Factors of the Shadow Economy in Market and Transition Economies during the Post-Crisis Period: is there a Difference?

Abstract

The shadow economy (SE) is a global phenomenon that affects every country. However, its forms and mechanisms may differ depending on a country's socio-economic characteristics. The major characteristic is a country’s economic system. Hence, market and transition economies can be affected differently. Given that the size of the SE directly affects the level of tax revenue, it is particularly important to investigate the factors of the SE during the post-crisis period, when policymakers need sufficient budgetary funds to implement anti-crisis measures. In that sense, this paper aims to identify the differences in the factors that boosted the SE in 17 market and 19 transition economies in Europe between 2009-2014. The research is based on the PLS-SEM method. A country’s wealth and development, market openness, tax system and political environment are employed as the major SE factors. These factors are the most common in previous literature when investigating the issues of the shadow economy and are most appropriate for this research. The results suggest that particular factors of the SE differently affect market and transition economies. In transition economies, a favourable political environment, greater wealth and development, as well as a lower tax burden contribute to a smaller size of the SE, whereas greater market openness and a higher tax burden lead to a larger size of the SE. The links between market openness, tax system and the SE are not, however, statistically significant. Like transition economies, market economies are characterized by the positive impact of political environment and wealth and development when combating the SE. Unlike in transition economies, the size of the SE in market economies is reduced by a high tax burden and greater market openness. In the latter case, there is only one statistically insignificant path coefficient – it represents the relationship between the SE and market openness. The Multi-Group Analysis (MGA) method was employed to compare the path coefficients estimated for the country groups under consideration. The results indicate that the only difference in the path coefficients representing the relationship between market openness and the SE is not statistically significant. Based on the research results, some recommendations for policymakers in transition and market economies are provided in the conclusion.

Understanding The Influence Of Shadow Economy And Foreign Direct Investment On Corporate Tax Revenue In Latin America: The Moderating effect Of Corruption Control

“…Contrary to those researches, Vlachaki (2015) and Fedajev et al (2022) found different results. Vlachaki (2015) found that as long as informality doesn't go above a certain threshold, the size of the shadow economy boosts the ratio of indirect tax revenue to GDP.…”

Modeling the Impact of Shadow Financial Transactions on the Country’s Financial Potential

“…One of the most influential inhibitors of the country's economic development is the shadow economy. According to the results of the structural analysis of the shadow sector of the economy, money is often the object of manipulation by participants in shadow operations (Safuan et al, 2021;Remeikienė et al, 2021;Fedajev et al, 2022;Buszko, 2022). Increasingly, economic entities direct their efforts to distort their financial, accounting or tax reporting in the direction of reducing the declared amount of income, hiding part of the results of their activities.…”

Foreign direct investment and shadow economy: One-way effect or multiple-way causality?

“…Nowadays, scientists have developed many studies, in which one of the most widely accepted approaches to increasing the country's investment attractiveness and its investment potential is to form and implement a policy of countering shadow operations (Buszko, 2022;Darchia, 2022;Fedajev et al, 2022;Hamzah et al, 2021;Kuzmenko et al, 2020Kuzmenko et al, , 2021Lyeonov et al, 2020;Lyulyov et al, 2021;Mirdamad, 2020;Pakhnenko et al, 2022;Simelyte & Tvaronaviciene, 2022;Roszko-Wójtowicz & Grzelak, 2021).…”