P.4.2/9-2-96
I
I I
ENCUENTRO
DE
ECONOMIA
PUBLICA
Depa amen o
de
Teo ía Económica
y
Economía Polí ica
Uni e sidad
de
Se illa
Se illa
9, 10 de eb e o de 1995
PONENCIA
Empi ical
Es ima es
o
Fiscal
Visibili y
in some
OECD
Coun ies.
Miguel
ROIG
ALONSO
Depa amen o
de
Economía Aplicada. Uni e sidad
de
Valencia.
EMPIRICAL
ESTIMATES
OF
FISCAL
VISIBILITY
IN
SOME
OECD
COUNTRIES
Miguel
Roig-Alonso
Public
Finance and
Public
Sec o
Economics
Resea ch
Uni
Uni e si y
o
Valencia,
Spain
L-
INTRODUCTION:
Imp o emen s in he e icien alloca ion o esou ces be ween he
p í a e
and public
sec o s o an economy - as
well
as among i s se e al public sub-sec o s - can be eached inso a
as bo h public e enue and expendi u e ha e
isibili y,
his
is,
he
bu den
o public e enue and
he
bene i
o public expendi u e should be
ully
no iceable by
indi iduáis1.
Conce ning
public e enue, i s
isibili y
has changed
in
he cou se o
his o y,
depending
on
bo h economic (as he de elopmen
le el
o a coun y) and
poli ical
(as mechanisms o
iscal
¡Ilusión
used by
poli icians,
bu eauc a s, and in e es g oups o
o e eóme
axpaye s' esis ance)
ac o s
(Wagne , 1976; Bo che ding, 1977; Buchanan and Wagne , 1977;
Fio ina
and
Noli,
1978;
Pomme ehne and Schneide ,
1978;
B ennan
and
Buchanan,
1980;
F ey
and Pomme ehne,
1982;
Tullock,
1989;
Tabellini
and
Alesina,
1990;
Dunlea y,
1991;
Muelle ,
1993).
In a
simila
way,
he compliance
wi h
such equi ed p ope y by
iscal
sys ems now in
o cé
migh
di e
ema kably
among coun ies.
Wi h
ega d o public expendi u e, he
inal
o
in e medía e,
he public o
p í a e
na u e, he spacial e ee s o dimensions, he cos s necessa y o ob ain consump ion, and o he
inhe en cha ac e is ics o
pubiicly
p o ided
goods
and se ices ep esen majo ac o s
de e mining hei bene i
isibili y
(Weingas , Shepsle, and Johnsen, 1981; Solano, 1983;
Hamil on,
1983;
Becke ,
1983, 1985; Muelle and
Mu eU,
1985, 1986; W igh , 1986; Muelle ,
1987;
Wol ,
1987;
Wildasin,
1990; Hen ekson,
1992).
In
any case, i is necessa y o dispose o
logical
and gene al indica o s pe mi ing o
quan i y,
as exac ly as possible, o wha ex en he equi ed p ope y o
isibili y
is eached a
e e y
momen by
local,
s a e, ede al o con ede al, sup ana ional, and gene al
iscal
sub-
sys ems and sys ems o coun ies, since
"... he
sys ema ic mispe cep ion o
key
iscal
pa ame e s
may
signi ican ly
dis o
iscal
choices by he elec o a e"2. Al hough some au ho s
(Pu iani,
1903;
Buchanan,
1967)
ha e
analyzed
se e al
elemen s o he ax s uc u e la gely hidden so
ha
o e s do no pe cei e he en i e cos o p o iding public goods,
e y
ew
a emp s
ha e been
pe o med
ill
now o measu e
iscal
¡Ilusión
o
iscal
isibili y
in
a
sys ema ic,
gene al and di ec
way.
Howe e , many con ibu ions ha e ied o
de ec
and measu e di e en mani es a ions o
ypes (deb
¡Ilusión,
lypape e ec , income
elas ici y
o he ax s uc u e, complexi y o he ax
sys em,
e c.) o his cha ac e is ic o empi ical applica ions ying o
expiain
he absolu e o
ela i e
sizes o public
budge
and biases in budge a y decisions.
'By
e enue isibili y we mean isibili y o
di ec
bu den
o public e enue. Some
ypes
o public e enue ( o ins ance, e enue om public p ope y) migh no in ol e
any
bu den in he
sense
he e ese ed o his e m. Symme ically, by public
expendi u e isibili y, isibili y o di ec
bene i
o public expendi u e mus be
unde s ood. Again,
some
ypes
o
public
expendi u e ( o example, public pu chases o
p í a e
inancial
asse s
a ma ke p ices) migh no
ca y
any bene i wi h hem.
2(Oa es,
1991,
page
431).
i
Wagne
(1976)
unde ook a He indahl
índex
as a p oxy a iable o cap u e he
complexi y
o public e enue sys ems. Bu his app oach su e ed, as acknowledged by himsel ,
om
se ious de iciencies, since he
isibili y
o he se e al classes o public e enue is
likely
o
a y
g ea ly, and his cha ac e is ic is no cap u ed by his index. Fo his eason, i is no
su p ising
ha
subsequen
econome ic
wo k
based on he He indahl index has yielded con use
and
con adic o y esul s (see: Munley and G eene, 1978; Clo el e , 1976; Pomme ehne and
Schneide ,
1978;
Bake ,
1983; B eeden and Hun e ,
1985).
When measu ing
iscal
illusion
o
iscal
isibili y,
many ac o s,
like
he ela i e size and he in e nal s uc u e o ypes o e enue
and
public expendi u e, he ins i u ional amewo k, e c., a e o be aken in o accoun . So, in
spi e o he
c ucial
impo ance o he
isibili y
a iable,
i s measu emen is no
done
ill
now in
a
sys ema ic, gene al and di ec way because o i s unde lying complexi y.
This
con ibu ion, e e ing o he se e al
le éis
o
e i o ial
public adminis a ions o
any
coun y, p esen s:
A)
Indica o s pe mi ing o make, in an ope a i e way, ime and space
iscal
isibili y
measu emen s and compa isons, in o de o assess he quali y o sub-sys ems and sys ems o
public
e enue and expendi u e as ins umen s o
e icien iy
e-alloca ing economic esou ces.
B)
Sys ema ic and di ec es ima es on
iscal
isibili y
o sub-sys ems and sys ems o public
e enue now in
o cé
in he membe coun ies o wen y signi ican
OECD
coun ies, showing
a)
he low
alúes
o e enue
isibili y
o all
hese
coun ies and b) he high di e gences now
exis ing
among hem.
Policy
implica ions
om
hese
es ima es seem s aigh o wa d o
such
OECD
coun ies:
alloca ion
imp o emen s could be ob ained by implemen ing changes and e o ms aiming a) o
aise
alúes
o public e enue
isibili y
and b) o make domes ic
iscal
sub-sys ems and sys ems
con e ge o
OECD
coun ies eco ding he highes
alúes.
H.-
INDEX
OF
BURDEN
VISIBILITY
/
INVISIBELITY
OF
TOTAL PUBLIC REVENUE:
In
gene al, o e e y
le el,
L, o e i o ial public adminis a ions o an economy, a
isibili y
/
in isibili y
index o i s o al public e enue,
VLT,
can be de ined in such a way
ha
0
<, Vj <, 1
based on he
ollowing
o mula:
,T
^ T T
VL
=22 xn
y>L
whe e:
a)
n = numbe o ypes o public e enue o
le el
L o e i o ial public adminis a ions;
b)
Xg = ela i e
inancia]
weigh o public e enue o ype i o
le el
L o e i o ial public
adminis a ions,
wi h
i = 1, 2, n; his is:
2
E
« í
1=1
wi h
GFa
= absolu e quan i y o pubiic e enue o ype i o
le el
L o e i o ial public
adminis a ions;
c)
y¡J =
isibili y
o pe cep ibili y ( o he policy in ended - o legal - e enue-p o ide ) ac o
o
bu den o public e enue o ype i, o
which
le el
L o e i o ial public adminis a ions is
en i led,
wi h
0
< yj < 1
l.-
BURDEN
VISIBILITY
/
INVISIBILITY
OF A
SPECIFIC
PUBLIC
REVENUE:
An
objec i e es ima ion o
ya.7
- ac o o pe cep ibili y o he di ec bu den by a policy
in ended - o legal - e enue-p o ide o a public e enue o ype i o
le el
L o e i o ial
public
adminis a ions - can be de ined acco ding o he ollowing c i e ia:
T
T T T
T
•
T
Ya.
=
V¡L
Pa. mi Ra. la.
whe e:
a)
V¡LT
= olun a y ( a,7 = 0) o coe ci e ( ^ = 1)
na u e
o public e enue o ype í o i s
policy
in ended - o legal - e enue-p o ide (coe ci eness pa ame e ),
wi h
0
< -J < 1
b)
p¡J =
ull
(p¡LT = 0) o
nuil
(pa,7 = 1) p opo ionali y o he amoun o public e enue o
ype i - he bu den o
which
is
bo ne
by a policy in ended - o legal - e enue-p o ide - o he
cos o
e ícien ly
p oducing he good o se ice
speci ically
ecei ed by him in e u n o his
bu den (p opo ionali y pa ame e ),
wi h
0
< j< 1
c)
m¡LT
=
ull
(nía.7
= 1) o
nuil
(m^7 = 0) in o ma ion o he policy in ended - o legal -
e enue-p o ide on he concep o he di ec bu den he is bea ing when p o iding public
e enue o ype i (concep -in o ma ion pa ame e ),
wi h
0
<> ma7 < 1
d)
qjL7
=
ull
(q¡L7
= 1) o
nuil
(q¡L7
= 0) in o ma ion o he policy in ended - o legal - e enue-
p o ide on he amoun o he di ec bu den he is bea ing when p o iding public e enue o
ype i (amoun -in o ma ion pa ame e ),
wi h
0
^ qj <; 1
e)
¡a,7 =
in e medía e
(¡a,7 = 0) o
inal
(¡a.7 = 1) posi ion o he policy in ended - o legal -
e enue-p o ide in ela ion o his di ec bu den (bu den-shi ing pa ame e ),
wi h
3
O
<ij:£
1
IV.-
INDEX
OF
BENEFIT
VISIBILITY
/
INVISEMLITY
OF
TOTAL PUBLIC
EXPENDITURE:
Simila ly
o he case o public e enue, o e e y
le el
o e i o ial public
adminis a ions, L, an index o bene i
isibili y
/
in isibili y
o o al public expendi u e, VLE,
can
be de ined in such a way
ha
0
< VLE < 1
based on he ollowing o mula:
T E
E E
VL
=Lx L
y/L
M
whe e:
a)
q = numbe o ypes o public expendi u e pe o med by
le el
L o e i o ial public
adminis a ions;
b)
X,LE
= ela i e
Financial
weigh o public expendi u e o ype pe o med by
le el
L o
e i o ial
public adminis a ions,
wi h
= 1, 2, q; his is:
2£
1
wi h
GFn.E
= absolu e quan i y o public expendi u e o ype pe o med by
le el
L o
e i o ial
pubiic adminis a ions;
c)
y„ =
isibili y
o pe cep ibili y (by he policy in ended - o legal - consume ) ac o o
bene i o public expendi u e o ype pe o med by
le el
L o
e i o ial
public adminis a ions,
whe e
0
^ yj < 1
V.-
BENEFIT
VISIBILITY
/
INVISIBILITY
OF A
SPECIFIC PUBLIC EXPENDITURE:
An
objec i e es ima ion o y^ ( ac o o pe cep ibili y by a policy in ended - o legal -
consume o he di ec bene i o a public expendi u e o ype pe o med by
le el
L o
e i o ial
public adminis a ions) can be de ined acco ding o he ollowing c i e ia:
„
E „
E
„
E
_
E
_ E¡ E
whe e:
a)
V,LE
=
nuil
( „,E = 0) o
ull
( n,E
= 1) consump ion o a pubiicly supplied good o ype by
4

.
. 8.
¡ s
policy in ended - o legal - use o bene icia y (consump ion pa ame e ),
wi h
0
á jí
1
b)
p„,E *
ull
(pn.E =
O)
o
nuil
(p„,E = 1) p opo ionali y o cos o e icien p oduc ion o he
publicly
supplied good o ype o a
speci ically
equi ed
mone a y
bu den bo ne by he policy
in ended - o legal - use o bene icia y (p opo ionali y pa ame e ),
wi h
0
< p„.E < 1
c)
=
ull
( O d
= 1) o
nuil
(m^ = 0) in o ma ion o he policy in ended - o legal -
consume o use on he concep o he di ec bene i he is ecei ing when public expendi u e
o
ype is being pe o med (concep -in o ma ion pa ame e ),
wi h
0
< < 1
d)
q1LE =
ull
(q, - = 1) o
nuil
(q„.E = 0) in o ma ion o he policy in ended - o legal -
consume o use on he amoun o be di ec bene i he is ecei ing when public expendi u e
o
ype is pe o med (amoun -in o ma ion pa ame e ),
wi h
0
:£
« a*
£ 1
e)
i„ =
in e medía e
(i^*
= 0) o
inal
(i^
= 1) posi ion o he policy in ended - o
legal
- use
o bene icia y o he publicly supplied good o ype in ela ion o his di ec bene i (bene i -
shi ing
pa ame e ),
wi h
o =s <; i
VL-
EMPIRICAL ESTIMATES ON BURDEN
VISIBILITY
OF TOTAL PUBLIC REVENUE:
The
ollowing
able p esen s weigh ed es ima es on bu den
isibili y
o public e enue
and g an s o wen y signi ican
OECD
coun ies, ob ained by applying index
n
VL
= ¿2xn y a.
de ined in sec ions II and DI o his
pape ,
o
iscal
sys ems and sub-sys ems now in
o cé
in
hese
coun ies.
Such
alúes
ha e been calcuia ed mainly om in o ma ion and p ima y da a
on public cash
lows
p o ided by bo h he Commission o he Eu opean Communi ies3,
e lec ing
ax s uc u es o - and ins i u ional si ua ion in - e e y membe coun y on Janua y
1,
1992, and he In e na ional Mone a y Fund4. Fo b e i y easons. in e media e wo king
ables a e he e omi ed.
3In en o y
o
Taxes
Le ied in he
Membe
S a es
o he
Eu opean
Communi ies.
15 h
edi ion,
Commission
o he
Eu opean
Communi ies,
Luxembou g,
1993.
4A
Manual
on
Go e nmen
Finance
S a is ics.
In e na ional
Mone a y
Fund,
Washing on,
1986, and
Go e nmen
Finance
S a is ics
Yea book
1994.
Volume
XVIII,
In e na ional
Mone a y
Fund,
Washing on,
1994.
5
Th ee
hypo heses on
mínimum,
plausible, and
máximum
shi ing o ax bu den ha e
been assumed, gi ing ise o he co esponding se ies o
máximum,
VM, plausible, Vp, and
mínimum,
Vm,
alúes
o
weigh ed- isibili y
es ima es o e enue bu den o he policy in ended -
o legal - e enue-p o ide s.
Acco díng
o he VM -
máximum
weigh ed -
isibili y
es ima es o public e enue and
g an s:
A)
Aus alia,
wi h
a
alué
o 21,36%, has he mos
isible
cen al sub-sys em, Po ugal ha ing
he leas one,
wi h
5,53%.
B)
Swi ze land,
wi h
a
alué
o
18,98%,
has he mos
isible
in e medía e
sub-sys em, and Spain
he leas one,
wi h
1,15%.
Belgium,
Denma k,
Finland,
F ance, G eece, I eland,
I aly,
Luxembou g,
Ne he lands, No way, Po ugal, Sweden, and Uni ed Kingdom lacked
s a e,
egión,
o p o ince go e nmen
le el
o he yea s espec i ely conside ed.
C)
Sweden,
wi h
a
alué
o
48,92%,
has he mos
isible
local
sub-sys em, Ne he lands ha ing
he leas one,
wi h
0,40% only. Es ima ions o G eece we e no possible because o non-
a ailabili y
o p ima y da a.
D)
Luxembou g,
wi h
a
alué
o 43,50%, has he mos
isible
sup ana ional sub-sys em, and
G eece
he leas one,
wi h
1,03%5. Es ima es we e no possible:
a)
Fo
I aly
because o
non-a ailabili y
o p ima y da a.
b)
Fo
Aus ia,
Finland,
and Sweden because
hese
coun ies we e no
s ill
membe s o be
Eu opean
Union
o he yea s conside ed.
E)
Sweden,
wi h
a
alué
o 33,36%, has he mos
isible
gene al sys em, Po ugal ha ing he
leas one,
wi h
6,29%. Es ima es o G eece and
I aly
we e no possible because o non-
a ailabili y
o p ima y da a.
Acco ding
o he Vp - plausible weigh ed -
isibili y
es ima es:
A)
Again
Aus alia,
wi h
a
alué
o 15,58%, has he mos
isible
cen al sub-sys em, Po ugal
ha ing
he leas one,
wi h
3,88%.
B)
Swi ze land,
wi h
a
alué
o
14,26%,
has he mos
isible
in e medía e
sub-sys em, and Spain
he leas one,
wi h
0,89% only.
C)
Sweden,
wi h
a
alué
o
30,58%,
has he mos
isible
local
sub-sys em, Ne he lands ha ing
he leas one,
wi h
0,23%. An
es íma e
o G eece was no possible because o
non-a ailabili y
o
p ima y da a.
D)
Luxembou g,
wi h
a
alué
o
37,95%,
has he mos
isible
sup ana ional sub-sys em, G eece
ha ing
he leas one,
wi h
0,87%. Es ima ions we e no possible:
a)
Fo
I aly
because o
non-a ailabili y
o p ima y da a.
b)
Fo
Aus ia,
Finland,
and Sweden because
hese
coun ies we e no
s ill
membe s o he
Eu opean
Union
o he yea s conside ed.
5No ice
ha
Aus alia,
Canadá,
No way, Swi ze land and
U.S.A.
do no ha e
sup ana ional
go e nmen le el.
6
E)
Sweden,
wi h
a
alué
o
20,22%,
again has he mos
isible
gene al sys em, Po ugal ha ing
he leas one,
wi h
4,33%. Es ima es o G eece and
I aly
we e no possible because o non-
a ailabili y
o p ima y da a.
Acco ding
o he m -
mínimum
weigh ed -
isibili y
es ima es:
A)
Aus alia,
wi h
a
alué
o
9,81%,
has he mos
isible
cen al sub-sys em, Sweden ha ing he
leas one,
wi h
2,02%.
B)
Swi ze land,
wi h
a
alué
o
9,53%,
again has he mos
isible
in e medía e
sub-sys em, and
Aus alia
he leas one,
wi h
0,42% only.
C)
Sweden,
wi h
a
alué
o
12,23%,
has he mos
isible
local
sub-sys em,
Finland
and Uni ed
Kingdom
ha ing he leas one,
wi h
p ac ically 0,00%. An
es íma e
o G eece was no possible
because o
non-a ailabili y
o p ima y da a.
D)
Luxembou g,
wi h
a
alué
o
32,40%,
has he mos
isible
sup ana ional subsys em, Po ugal
ha ing
he leas one,
wi h
p ac ically 0,00%. Es ima ions we e no possible:
a)
Fo
I aly
because o
non-a ailabili y
o p ima y da a.
b)
Fo
Aus ia,
Finland,
and Sweden because
hese
coun ies we e no membe s
o
he Eu opean
Union
o he yea s conside ed.
E)
Denma k,
wi h
a
alué
o
12,63%,
has he mos
isible
gene al
iscal
sys em, and Po ugal
he leas one,
wi h
2,36%. Es ima es o G eece and
I aly
we e no possible because o non-
a ailabili y
o p ima y da a.
VIL-
CONCLUSIONS:
The
quali y o public e enue and expendi u e sub-sys ems and sys ems as policy
ins umen ó
o
e icien ly
alloca ing economic esou ces among
p í a e
and public sec o s and
sub-sec o s
a íes
in ime and space as a esul o economic,
poli ical,
and
social
ac o s.
The
índices
o
iscal
isibili y
/
in isibili y
de ined in he p e ious sec ions o his
pape
b ing
o wa d a gene al measu emen me hod
which
can be used o make ele an quan i ied
compa isons among membe coun ies o he In e na ional Mone a y
Fund
p o ided
ha
de ailed s a is ic igu es on execu ion o
public
budge ó
as
well
as in o ma ion
abou
he s uc u e
o
he di e en ypes o public adminis a ions' e enue and expendi u e p og ammes a e
a ailable
o esea che s.
Es ima es
ob ained om di e en assump ions on ax shi ing by applying
hese
Índices
o measu e he bu den
isibili y
o e enue sub-sys ems and sys ems now in
o cé
in wen y
signi ican
OECD
coun ies show:
Fi s .-
Low plausible
alúes
o bu den
isibili y
o all
hese
coun ies, specially o :
a)
No way
(4,39%),
G eece
(4,38%),
Luxembou g
(4,21%)
and Po ugal
(3,88%)
a a cen al
le el
o go e nmen .
b)
Aus alia
(1,74%)
and Spain
(0,89%)
a an
in e medía e
(s a e,
egión
o p o ince)
le el
o
go e nmen .
c)
I aly
(0,69%),
Uni ed
Kingdom
(0,63%),
I eland
(0,36%)
and Ne he lands
(0,23%)
a a
local
le el
o go e nmen .
d)
Po ugal
(1,67%)
and G eece
(0,87%)
- among Eu opean
Union
membe coun ies - a a
sup ana ional
le el
o go e nmen .
7
e)
Ge many
(6,86%),
Aus ia
(6,58%),
Luxembou g
(6,06%)
and Po ugal
(4,33%)
a he gene al
go e nmen
le el.
These low
alúes
o e enue
isibili y
s em om he concu ence o se e al ac o s such
as non-coe ci eness, exis ence o
speci íc
equi als, lack o in o ma ion on
concep s
and
quan i ies, pa ial shi ing o
bu den
by ax-paye s, in e go e nmen al
g an s,
e c.
Second.- Signi ican di e gences
be ween
plausible
alúes
eco ded by he
h ee
mos
isible
gene al
go e nmen s
(Sweden, 20,22%; Denma k, 18,40%; Finland, 16,11%) and he
h ee
leas
ones
(Aus ia, 6,58%; Luxembou g, 6,06%; and Po ugal, 4,33%).
Policy
implica ions o
hese
es ima es
seem s aigh o wa d o coun ies becoming
economicaily
mo e
e icien and
in eg a ed:
p esen
e enue
isibili y
alúes
a e low in gene al,
and alloca ion imp o emen s could be
ob ained
by implemen ing
changes
and e o ms a) o aise
alúes
o public e enue
isibili y
and b) o make domes ic
iscal
sub-sys ems and sys ems
con e ge o
OECD
coun ies eco ding he highes
alúes.
BIBLIOGRAP lCAL REFERENCES
-
Bake , S.H. (1983): "The
de e minan s
o median o e ax
liabili y:
an empi ical
es
o he
iscal
illusion hypo hesis", Public Finance Oua e ly, 11,
pages
95-108.
-
Ba o,
R.J.
(1974): "A e
go e nmen
bonds
ne weal h?", Jou nal o
Poli ical
Econom . 82,
pages
1095-117.
-
Becke , G.S. (1983):
"A
heo y o compe i ion
among
p essu e
g oups
o poli ical in luence",
Oua e ly Jou nal o Economics, 98,
pages
163-77.
-
Becke , G.S. (1985): "Public policies,
p essu e
g oups,
and
dead-weigh
cos s", Jou nal o
Public
Economics, 28,
pages
329-48.
-
Bo che ding,
T.E.,
ed.
(1977):
Budge s and Bu eauc a s: The Sou ces o Go e nmen G ow h.
Duke
Uni e si y P ess, Du ham.
-
B eeden, C.H., and Hun e , W.J. (1985): "Tax e enue and ax s uc u e", Public Finance
Oua e ly, 13,
pages
216-24.
-
B ennan, G., and Buchanan, J.M. (1980): The Powe o Tax:
Anal ical
Founda ions o a
Fiscal
Cons i u ion, Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge.
-
Buchanan, J.M.
(1967):
Public Finance in Democ a ic P ocess, Uni e si y o No h Ca olina
P ess, Chapel
Hill.
-
Buchanan,
J.M.,
and Wagne ,
R.E.
(1977):
Democ ac in
Dé ici :
The
Poli ical
Legac o
Lo d
Ke nes,
Academic P ess, New
Yo k.
-
Cá e ,
R. (1982):
"Belie s
and e o s in o ing choices: a
es a emen
o he heo y o
iscal
illusion",
Public Choice, 39,
pages
343-60.
-
Cas les,
F.G.
(1982): "The impac o pa ies on public expendi u e", in Cas les,
F.G.,
ed., The
Impac o Pa ies, Sage Publica ions,
Be e ly
Hills.
8
91
o
o
**
C5
00
p p
5°
O O
b b b b b b b
O
o o o o o o o o
d* d^ d-d^ d^ oN
d«
d*
•
CANADA.
1991
FINLAND, 1990
UNITED
STATES,
1992
NETHERLANDS,
1993
IRELAND, 1991
DENMARK,
1993
SWEDEN, 1992
BELGIUM, 1992
SPAIN, 1991
ITALY,
1993
UNITED
KINGDOM,
1992
FRANCE,
1992
GERMANY, 1992
AUSTRIA, 1992
SWITZERLAND,
1984
NORWAY, 1990
GREECE,
1993
LUXEMBOURG,
1991
PORTUGAL,
1989
I
i
i
i i
!
j
•i
O
o
z
en
O
-
D
>
H
m
O
O
m
Z
H
30
>
I—
O
o
<
m
33
z
m
<
33
>
Z
z
o
>
I—
<
en
00

91
O
P
00
O
N5
A»
P P
b b b b b b b b b b
o o o o o o
O
o o o
*s
•di
d* d^ d~ d* d-d* d*
^8
1
O
b
o
SWITZERLAND,
1984
UNITED STATES,
1992
CANADA,
1991
GERMANY, 1992
AUSTRIA, 1992
AUSTRALIA, 1992
SPAIN, 1991
BELGIUM, 1992
DENMARK,
1993
FINLAND, 1990
FRANCE,
1992
GREECE,
1993
IRELAND,1991
ITALY,
1993
LUXEMBOURG,
1991
NETHERLANDS,
1993
NORWAY, 1990
PORTUGAL,
1989
SWEDEN, 1992
UNITED
KINGDOM,
1992
—I
>
H
m
30
m
Ci
O
30
-o
30
o
<
z
o
m
Ci
O
<
m
30
Z
m
Z
H
<
"O
30
>
Z
z
Ci
en
o
>
i—
<
en
o
F
H
B
• •
<
< <
3
-o ^
LT
SWEDEN,
1992
SWITZERLAND,
1984
AUSTRALIA,
1992
FRANCE,
1992
NORWAY,
1990
DENMARK, 1993
FINLAND,
1990
UNITED
STATES,
1992
CANADA,1991
LUXEMBOURG,
1991
AUSTRIA,
1992
BELGIUM,
1992
SPAIN,
1991
PORTUGAL,
1989
GERMANY,
1992
ITALY,
1993
UNITED
KINGDOM,
1992
IRELAND,
1991
NETHERLANDS,
1993
GREECE,
1993
I—
o
o
>
I—
a
o
TI
<
en
m O
33
>
Z
i-
<
EN
en
H
E
-
<
•o H
33
<
>
Z
Z
Ci
-_-«„„„„„w,«T^? «nn^^» K^c•l71?l7<?c ^: KX?Q K^^íT^^^T-":
81
1
N>
IO
00 00
o
OI
O
Oí
O
OI
O
P
O
OI
b b b b b
O
b b b b
o o o o
O
o o o o o
o* -o ~8
d^ ~8
d* ^8
d*' d* ^8
d* -8
d*-^8 ^p
•
LUXEMBOURG,
1991
FRANCE,
1992
UNITED
KINGDOM,
1992
GERMANY, 1992
IRELAND,1991
BELGIUM. 1992
NETHERLANDS,
1993
DENMARK.
1993
SPAIN, 1991
PORTUGAL,
1989
GREECE,
1993
AUSTRALIA, 1992
AUSTRIA, 1992
CANADA,
1991
FINLAND, 1990
ITALY,
1993
NORWAY, 1990
SWEDEN, 1992
SWITZERLAND,
1984
UNITED STATES,
1992
moa
en
c
TJ
33
>
Z
>
H
O
z
>
I—
Ci
o
<
m
33
Z
m
Z
H
<
•o
33
>
Z
z
o
en
o
>
~
<
en
F
H
-<
B
• •
< < <
3
"° S
61
o
o
P
SWEDEN, 1992
DENMARK,
1993
FINLAND,
1990
SWITZERLAND,
1984
CANADA,
1991
AUSTRALIA, 1992
UNITED
STATES,
1992
NORWAY,
1990
FRANCE,
1992
IRELAND, 1991
BELGIUM, 1992
NETHERLANDS, i
1993
UNITED
KINGDOM,
1992
SPAIN,
1991
GERMANY,
1992
AUSTRIA, 1992
LUXEMBOURG,
1991
PORTUGAL,
1989
GREECE,
1993
ITALY,
1993
—i
i
NO
U
00
OI
O
OI
O
OI
O
OI
b b b b
o
b b
o o o o o o o
3^ ^8
3^ -8 *8 -8
3^ *8
3^ ^8
3^
•
m
z
m
>
-
O
O
<
m
30
TI
en
O
>
<
en
03
H
F
m )»
<
•o
30
>
Z
z
o
<