A Brief Note on Innovative Finance for Development (IFD) Mechanisms

Transcription

1 MIMEO A Brief Note on Innovative Finance for Development (IFD) Mechanisms Daniel Titelman Esteban Pérez-Caldentey Cecilia Vera ECLAC, Financing for Development Division November, 2011 Daniel Titelman, Esteban Pérez-Caldentey and Cecilia Vera, are Director and Economic Affairs Officers, respectively, of the Division of Financing for Development of ECLAC, Santiago, Chile. The views expressed in this document, which has been reproduced without formal editing, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflects the views of the Organization.

2 A Brief Note on Innovative Finance for Development (IFD) Mechanisms The current level of financing provided through Official Development Assistance to developing countries is clearly insufficient; and as a result, increases in assistance to some countries or regions sometimes occur at the expense of others (such as some MICs) that also have important needs. Despite efforts by donor countries to increase the amount of ODA provided, levels are still far behind the internationally agreed target of 0.7% of GNI. 1 In addition, the massive fiscal and monetary rescue packages launched by most of the main developed economies to counter the effects of the global crisis resulted in a sharp deterioration in their public finances. This may impinge on the feasibility of increasing ODA flows substantially in the short run. Against such a backdrop, the international community must urgently continue to explore innovative ways of mobilizing resources for development that supplement not replace ODA flows. Since the Monterrey Conference of 2002, where the idea of innovative financing mechanisms was introduced in the international debate, and up to the present days there have been several valuable efforts undertaken together by North and South countries to join forces and contribute to reduce the gap between large needs and short funding (Ffrench-Davis, 2007, Pérez-Caldentey, Titelman and Vera (2011) reviewed a series of proposals on innovative finance for development (IFD) mechanisms that have been put forward, some of which have already been implemented and others not (see table 1 at the end of this section for a summary of some of those mechanisms). Following OECD (2011), they assigned innovative financing mechanisms to one of the following broad categories: (a) those that generate new public revenue streams (such as global taxes and special drawing right (SDR) allocations); (b) debt -based instruments and front-loading (such as debt swaps and international finance facilities); (c) publicprivate incentives, guarantees and insurance (such as advance market commitments (AMCs) and sovereign insurance pools); and (d) voluntary contributions using public or public-private channels (such as person -to-person giving). These categories are discussed in the paragraphs below. a) Mechanisms generating new public revenue streams Mechanisms that generate new public revenue streams include among others for example global taxes, allocations of SDRs to developing countries and auctioning or sales of emission permits. A number of global taxes have been proposed as mechanisms to increase the resources for development financing. These include for example a tax on international financial transactions, a tax on carbon emissions and other environmental taxes, aviation taxes such as the Solidarity Levy on Airline Tickets, a tax on arms trade among many others. The proposed taxes vary in their ambition of including all countries and also in terms of being a true tax with obligatory rather than voluntary payments. In many cases it is believed that global taxes apart 1 Preliminary data indicate that in 2010 the level of ODA from the countries of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD averaged only 0.32% of their GNI. (

3 from delivering stable and predictable funding for development would at the same time produce a double dividend by offsetting a global public bad (World Bank, 2009). The idea of an international financial transactions tax (FTT) has been under discussion for many years and it has recently received renewed attention in the context of the global financial crisis. 2 The particular form of the proposals differ with some advocating for an FTT levied globally and including all types of financial transactions (on stocks, bonds, equity, spot and derivatives transactions, etc.) and others suggesting rather a tax on foreign exchange transactions (a Currency Transactions Tax (CTT) or Tobin Tax) 3. In general, it is accepted that such taxes would raise substantial amounts without causing serious distortions in the markets on which they are imposed. This is because the revenue base would be very broad more so in the case of an FTT including all financial transactions- and the rate should be very low (the range that has been proposed generally lies between 0.005% and 0.05%). Estimates on the revenue-generating potential of a tax on all international financial transactions levied globally at a rate of 0.05% suggest it could yield US$ 661 billion annually (equivalent to 1.21% of world GDP) (Schulmeister, 2010). On the other hand, a currency transactions tax of 0.005% on spot and derivative transactions in the four major trading currencies (dollar, euro, pound and yen) could raise US$ 33.4 billion annually (Schmidt, 2007). Such revenue potentials have large implications for development financing. For example, it has been estimated that if the resources derived from a global FTT at 0.05% were to be distributed following the same shares as ODA of which Latin America and the Caribbean received 7% in the region could receive U$S 46.3 billion annually (equivalent to 1.2% of regional GDP) (Titelman et al 2011). A carbon tax is a tax on greenhouse gas emissions that if imposed on countries by an international organization would be a global tax. It is designed with the objective not only of collecting funds for development but also to promote the regulation of emissions from all sources of fossil carbons. Modification of the relative prices of fuels through this tax should enhance the efficient use of energy sources and foster the development of alternative sources. It has been estimated that a tax on carbon emissions of just US$ 0.05 US$ 0.35 per gallon could generate income of between US$ 130 billion and US$ 750 billion per year. 4 In order to avoid the regressive character that this tax can have on lower income countries, the proposal is that these should apply lower taxes than the more developed countries. Some countries, including some European economies, have already started to apply some type of tax on carbon emissions. 2 The idea of a possible FTT received support from the European Parliament and some European countries, including Austria, Belgium, France and Germany. In some cases however, the motives for supporting such a tax were not only to generate resources for development assistance; it was conceived rather as a possible tool for reducing speculative international transactions and as a tool to reduce the fiscal deficits of the developed countries. 3 Strictly speaking the CTT and the Tobin Tax (TT) are identical in terms of the mechanics of tax collection and the tax base (the inter-bank foreign exchange market) but they differ in their purpose. The TT was conceived as a way to slow cross-border capital flows and therefore the rate would have to be high in order to change foreign exchange market behavior. By contrast, the CTT is conceived as a means to raise revenue without disrupting the markets and therefore the rate would have to be low (Schmidt, 2007). 4 See estimates quoted in Schmidt (2007).

4 The Solidarity Levy on Airline Tickets is a nationally implemented but internationally coordinated tax on airline ticket sales. It has been applied since 2006 in Chile and France, which have since been followed by Côte d Ivoire, Gabon and Mauritius. In 12 other countries, parliamentary meetings have been held to set up initiatives of this type and 19 countries have promised to introduce voluntary contributions. The amount of the tax varies according to the destination of the flight and the class of fare but it is supposed to be sufficiently low so as not to have damaging repercussions on air traffic, on the airlines or on passengers choices. It is estimated that the solidarity levy on airline tickets has the potential to raise million euros per year with the effective participation of more countries in the coming years. 5 In France alone, 544 million euros were raised between the tax s implementation in 2006 and The entirety of these funds went towards financing ODA in the health sector, specifically the International Drug Purchase Facility (UNIT AID) and the International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFIm) (OECD, 2011). 6 The arms trade tax is a proposal for a global tax with the double aim of reducing trade in armaments and raising money for development purposes. However, the idea has been subject to various objections including the fact that it might create incentives for increased illicit trade in arms and the probability that developing countries as the purchasers rather than sellers of arms would end up paying the larger part of the tax (World Bank, 2009). With respect to Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) allocations, there have been several proposals favoring their use of as a financial instrument to increase the resources available to developing countries for development purposes. 7 It has been suggested for example that developed countries transfer part of their SDRs to developing countries as additional concessional support or that more SDRs are allocated to developing countries allowing them to use them in case of liquidity needs (World Bank Glossary, 2009). Other proposals include the allocation of additional SDRs to developing countries for their use in supplying global public goods (including improvement of the environment, disease prevention, spreading literacy and providing humanitarian aid). The assumption is that if SDRs are issued with the requisite frequency, they could make a significant contribution to development and in particular to the fulfillment of the Millennium Development Goals (Ffrench-Davis, 2009). An alternative proposal was made by the investor George Soros at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, held in Copenhagen in December He proposed that over a period of 25 years, the developed countries should set aside a portion (US$ 100 billion) of their last SDR allocation made in September 2009, and use it to create a fund for sustainable 5 See France Diplomatie [online] 6 The International Drug Purchase Facility (UNITAID) was established in 2006 to help combat the major pandemic diseases of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. It acts as a central buying organization and takes advantage of its buying power and financing formats to negotiate low prices for drugs and diagnostics and to promote the development and mass production of special drugs that do not yet exist or are not yet affordable (see [online] The IFFIm is discussed below. 7 The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement its member countries' official reserves. Its value is based on a basket of four key international currencies, and SDRs can be exchanged for freely usable currencies (

5 development. 8 This fund would be used for plans directed towards mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in the developing countries (Soros, 2009). The calculatio ns cited in the proposal indicated that with a US$ 100 billion fund, US$ 7 billion in grants, loans and equity financing could be provided annually to the developing countries over the next 30 to 40 years. When there exists a cap & trade mechanism for emissions then the auctioning or sales of emission permits may be an additional mechanism for generating new resources for development purposes. For example within the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) emission allowances may be auctioned or sold instead of allocating them for free to emitters and the proceeds could be directed to financing international development. 9 In some cases this has already been the case; for example in 2008 Germany auctioned a total of almost 1 billion euros worth of allowances of which 120 million euros were earmarked for investment in international climate protection measures in developing countries (World Bank, 2009). b) Debt-based instruments and frontloading of resources Some common examples among this category are debt-swaps, loan buy-downs and an International Finance Facility (IFF) for the frontloading of future development assistance resources. The Debt2Health swap is an innovative financing initiative of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria launched in It helps channel resources of developing countries with high debt and high disease burdens away from debt repayments towards investments in health ( Under this initiative the creditors of some selected beneficiary countries are invited to forgive portions of debt on condition that the beneficiary Governments invest an agreed portion in health programs through the Global Fund. A similar idea is behind debt-for-nature swaps, first conceived in 1984 and whereby a portion of a country's foreign debt is forgiven in exchange for local investments in environmental policies or local conservation measures (World Bank, 2009). The mechanism can work in one of two ways, a commercial swap or a bilateral swap. In a commercial debt-for-nature swap, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) acts as the donor and purchases Government debt titles from commercial banks on the secondary market. The NGO then transfers the title to the debtor country, and in exchange the latter agrees to undertake certain environmental policies. Since the 1980s, several NGOs including Conservation International and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have participated in such debt-for-nature swaps. The bilateral debt-for-nature swaps on the other hand take place between two governments whereby the creditor Government forgives a portion 8 In September 2009, IMF distributed to its members US$ 283 billion worth of SDRs. Of this total, more than US$ 150 billion went to the 15 largest developed economies. According to Soros (2009), these SDR s will sit largely untouched in the reserve accounts of these countries, which have no real need for additional reserves. 9 Although for now the majority of allowances are allocated for free an EU Commission proposal suggests that from 2013 onwards allocation for free will be reduced and auctioning augmented (World Bank, 2009; 10 The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is an international financing institution that supports large-scale prevention, treatment and care programs against the three diseases (

6 of the public bilateral debt of the debtor Government in exchange for commitments of the latter to undertake environmental policies. Loan buy-downs are a combination of a loan (or credit) being granted to a developing country and a donor committing to buy down that loan (effectively transforming it into a grant) provided that predefined targets are achieved by the receiving country (World Bank, 2009). This means that the developing country receives the funds up front and it has an assurance that, upon successful achievement of predefined targets, a donor will pay off the debt. An example of a financial instrument for the frontloading of resources is the International Finance Facility (IFF), proposed by the United Kingdom in The IFF was conceived as a mechanism by which future streams (that is, future commitments) of development assistance from donor countries -over a 30 year time horizon- would be frontloaded to the present. This would be done by using the long-term legally binding pledges of development assistance by donors as assets underpinning the issuance of bonds in the international capital markets and in this way leverage the available resources for immediate development assistance. 11 The benefits of frontloading future resources to the present are notable in some sectors such as health and in particular in immunization programs as will be discussed next with the example of a first pilot of an IFF. The first instance of an international finance facility was the International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFIm), established in 2004 by France and the United Kingdom, who were later joined by Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. 12 The IFFIm was established as a pilot that applies the general principles of an IFF to provide resources for the immunization sector by directing its proceeds to the GAVI Alliance. 13 To date, the 9 donor countries have pledged more than US$ 6.2 billion to IFFIm over 23 years and with these pledges IFFIm has managed to raise a total of US$ 3.4 billion by international bond issues since the first placing took place in In turn, GAVI has received US$ 1.8 billion in disbursements from IFFIm since 2006 and with this it was able to double its expenditures on health programs supporting vaccine purchases and delivery to 70 developing countries. 15 In the case of immunization programs, the benefit from increased spending now as opposed to spending in the future, is very concrete. Preventing a disease in a person today is not only valuable to the person per-se but to collective health because wide-spread immunization coverage creates herd immunity. In this sense, the more people in a community that are immunized, the lower the rate of disease and the lower the risk of contracting the disease even if 11 The creditworthiness of donor countries and the binding nature of the commitments with respect to the flows of future assistance should make it possible to fund the international finance facility with very high quality bonds and, thus, at low cost. 12 Recently (in June 2011) Brazil became the 10th donor committing US$ 20 million to the IFFIm. 13 The GAVI Alliance (formerly Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) was established in 2000 as a public-private partnership (PPP) to boost immunization in the world s poor countries. It brings together governments from various developed and developing countries, the WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccine manufacturers, public health system institutions and NGOs among others. 14 IFFIm is classified as an AAA/Aaa/AAA issuer ( 15 See

7 not immunized. Barder and Yeh (2006) analyze the extent to which frontloading and predictable vaccine funding as implied in the IFFIm, is more effective in impacting vaccine coverage than spending vaccine funds equally throughout the lives of projects. Their results suggest that indeed the overall health impact of spending on vaccines could increase by around 22% by making the spending front-loaded and predictable. c) Public-Private incentives, guarantees and insurance It has been estimated that up to now, over 80% of medical research was undertaken on diseases affecting only 20% of the world s population ( g). This is because pharmaceutical companies face a non-predictable and non-solvent demand from poor countries and hence focus their efforts on rich-country diseases. Advance Market Commitments (AMCs) are an innovative mechanism to overcome this shortcomings by introducing a partnership between donors and pharmaceuticals; donors ensure predictable and solvent demand once research is completed and pharmaceuticals commit to conducting the necessary research and ensure that once the medicines or vaccines are ready they are sold at affordable prices ( Italy together with the UK, Canada, Russia, Norway and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation pledged US$ 1.5 billion and the GAVI Alliance promised to allocate US$ 1.3 billion through 2015 to an AMC pilot project for pneumococcal diseases (whose most prevalent strains don not yet have a specific vaccine and are claiming almost 1 million lives per year mostly in the poorest countries). The project, activated in 2009, expects to have the new vaccine on the market in the next few years and manufacturers have committed to selling it at a low price for 10 years ( The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) established in 2007 is an example of a sovereign insurance pool. Member Caribbean countries are provided with affordable coverage for immediate budget support after major natural disasters such as earthquakes or hurricanes (OEC D, 2011). The CCRIF works as a parametric mutual insurance (also called index-based insurance) controlled by participating countries. Parametric insurance consists of an ex-ante agreement to make a payment upon a parametric trigger (specified intensities of the natural disaster in a specified location as measured by an independent agency) and not upon actual losses. As parametric triggers can be rapidly assessed, parametric insurance implies that claims can be paid much faster than if the insurance was based on actual losses which would take very long to quantify. d) Voluntary contributions using public or public-private channels An example of voluntary contributions is Person-to-Person (P2P) giving, an arrangement whereby individuals donate directly to individual recipients, normally through the Internet. For example, an online platform that allows for direct microfinance investments to entrepreneurs in developing countries is Kiva.org (World Bank, 2009). Another example is the RED initiative launched in 2006, which raises funds for the Global Fund

8 to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This is a blended value product, which refers to initiatives that stimulate voluntary contributions from individuals by combining charity with consumption. Partner corporations (which include Apple, Converse, Dell, Emporio Armani, GAP, Hallmark and Microsoft) design and sell specially branded RED products and make contributions with the corresponding percentage of the proceeds (World Bank, 2009). A final example is Massivegood, a voluntary solidarity contribution pilot initiative launched in 2010 to raise funds for UNITAID. It is a mechanism through which travellers can contribute to development by making a US$ 2 contribution when they purchase travel services (airline tickets, hotel reservations, car rentals) through companies that are partners of the project (OECD, 2011; see [online]

9 Table 1 SELECTED PROPOSALS ON INNOVATIVE FINANCING INSTRUMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT Mechanism Main features Development financing potential Financial transactions tax (FTT) or currency transaction tax Carbon tax Tax on airline ticket sales Special drawing right (SDR) allocations for development Arms trade tax Auction or sale of emission permits Debt swaps Loan buy-downs A. Mechanisms generating new public revenue streams Some proposals advocate an FTT levied globally on all types of financial transaction; others suggest instead a tax on foreign exchange transactions. It is generally agreed that such taxes would raise substantial amounts of funding without causing serious distortions in the markets because the revenue base would be very broad and the rate very low (the range proposed is between 0.005% and 0.05%). This tax would have the dual objective of raising funds for development and promoting the regulation of emissions from all sources of fossil carbons. The levy has been applied since 2006 in Chile and France, which have since been followed by Côte d Ivoire, Gabon and Mauritius. In 12 other countries, parliamentary meetings have been held to set up initiatives of this type and 19 countries have promised to introduce voluntary contributions. One example is the proposal by investor George Soros to assign SDRs of the developed countries to set up a fund for sustainable development that would be used to finance plans for climate change mitigation and adaptation in the developing countries. This proposed global tax would have the dual aim of reducing trade in arms and raising money for development purposes. Among the objections raised are that such a tax might create incentives for illicit trade in arms and the probability that developing countries as the purchasers rather than sellers of arms would end up paying the larger part of the tax (World Bank, 2009). Where a cap-and-trade mechanism exists for emissions (for example, within the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme), emission allowances may be auctioned or sold instead of being allocated at no charge to emitters and the proceeds could be directed to financing international development. B. Debt-based instruments and front-loading Debt-for-health swaps. Under this initiative (launched in 2007), the creditors of selected beneficiary countries agree to forgive portions of debt on the condition that the beneficiary governments invest an agreed portion in health programmes linked to combating HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria through the Global Fund. Debt-for-nature swaps. A similar idea is behind this arrangement, which was first conceived in the early 1980s and whereby a portion of a country s foreign debt is forgiven in exchange for local investments in environmental policies or local conservation measures. This arrangement involves a combination of a loan (or credit) being granted to a developing country and a donor committing to buy down that loan provided that predefined targets are achieved by the receiving country. An FTT on all international financial transactions levied globally at a rate of 0.05% could raise US$ 661 billion annually (equivalent to 1.21% of world GDP). A currency transaction tax of 0.005% on spot and derivative transactions in the four major trading currencies (dollar, euro, pound and yen) could raise US$ 33.4 billion annually. A tax on carbon emissions of US$ 0.05-US$ 0.35 per gallon could generate estimated revenue of between US$ 130 billion and US$ 750 billion per year. It is estimated that the solidarity levy on airline tickets has the potential to raise million euros per year with the effective participation of more countries in the coming years. In France alone, 544 million euros were raised between the tax s implementation in 2006 and Estimates cited in the Soros proposal indicate that a fund of US$ 100 billion equivalent in SDRs (loaned by the developed countries over 25 years) could provide US$ 7 billion per year in grants, loans and equity capital to the developing countries over the next years. In 2008, Germany auctioned European Union allowances totalling nearly 1 billion euros, of which 120 million euros was earmarked for investment in international climate protection measures in developing countries (World Bank, 2009).

10 Table 1 (concluded) Mechanism Main features Development financing potential International Finance Facility for Immunization (IIFIm) Advance market commitments (AMCs) Sovereign insurance pool Person-to-person (P2P) giving Blended value products Voluntary solidarity contributions An example of a financial instrument for the front-loading of resources is the IFFIm, established in 2004 by France and the United Kingdom, who were later joined by Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Under this mechanism, long-term legally binding pledges of development assistance from donors are used as assets to underpin the issuance of bonds in the international capital markets and thus leverage the available resources for immediate development assistance. C. Public-private incentives, guarantees and insurance This mechanism seeks to address the problem of pharmaceutical companies focusing their research on rich country diseases, as demand from poor countries may be unpredictable and insolvent. The mechanism introduces a partnership between donors and pharmaceutical companies whereby donors ensure predictable and solvent demand once research is completed and the pharmaceutical companies commit to conducting the necessary research and ensuring that once the medicines or vaccines are ready, they are sold at affordable prices. The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) is a sovereign insurance pool that was established by Caribbean countries in 2007 to provide affordable coverage for immediate budget support after major natural disasters. The CCRIF works as a form of parametric mutual insurance, meaning there is an ex ante agreement to make payment upon occurrence of a parametric trigger (such as a specified intensity of a natural disaster in a specific location as measured by an independent agency) rather than against actual losses. In this way, claims can be settled much faster than under insurance based on actual losses, which could take very long to quantify. D. Voluntary contributions using public or public-private channels Under this arrangement, individuals donate directly to individual recipients, normally through the Internet. For example there are online platforms that channel direct microfinance investments to entrepreneurs in developing countries. The RED initiative launched in 2006 is an example of a blended value product, which refers to initiatives that stimulate voluntary contributions from individuals by combining charity with consumption. Partner corporations (including Apple, Converse, Dell, Emporio Armani, GAP, Hallmark and Microsoft) design and sell specially branded RED products and make contributions with the corresponding percentage of the proceeds (World Bank, 2009). Massivegood is a pilot initiative that was launched in 2010 and allows travellers to contribute to development by making a US$ 2 contribution when purchasing travel services (airline tickets, hotel reservations, car rentals) through companies that are partners of the project. To date, the nine donor countries have pledged more than US$ 6.2 billion to the IFFIm over 23 years. With these pledges, the IFFIm has managed to raise a total of US$ 3.4 billion through international bond issues since Canada, Italy, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have pledged US$ 1.5 billion and the GAVI Alliance has promised to allocate US$ 1.3 billion through 2015 to an AMC pilot project for pneumococcal diseases. The project, launched in 2009, expects to have the new vaccine on the market in the next few years and manufacturers have committed to selling it at a low price for 10 years. Source: Esteban Pérez-Caldentey, Daniel Titelman and Cecilia Vera, Middle-income countries and the system of international cooperation, unpublished, 2011.

11 References Barder, Owen and Ethan Yeh (2006) The Costs and Benefits of Front-loading and Predictability of Immunization, Center for Global Development, Working Paper #80. Ffrench-Davis, Ricardo (2009), El impacto de la crisis global en América Latina, Nueva sociedad, No. 224, November-December. Ffrench-Davis, Ricardo (2007), Innovative financing for action against hunger and poverty [online] %20innovative%20financing.pdf. France Diplomatie [online] International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) [online] Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development [online] OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2011), Mapping of some important innovative finance for development mechanisms, OECD Working Party on Statistics, Paris, February [online] Pérez-Caldentey, Esteban, Daniel Titelman and Cecilia Vera (2011), Middle-income countries and the system of international cooperation, unpublished. Schmidt, Rodney (2007), The Currency Transaction Tax: Rate and Revenue Estimates, United Nations University [online] Schulmeister, Stephan (2010), Short-term asset trading, long-term price swings, and the stabilizing potential of a transactions tax [online] Soros, George (2009), Special Drawing Rights proposal [online] Special-Drawing-Rights-Proposal-en-December-2009-Updated-January George-Soros. The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility [online] The Global Fund [online] Titelman, D., Pérez-Caldentey, E., Vera, C. and Pablo Carvallo (2011). Una nota sobre el impuesto global a las transacciones financieras, ECLAC document # World Bank (2009), Glossary of selected innovative and conventional financial instruments and mechanisms [online] 209% pdf.