The Experience of the Leading EU Countries in Contention with Shadow Economy: Recommendations for Ukraine

Author(s):  
Alexey Diachenko ◽  
Alexander Galytskiy ◽  
Olena Borzenko
Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Schneider ◽  
Konrad Raczkowski ◽  
Bogdan Mróz

Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to explore size of the shadow economy of 31 European Countries in 2014 and size of the shadow economy of 28 European Union countries over 2003-2014 (in per cent of official GDP). An additional objective is to identify tax evasion, as the problem of all the EU countries, answering the questions how better combat the tax fraud. Design/methodology/approach – Estimates of the shadow economy for all 28 European Union countries and other three countries from Europe, i.e. Norway, Switzerland and Turkey – MIMIC method was applied. Findings – The average size of the shadow economy in 28 EU countries was 22.6 per cent in 2003 and decreased to 18.6 per cent (of official GDP) in 2014. We also consider the most important driving forces of the shadow economy. The biggest ones are with 14.6 per cent unemployment and self-employment, followed by tax morale with 14.5 per cent and GDP growth with 14.3 per cent. The proportion of tax evasion (accounting for indirect taxation and self-employment activities) was on average 4.2 per cent (of official GDP) in Poland, 1.9 per cent in Germany and 2.9 per cent in the Czech Republic. Research limitations/implications – The MIMIC statistics do not address a large part of the wholly illegal economy (of typically criminal nature) and, accordingly, it is not an absolute magnitude of the whole unofficial economy. However, it does not seem that other, alternative, methods of measuring the unofficial economy are better in individual terms. Practical implications – Current statistical research should lead to practical acceptance in the framework of need for developing better organizational & legal ways for multi-level governance within the European Union, leading to effective methods of counteracting – in particular intra-Union fraud. In addition, the presentation of a review of typology of the main theories and studies regarding the unofficial economy aspects relating to tax evasion constitutes a practical review of the pursued research areas. Social implications – Safeguarding the national economy as a whole, by seeking ways of reducing the scope of shadow economy. Originality/value – Both regarding presentation of the latest shadow economy estimates and typology of its main studies and theories.


VUZF Review ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-244
Author(s):  
Anastasiia Kyrychenko

The article considers the burden in the social insurance system on business entities of Ukraine and EU countries. A comparison of northern European and continental models of social insurance is made. The system of social insurance in terms of payment of contributions by economic entities of Ukraine and EU countries is analyzed and a comparative description is made. An analysis of the reform of insurance rates for business entities for compulsory state social insurance in Ukraine, as well as the dynamics of the single social contribution from businesses. The influence of the load in the social insurance system on economic entities on the level of shadowing of the state economy is substantiated. The article defines the dynamics of the integrated indicator of the level of the shadow economy in Ukraine and the growth / decrease of real GDP. The factors that contribute to the growth of the shadow economy in the EU countries are identified and the shadow sector in these countries is analyzed. An approach to reduce the burden in the social insurance system on business entities of Ukraine is proposed.


Author(s):  
D.S. Zhmurko ◽  
A.O. Doroshenko ◽  
S.M. Babich
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Ryzhyuk Yevgeny

The subject of the research is a set of institutional institutions and organizational and managerial relations that effectively regulate the financial and investment environment in the EU countries, comparing them with Ukrainian realities.The goal of writing this article is to develop practical and scientific-methodicalrecommendations on how to increase the efficiency of using financial and investment potential based on the experience of EU countries. The methodology of thework-system-structural and comparative studies (to understand the logic of thefunctioning of institutions that form the investment environment and the mechanisms of their interaction); monographic analysis (in studying the problems ofattracting investors); historical and economic analysis (in assessing the state andprospects of the European, as well as the Ukrainian economy). Results of work -it is revealed that modern European regulators are aimed at forming a holisticinvestment and financial infrastructure and investment platform at the supranational level. It was proposed to carry out further liberalization of currency regulation in Ukraine in order to transform it into a convenient and efficient electronicautomated currency exchange system and introduce the integration of the domestic depository system into the international depositary clearing system Clearstream.It was noted that the financial and investment environment in Ukraine is blockedand domestic monopolies are interested in this, thanks to lobbying in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and in the executive branch they have distorted financial,investment and currency legislation for their interests and needs. Conclusions-thepresence of a holistic investment and financial infrastructure in the EU countriesis due to the gradual convergence and unification of legislation at the nationallevel to the supranational level. In addition, it is reasonably high investment positions of Ireland in the world and it was proposed to use this experience to createa favorable financial and investment environment in Ukraine. Note that the formation of the financial and investment environment in Ukraine according to European standards is hampered by: oligarchic monopolies, which parasitizes mainly onnatural monopolies; government corruption; confusing and incomprehensible legislation for investors; high tax rates and tax administration system; instability ofthe banking system, the risks of hryvnia devaluation; the insecurity of landagrarian relations; as well as armed conflict in the east of Ukraine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document