descomposición de la brecha salarial entre grupos étnicos utilizando la metodología de matching desarrollada por Ñopo (2008). Los resultados demuestran que a pesar de los recientes avances, la población indígena de Panamá continúa con niveles de pobreza y marginación alarmantes. Sin embargo existe bastante heterogeneidad en estos resultados. Asimismo, los resultados señalan aciertos en la política de Gobierno, como también debilidades, las que permiten apuntar a posibles acciones de política que permitan mejorar la calidad de vida de los pueblos indígenas.JEL Classification: C14, D31, I38, H5