2014
DOI: 10.5089/9781484367209.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Direct Distribution of Resource Revenues: Worth Considering?

Abstract: provided excellent research assistance. DISCLAIMER: This Staff Discussion Note represents the views of the authors and does not necessarily represent IMF views or IMF policy. The views expressed herein should be attributed to the authors and not to the IMF, its Executive Board, or its management. Staff Discussion Notes are published to elicit comments and to further debate.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, see Sala-i-Martín and Subramanian (2003), Sandbu (2006), Segal (2011), Moss (2011), Devarajan and others (2011), Rodríguez, Morales, and Monaldi (2012), and Giugale and Nguyen (2014). Gupta, Segura-Ubiergo, and Flores (2014) provide a survey of the issues and international experience and offer a preliminary assessment.…”
Section: Notesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, see Sala-i-Martín and Subramanian (2003), Sandbu (2006), Segal (2011), Moss (2011), Devarajan and others (2011), Rodríguez, Morales, and Monaldi (2012), and Giugale and Nguyen (2014). Gupta, Segura-Ubiergo, and Flores (2014) provide a survey of the issues and international experience and offer a preliminary assessment.…”
Section: Notesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, scaling up too abruptly leads to inefficiencies. For example, selected projects may be of lower quality, making the entire process more inefficient (Pritchett, 2000;Dabla-Norris et al, 2012;Gupta et al, 2014, Qu et al, 2014. Second, increasing investment requires building fiscal buffers, so that in case of adverse shocks, such as an unexpected decrease in oil revenue, the investment plan could still be carried out without compromising fiscal stability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, if cash transfers can address urgent needs, they cannot secure lasting benefi ts. Thus, this model fails to address other causes of poverty, such as access to education and civil rights, and is not suffi cient to ensure economic well-being in the long run, therefore lacking intergenerational equity (Gupta et al 2014;Bunting and Truelove 1970;Hartwick 1977Hartwick , 1978.…”
Section: Assessing the Revenue Allocation Strategies According To Susmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Diff erent operational defi nitions exist such as lump sum payments, conditional cash transfers, and dividends (see Segal 2012b for an in-depth discussion of DDM). This system is likely the simplest allocation model and presents the potential to reduce social and revenue inequalities, poverty-especially extreme poverty-and could provide greater social and income security to the most vulnerable (Gupta et al 2014;Standing 2008;Standing 2014;DFID 2011;Segal 2011Segal , 2012bGibson and O'Faircheallaigh 2010;O'Faircheallaigh 2010O'Faircheallaigh , 2012Moss 2010;Soares et al 2007;Schubert and Huijbregts 2006;Morley and Coady 2003;Bunting and Truelove 1970). Moreover, the DDM provides benefi ciaries with the freedom to decide how to spend the money, may it be for urgent needs or long-term investments (O'Faircheallaigh 2010(O'Faircheallaigh , 2012Moss 2010;Gibson and O'Faircheallaigh 2010;Weinthal and Jones Luong 2006;Palley 2003).…”
Section: Direct Payments To Individualsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation