Etiology of ethnic differences in childhood spirometry.

OBJECTIVES: Age- and height-adjusted spirometric lung function of South Asian children is lower than those of white children. It is unclear whether this is purely genetic, or partly explained by the environment. In this study, we assessed whether cultural factors, socioeconomic status, intrauterine growth, environmental exposures, or a family and personal history of wheeze contribute to explaining the ethnic differences in spirometric lung function. METHODS: We studied children aged 9 to 14 years from a population-based cohort, including 1088 white children and 275 UK-born South Asians. Log-transformed spirometric data were analyzed using multiple linear regressions, adjusting for anthropometric factors. Five different additional models adjusted for (1) cultural factors, (2) indicators of socioeconomic status, (3) perinatal data reflecting intrauterine growth, (4) environmental exposures, and (5) personal and family history of wheeze. RESULTS: Height- and gender-adjusted forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expired volume in 1 second (FEV1) were lower in South Asian than white children (relative difference -11% and -9% respectively, P < .001), but PEF and FEF50 were similar (P ≥ .5). FEV1/FVC was higher in South Asians (1.8%, P < .001). These differences remained largely unchanged in all 5 alternative models. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed important differences in lung volumes between South Asian and white children. These were not attenuated after adjustment for cultural and socioeconomic factors and intrauterine growth, neither were they explained by differences in environmental exposures nor a personal or family history of wheeze. This suggests that differences in lung function may be mainly genetic in origin. The implication is that ethnicity-specific predicted values remain important specifically for South Asian children.

The Rise of The Swiss Tax Haven in the Interwar Period: An International Comparison

The history of tax havens during the decades before World War II is still little known. To date, the studies that have focused on the 1920s and 1930s have presented either a very general perspective on the development of tax havens or a narrow national point of view. Based on unpublished historical archives of five countries (Switzerland, Great Britain, Belgium, France, Germany), this paper offers therefore a new comparative appraisal of international tax competition during this period in order to answer the following question: What was the specificity of the Swiss case - already considered a quintessential tax haven at the time - in comparison to other banking centres? The findings of this research study are twofold. First, the 1920s and 1930s appear as something of a golden age of opportunity for avoiding taxation through the relocation of assets. Most of the financial centres granted consistent tax benefits for imported capital, while the limited degree of international cooperation and the usual guarantee of banking secrecy in European countries prevented the taxation of exported assets. Second, within this general environment, the fiscal strategies of a tax haven like Switzerland differed from those of a great financial power like Great Britain. Whereas the Swiss administration readily placed itself at the service of the banking community, British policy was more balanced between the contradictory interests of the Board of Inland Revenue, the Treasury, and the English business circles.

The Rise of The Swiss Tax Haven in the Interwar Period: An International Comparison

The history of tax havens is still little known for the decades before World War II. Up to now the studies that have focused on the 1920s and 30s have presented either a very general perspective on the development of tax havens or a narrow national point of view. Based on unpublished historical archives of four countries, this paper offers therefore a new comparative look on international tax competition during this period in order to answer the following question: was the Swiss case - already considered as a quintessential tax haven at the time - specific in comparison to other banking centres? This research has two results. On the one hand, the 1920s and 30s appear as something of a golden age of opportunity for avoiding taxation through the relocation of assets. Actually, most of the financial centres granted consistent tax benefits for imported capital, while the extremely limited degree of international cooperation and the usual guarantee of banking secrecy in European countries prevented the taxation of exported assets. On the other hand, within this general balance sheet, the fiscal strategies of a tax haven like Switzerland differed from those of a great financial power like Great Britain. Whereas the Swiss administration readily placed itself at the service of the bankers, the British policy was more balanced between the contradictory interests of the Board of Inland Revenue, the Treasury and the English business circles.