Empirical Estimates of Fiscal Visibility in some OECD Countries

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 <