Por Silvina Andrea Bracamonte y José Luis Cassinerio
Este trabajo examina el incremento de los conflictos judiciales en materia de salud en América Latina. La judicialización en materia de salud se ha convertido en uno de los medios habituales por los que se reclama la protección del derecho de fundamental a la salud. La intervención de la justicia produce efectos individuales positivos ya que efectivizan el reconocimiento del derecho a la salud y a la vida. También puede tener incidencia en el uso de los recursos del sistema de salud sin planificación, determinando que se atiendan demandas no prioritarias. La judicialización en materia de salud representa un aspecto más de un problema estructural y complejo relacionado con la inequidad y desfinanciamiento de los sistemas de salud en Latinoamérica. El trabajo analiza el proyecto de creación de una Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías (AGNET) y sostiene que una adecuada regulación debería establecer principios que los jueces puedan utilizar a fin de que se reconozca aquel derecho fundamental dentro de una hermenéutica constitucional razonable, que a su vez resulte más equitativa y financieramente sostenible.
International Tax Cooperation: Perspectives from the Global South
About the Book:
A substantive reform of the global tax system involving a variety of multilateral platforms is underway. The question is not whether the tax standards and practices will change, but in which direction.
Developing countries have long sought changes in rules, standards and procedures shaping the allocation of taxing rights among sovereign states. In the wake of the 2008-2010 Great Recession, developed country governments engaged in massive public sector layoffs and channeling enormous public resources to bail out large financial companies and their wealthy investors. The Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers, the Lux Leaks became household words in the United States and Europe because of the journalistic coverage. Other scandals, such as the “cum/ex” fraud in Germany involving a loophole in the taxing of dividend receipts were less known but just as materially significant. Tax reform, particularly as it applied to the treatment of corporations working in multiple tax jurisdictions, thus became not only a problem of developing countries but an issue of global concern.
Tax Haven Listing in Multiple Hues: Blind, Winking or Conniving?
By Jahanzeb Akhtar and Verónica Grondona
Tax havens are among the biggest challenges faced by developing countries in achieving their national development goals. States, international organisations, multilateral agencies and non-governmental organisations have all made several efforts at compiling ‘lists’ of tax havens at the multilateral and national levels, with varying levels of seriousness and outcomes. This research paper examines these efforts by analysing the objectivity of criteria used and the clarity of the final outcome in a comparative manner. The paper is organized into four sections dealing with the tax haven blacklisting by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the countries of the South, the European Union (EU) and an analysis across lists. The concluding section offers some suggestions.
There are increasing warnings of an imminent new financial crisis, not only from the billionaire investor George Soros, but also from eminent economists associated with the Bank for International Settlements, the bank of central banks. The warnings come at a moment when there are signs of international capital flowing out of some emerging economies, including Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia. Some economists have been warning that the boom-bust cycle in capital flows to developing countries will cause disruption, when there is a turn from boom to bust. All it needs is a trigger, which may then snowball as investors in herd-like manner head for the exit door. Their behaviour is akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy: if enough speculative investors think this is the time to move back to the global financial capitals, then the exodus will happen, as it did in previous “bust” phases of the cycle. (more…)
Implications of Argentina’s Deal with “Super holdouts”: Need for an Urgent Revision to Bond Contracts and a Debt Workout Mechanism
By Yuefen Li
Argentina signed an agreement in principle on 29 February 2016 with four “super holdout” hedge funds including NML Capital Ltd, Aurelius Capital, Davidson Kempner and Bracebridge Capital. Buenos Aires would pay them a total of about $4.65 billion, amounting to 75 percent of the principal and interest of all their claims of Argentina’s bonds that were defaulted on during the 2001 debt crisis. The payment is to be made in cash before 14 April 2016, provided that Argentina’s Congress approves the repeal of Argentina’s domestic laws, namely the Lock Law and the Sovereign Payment Law, which prohibit the country from proposing terms to the holdouts that are better than those Argentina offered to its creditors in earlier restructurings. This deal would allow the return of Argentina to the international capital market after more than 15 years of exclusion, something that is imperative for the government to try to put the economy on a more sustainable path even though this would mean having to use a substantial part of its foreign currency reserves to pay off the holdout bond holders. Nevertheless, there are systemic implications of this deal to future sovereign debt restructurings which deserve careful examination and remedial actions. (more…)
About the Book: