Tax havens and their impacts on the non-haven countries

Tax havens have attracted increasing attention from the authorities of non-haven countries. The financial crisis exacerbates the negative attitude to tax havens. Offshore zones are now under strong pressure from the international, both financial and political institutions. Thus, the thesis will focus on the current problem of the modern economy, namely tax havens and their impact on the non-haven countries. This thesis will be based on the several articles, in particular “Tax Competition With Parasitic Tax Havens” by Joel Slemrod and John D. Wilson (University of Michigan, 2009) and “Do Havens Divert Economic Activity” by James R. Hines Jr., C. Fritz Foley and Mihir A. Desai (Ross School of Business, 2005). This paper provides two completely different and contradictory viewpoints on the problem of coexisting tax havens and non-haven countries. There are two models, examined in this work, present two important researches. The first one will be concentrated on the positive effect from tax havens whereas the last model will be focused on the completely negative effect from offshore jurisdictions. The first model gives us a good explanation and proof of its statement why tax havens can positively influence on nearby high-tax countries. It describes that the existence of offshore jurisdictions can stimulate the growth of operations and facilitates economic activity in non-haven countries. In contrast to above mentioned, the model with quite opposite view was presented. This economic model and its analysis confirms the undesirability of the existence of offshore areas. Taking into consideration, that the jurisdictions choose their optimal policy, the elimination of offshores will have positive impact on the rest of countries. The model proofs the statement that full or partial elimination of tax havens raises the equilibrium level of the public good and increases country welfare. According to the following study, it can be concluded that both of the models provide telling arguments to prove their assertions. Thereby both of these points of view have their right to exist. Nevertheless, the ongoing debate concerning this issue still will raise a lot of questions.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

Non-industrial private forest landowners’ choices of timber management strategies and potential allowable cut.

In the study, the potential allowable cut in the district of Pohjois-Savo - based on the non-industrial private forest landowners' (NIPF) choices of timber management strategies - was clarified. Alternative timber management strategies were generated, and the choices and factors affecting the choices of timber management strategies by NIPF landowners were studied. The choices of timber management strategies were solved by maximizing the utility functions of the NIPF landowners. The parameters of the utility functions were estimated using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The level of the potential allowable cut was compared to the cutting budgets based on the 7th and 8th National Forest Inventories (NFI7 and NFI8), to the combining of private forestry plans, and to the realized drain from non-industrial private forests. The potential allowable cut was calculated using the same MELA system as has been used in the calculation of the national cutting budget. The data consisted of the NIPF holdings (from the TASO planning system) that had been inventoried compartmentwise and had forestry plans made during the years 1984-1992. The NIPF landowners' choices of timber management strategies were clarified by a two-phase mail inquiry. The most preferred strategy obtained was "sustainability" (chosen by 62 % of landowners). The second in order of preference was "finance" (17 %) and the third was "saving" (11 %). "No cuttings", and "maximum cuttings" were the least preferred (9 % and 1 %, resp.). The factors promoting the choices of strategies with intensive cuttings were a) "farmer as forest owner" and "owning fields", b) "increase in the size of the forest holding", c) agriculture and forestry orientation in production, d) "decreasing short term stumpage earning expectations", e) "increasing intensity of future cuttings", and f) "choice of forest taxation system based on site productivity". The potential allowable cut defined in the study was 20 % higher than the average of the realized drain during the years 1988-1993, which in turn, was at the same level as the cutting budget based on the combining of forestry plans in eastern Finland. Respectively, the potential allowable cut defined in the study was 12 % lower than the NFI8-based greatest sustained allowable cut for the 1990s. Using the method presented in this study, timber management strategies can be clarified for non-industrial private forest landowners in different parts of Finland. Based on the choices of timber managemet strategies, regular cutting budgets can be calculated more realistically than before.

Non-industrial private forest landowners’ choices of timber management strategies.

The factors affecting the non-industrial, private forest landowners' (hereafter referred to using the acronym NIPF) strategic decisions in management planning are studied. A genetic algorithm is used to induce a set of rules predicting potential cut of the landowners' choices of preferred timber management strategies. The rules are based on variables describing the characteristics of the landowners and their forest holdings. The predictive ability of a genetic algorithm is compared to linear regression analysis using identical data sets. The data are cross-validated seven times applying both genetic algorithm and regression analyses in order to examine the data-sensitivity and robustness of the generated models. The optimal rule set derived from genetic algorithm analyses included the following variables: mean initial volume, landowner's positive price expectations for the next eight years, landowner being classified as farmer, and preference for the recreational use of forest property. When tested with previously unseen test data, the optimal rule set resulted in a relative root mean square error of 0.40. In the regression analyses, the optimal regression equation consisted of the following variables: mean initial volume, proportion of forestry income, intention to cut extensively in future, and positive price expectations for the next two years. The R2 of the optimal regression equation was 0.34 and the relative root mean square error obtained from the test data was 0.38. In both models, mean initial volume and positive stumpage price expectations were entered as significant predictors of potential cut of preferred timber management strategy. When tested with the complete data set of 201 observations, both the optimal rule set and the optimal regression model achieved the same level of accuracy.