http://www3.istat.it/salastampa/comunicati/non_calendario/20100713_00/testointegrale20100713.pdf
Qui alcune note ufficiali per il periodo 2000-2008 riguardanti i criteri di stima del sommerso e le problematiche come già detto arcinote. Dal sito ufficiale ISTAT. Ovviamente è solo la punta dell'iceberg di un argomento che come ho già detto e ripetuto non ha scoperto ramirez ed è analizzato, discusso, valutato da esperti del settore da decenni in tutto il mondo ricco.
Poi si può sempre "fare meglio" come in tutte le cose, ma di certo bisognerebbe prima sapere bene cosa già viene fatto come e perchè, insomma passare qualche mese a studiarsi 2-3 libri sull'argomento e qualche decina di paper.
Qui note sull'argomento da parte dei sempre ottimi tizi di freakonomics, con podcast di 40 minuti
Freakonomics » How Deep Is the Shadow Economy? A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast
Qui esempi di stima dell'IRS (l'AdE americana) per il 2001
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/tax_gap_figures.pdf
Qui per il 2006
IRS Updates Tax Gap Estimates
Qui dal sito di Harvard
http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/eitc_nrp_tabs.pdf
Spiegano come uno dei metodi di stima sia fare audit a campione del tutto casuale, vedere quanto si discostano i valori rispetto a quelli dichiarati, e applicare questo discostamento alla popolazione generale (se hai campionato correttamente è un metodo di stima piuttosto preciso)
Qui l'Institue for Economics Affairs (UK) sulla stima del sommerso
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/IEA Shadow Economy web rev 7.6.13.pdf
Pag 23-31 sono tutte dedicate ai criteri di stima e alle (arcinote) problematiche.
Qui un paper accademico su come secondo l'autore uno specifico metodo di stima del sommerso è inadeguato e perchè, tanto per capire il livello tecnico della discussione in corso da, ripeto, decenni, da parte di centinaia di esperti specializzati proprio solo in questo nel mondo
1. Introduction
By definition, the underground economy cannot be directly observed so its magnitudes have
to be estimated. Many different methods are employed for this purpose. Tax audits are
informative, but they are usually targeted toward suspected offenders and hence are biased
estimators of aggregate behaviour. Regular surveys of household expenditures and incomes
conducted by national statistical agencies can be examined for discrepancies that might indicate
unreported incomes. Special surveys are sometimes conducted, with direct questions about
below-the-counter incomes or cash payments, although non-response bias is always a concern.
At a more aggregated level, inferences can be made from inconsistencies between the
expenditure, income and product data that are collected from various sources for national
accounting purposes. The most popular methods in the academic literature are based on
macroeconomic models of either the demand for currency holdings (perhaps in comparison to
bank account balances) or the consumption of some standard commodity such as electricity.
Interest is burgeoning in a more complex approach known as the “structural equation” or
MIMIC model, which stands for “multiple indicator multiple cause”. The method has its origins
in the factor analysis literature of psychometrics, while its exposure in economics is through the
latent variable models of Zellner (1970) and Goldberger (1972). In the first application of
MIMIC to estimating the underground economy, Frey and Weck-Hannemann (1984) examine a
pooled data set from 17 OECD countries. The idea is extended by Aigner, Schneider and Ghosh
(1988), who allow some lagged adjustment in a dynamic MIMIC (or DYMIMIC) model and
apply the method to the United States. Giles (1999) further modifies the approach to incorporate
developments in time-series methods, especially unit roots and cointegration analysis, and
provides estimates of New Zealand’s hidden economy. The state of the art of dynamic MIMIC
modelling is a book by Giles and Tedds (2002), where the approach is described in detail and
applied to Canada. Authors taking up the method in the wake of the Giles and Tedds book
include Bajada and Schneider (2005), who study Australia and other Pacific nations, and
Dell’Anno and Schneider (2003), who estimate the underground economy in Italy and report
results for other OECD countries.
The MIMIC approach is attractive in this context. The idea is to represent the output (or
income) of the underground economy as a latent variable or index, which has causes and effects
that are observable but which cannot itself be directly measured. Thus there are two kinds of 2
observed variables in the model, “causal” variables and “indicator” variables, which are
connected by a single unobserved index. Values of the index over time are inferred from data on
causes and indicators by estimating the statistical model and predicting the index. The fitted
index is then interpreted as a time-series estimate of the magnitude of the underground economy.
Usually the measure is hidden output or income as a percentage of recorded GDP, although some
researchers are concerned with the “tax gap” between actual revenue and the potential revenue
when all taxable income is reported.
http://128.118.178.162/eps/em/papers/0507/0507003.pdf
////
MA OVVIAMENTE arriva ramirez in pensione dopo aver fatto il cassiere in banca e SICURAMENTE ha capito tutto lui e gli altri lo vogliono truffare.
