TAXATION OF AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN MOROCCO: A
ANALYSIS USING A DYNAMIC GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM
Mohamed KARIM AND Adil EL IBRAHIMI
University of Mohammed V-Souissi, Morroco.
mokarim@voila.fr
The agricultural sector has always been the subject of a great attention from officials in Morocco as it
is a sector that maintains exchange relations with the other sectors and a production sector of the most
important Fast-moving consumer goods in the rural and urban areas. Indeed, agriculture accounts for
15 to 20% of the GDP and 44% of total employment. If one adds food processing, its contribution to
the GDP and employment passes respectively to 20 and 50%.
However, Moroccan agriculture suffers from low productivity, low yields and high logistics costs,
in particular in transport, lack of integration between production and market, insufficient development
of post-harvest systems, high costs of production, high risks, low coordination within chains,
inadequate post-harvest technologies, lack of quality assurance system and limited expertise in the
processing of the agricultural products.
For these reasons, agriculture has benefited from huge tax exemptions extended until the end of
2013. The exemption of the sector is supposed to promote, attract and develop private investments in
this sector. Effectively, for the past two years, the agricultural sector was the second sector, after the
property, having benefited from tax derogations, which represents about 13,4% of total measures
identified in 2011.
However, it is admitted that these tax advantages are a source of distortions and inefficient
allocation of investments and resources towards this sector. The optimal tax theory provides, for this
purpose, lessons that are useful for our empirical study.¶
¶Today, and besides the question concerning the place of the Moroccan agriculture in the economy
which led to the design and implementation of the Green Morocco Plan (PMV), it should be noted that
the question of its taxation was not as much in the central concerns as evidenced by the Royal
orientations to establish an appropriate system to the agricultural sector in 2014 by taking into
consideration the social security of the small-holder farmers.¶
To answer these questions we construct a Dynamic Multi-sectoral Computable General
Equilibrium Model in order to quantify the impact of the taxation of the agricultural sector on the
economy and on the distribution of income. This tool is more preferable than macro-econometric or
partial equilibrium economic tools. The model used is a static multi-sector general equilibrium model.
It registered voter in the line of the models built by Shoven and Whalley (1970) like Decaluwé and Al
(2001). Three agents, namely explicitly there the consumers, the producers and the public authorities,
are introduced. However, to take into account the foreign trade and more
generally the degree of opening of the Moroccan economy, we add a fourth agent to it: the rest of the
world.
Via an unconditional sensitivity analysis, we wish to check that the variability of the model as a
whole is not too important in the event of simultaneous modification of all the parameters. To do this,
the Gaussian quadrature method is implemented as developed by Arndt (1996), De Vuyst and Preckel
(1997) and Piet (2002). From the methodological point of view, an unconditional sensitivity analysis
allows to give evidence of the robustness of the results.
JEL Classification: H21 ; Q18 ; D58.
Keywords: Optimal taxation; Agricultural sector; Computable General Equilibrium Model.
1
1. Introduction
The agricultural sector has always been the object of a great attention from officials in Morocco,
and this for a number of reasons. First, agriculture is an important sector due to its size and its
relations with the rest of the economy with the food industry sector and catering and hotels. Indeed,
agriculture accounts for 15 to 20% of the GDP and 44% of total employment. If one adds food
processing, its contribution to the GDP and employment passes respectively to 20 and 50%. As a
result, the performances or under-performances of the sector are crucial for the country’s economic
growth. Second, agriculture is the livelihood of the majority of rural poor populations and the
production sector of the most important Fast-moving consumer goods in the rural and urban areas. The
effects of food prices on the cost of living in rural and urban areas and, especially for the majority of
the population whose income is near or below the average income are certain. Indeed, agriculture
continues, in rural area where it is the only source of employment and income for 80% of the labor
force, to have an important place. Finally, it is also a potential source of tradable goods in the
economy.
In the spirit of its development, several tax advantages were granted to the agricultural sector.
Agriculture still profits until the end of 2013 from a system of tax exemption which aim to promote,
attract and develop the private financial interventions in the sector in the form of investments. For the
past two years, for example, the agricultural and fishing sector was the second sector, after the
property, having benefited from tax derogations in 2011. It represents about13.4% of total measures
identified in this exercise.
It should be noted that the primary role of taxation is undoubtedly to generate, in the most neutral
way and with the least possible distortions, revenue required for the government budget. However, as
discussed in section 2, the taxation cannot fulfill its budgetary role only if, at the same time it does not
plan to set other objectives, often contradictory. The proliferation of exemptions and derogatory
regimes observed these last years in Morocco goes against these principles. With the result that
taxation must first seek for economic efficiency. The tax advantages can be a source of distortions and
inefficient allocation of investments and resources. In addition, exemptions create a shortfall in the
State’s budget.
Today, and besides the question concerning the place of the Moroccan agriculture in the economy
which led to the design and implementation of the Green Morocco Plan (PMV), it should be noted that
the question of its taxation was not as much in the central concerns of the King and the government
and the public opinion.
The two Speeches of the King have traced the roadmap for the establishment of an appropriate tax
regime for the agricultural sector. The sovereign in his address to the presidents of the Chambers of
Commerce, the public institutions, and other economic operators, dated September 26, 2000 to specify
"We have given Our instructions to Our government to develop a tax reform based on the
transparency, simplification and rationality ". Moreover, the Royal Speech given on the occasion of
the 55th anniversary of the Revolution of the King and the People in 2008 specified that "…In this
perspective, we are determined to establish a tax system in agriculture, based on the principles of tax
justice and social solidarity, as well as, the need to preserve the competitiveness of the agricultural
activities. All this must be within the framework of the overall coherence of the national tax system…
The proposed new tax regime should be adopted and implemented from the Finance Act 2014. In
addition, the new tax regime adapted to the agricultural world should take into consideration the
social security of the small-holder farmers, and reflect the duty of solidarity towards them, by
continuing to subsidize traditional subsistence crops in low- yield."
To clarify the extent of this reform project, several analytical questions can be asked. It is possible
to remove all the tax exemptions enjoyed by the agricultural sector and when and how? Should we not
introduce a VAT into the sector because the farmers and ranchers already bear a VAT on the inputs
they use for their productions and from which taxable turnover? It is appropriate to raise the tax
exemption of agricultural income and what impact will have this measure on the farmers' income and
what impact will it have on the small ones among them? It will not be judicious to submit to the
corporation tax, the agricultural profits generated by agricultural companies operating essentially in
irrigated agriculture? What are the implications of these measures on the allocation of productive
2
resources and social well being, including small farmers who represent 90% of the sector, the middle
and the rich ones? What are the repercussions of these measures on the government budget? Should
still maintain the tax exemption for a few years more for the small farmers only?
In addition, anticipate challenges to better guide our choices of development of the agricultural
sector in the short and medium term, understand the political assumptions, economic and technical of
the prospective global data, propose some strategic insights on the tax policy appropriate for the
sector, that what should be our area of investigation.
To answer these questions we construct a Dynamic Multi-sectoral Computable General
Equilibrium Model in order to quantify the impact of the taxation of the agricultural sector on the
economy and on the distribution of income. This tool is more preferable than macro-econometric or
partial equilibrium economic tools.
This paper is organized as follows: the second section will present the main nodes of development
in the agricultural sector. The third is devoted to budgetary provisions, tax and custom regulations
affecting the sector. The fourth examines the analytical framework of optimal taxation of goods and
incomes. The fifth will discuss the matrix of social accounting (SAM) built for this model, whose
structure is also discussed. The use of this model and the simulations results will be examined in the
sixth section while the last section summarizes the results of different scenarios and outline the
implications in term of fiscal and economic options.
2. Nodes of development in the agricultural sector ¶
In the early 80s, Morocco has embarked on the path of structural adjustment, trade liberalization
and policy reforms. Managed economy was gradually abandoned. During the 90s and beyond, these
reforms have affected the industrial sector first. As in other countries in the world, the agricultural
sector was the most difficult sector to make progress.
The examination of the sector show that one of the most difficult problems plaguing the Moroccan
agriculture is the low value added generated at its branches in spite of the tax exemptions that the
sector enjoys.
2.1. Problems of agricultural activities in production
The weakness of the agricultural productivity is the real sickness of Moroccan agriculture. Between
1993 and 2002, the productivity of the grounds in Morocco was equivalent to 11% of that of South
Korea, 12% of that of Egypt, 23% of that of Chile and 26% of that of Turkey and 50% of that of
Tunisia (World Bank, 2007). And the cause is that less than 1% of wheat producers use intensive
agronomic practices. Indeed, the farmers use only 50 kg of fertilizer per hectare, a low level according
to international standards. According to a study by the World Bank 2007, 80% of the wheat producers
do not employ any plant protection product. In the view of the farmers the use of few inputs minimizes
the risks in case of drought without liaison with output that could only be minimal. The use of inputs is
also the consequence of the limited access of producers to financings and technical information. The
pricing policies incite the farmers to plant cereals in marginal areas where they get limited outputs and
where the wheat culture aggravates soil erosion. In addition to low yields and high logistics costs,
including transport especially to the EU markets, and undermine the competitiveness of the exporters
of horticultural products. Spanish strawberries exporters pay less than 2800 Euros to transport a truck
of 22 pallets to the United Kingdom, while it costs between 4 500 and 6000 Euros to Moroccan
exporters. Morocco is far from Spain of about 15 km, but nearly half of carriage cost of goods on 600
or 700 km in Spain is due to the crossing of the Straits of Gibraltar1. For most Moroccan exporters of
horticultural products, the high cost of transport cancels the advantages offered by low-costs labor2.
Add to this, lack of integration between production and market, insufficient development of post-
1
World Bank, 2005.
For comparison, the daily wage for harvesting in the Loukkos region averages about € 5 (60 DH) against 35
dirham in Huelva, in Spain.
2
3
harvest systems, high costs of production, high risks, low coordination within chains, inadequate postharvest technologies, lack of quality assurance system, and limited expertise in the processing of the
agricultural products.
2.2. Main cross-cutting issues
Four other cross-cutting issues affect the sector as a whole and which are:(i) the incompleteness of
market liberalization and domestic prices and incentive measures which continue to distort the system,
(ii) the situation of land insecurity which penalizes the investments in the sector and should attract the
attention of the public authorities and, (iii) the poor management of irrigation water in order to
increase the productivity of the factors of production and to reduce the country’s dependence vis-à-vis
climate hazards. Progress has been made in terms of prices and institutional reforms, but some critical
issues still not resolved.
First, in the mid-90s, Morocco had undertaken measures to support the emergence of a market
economy for agricultural products. The privatization of food industries for goods of equipment and
agricultural products, the creation of a rural banking system, and the installation of the institutional
structure and public administration device required for a private type of agricultural economics
constitutes the highlights of this liberalization.
However, the actual measures taken since 1996 were diverse. Strategic commodities such as
cereals, sugar and the oilseeds were the most difficult to fully deregulate with minimal price
distortions, while the fruits and vegetables export-oriented passed to a system of incentives and
undistorted markets, with open trade policy.
2.3. ¶Consequences of law agricultural value-added ¶
Three immediate consequences can be formulated starting from the report of the weakness of the
value added: a lack of diversification of the production, little incentive for private investment in and a
bad quality/price ratio for the consumer. Obviously Moroccan agriculture is also penalized by other
cross-cutting issues. Without claiming completeness we include mainly: Incomplete liberalization of
domestic prices and markets in particular for wheat and sugar, barriers erected against foreign trade,
the lack of security of tenure, and the institutional framework which does not favor its recovery by
private operators.
We should note that the constraints associated with the low creation of the added value are not due,
only to a specific actors and activities concerned by the production line, marketing, or transformation,
but also to other cross-cutting issues. The values added created at the sub-level sector of cereals,
animal husbandry, orbicular or of the industrial cultures are generated by various actors exerting
various activities. Increasing this value must pass, in our view, by a differentiation of these products
and an adaptation of a domestic and foreign consumers demand which must be inelastic at any price
increases of these products.
In addition, regarding the close link between the agricultural activity and poverty, the stagnation of
the agricultural economics weighed heavily on the poor’s incomes of the poor in spite of a relatively
strong growth of the production of fruits, vegetables, and livestock products, while satisfying more
than the half of its cereal requirements. The magnitude of this problem is appreciated and its
predominantly rural character is recognized as long as the poor represent more than a quarter of the
total population, and that two thirds live in rural areas.
2.4. ¶Problems of the agricultural activities on exportation ¶
Moroccan exports of agricultural products with the EU, which remains the principal partner of
Morocco, includes at least 15 vegetables and fruits which are exported: tomatoes, cucumbers,
artichokes, zucchinis, oranges, mandarins, clementines, lemons, apples, pears, grapes, apricots,
cherries, peaches and plums. It should be noted that Moroccan exports to the UE haven’t a free access
to the European markets. Contigentement are imposed and take the form of either a quotas system,
fixation of a minimum price for importation or, determination of the periods of importation and
4
eliminate much of the direct competition with the EU production. We clarify also that import quotas
and minimum import prices can be modified according to the period of importation. The periods of
importation oblige Morocco to produce and export during an identified niche markets.
Even the tomato, which is highly exported to the EU, is experiencing barriers at export. An annual
quota of 220 000 tons in 2006-2007 is allocated each month, a margin report is envisaged if the quota
is not fully achieved in a given month. In practice, Morocco exceeds sometimes the limit, and
provided approximately 80% of imports of tomatoes of the UE coming from non-members country.
The majority of tomatoes are cultivated in greenhouses in the southern Morocco.
¶The other exports are clementines potatoes, olives, green beans, cucumbers and zucchinis, as well
as vegetables. According to a study, Morocco holds a real comparative advantage in the production of
tomatos, clementines, oranges and olives (Azzouzi and Abidar, 2005) and probably on all Moroccan
agricultural exports, in the extent that there is little government intervention in the export sector.
Today, it should be recognized that the agricultural productive structures are disturbed by the
increase of prices of basic commodities in the world. The biofuels boom in particular in the United
States has caused large increases in cereal prices in the world. Maize prices, for example, are 60 à70%
higher than a year ago, and wheat prices progressed in their turn to 40%. According to projections (the
World Bank, 2007), prices of basic commodities remain high in the short-term. Sugar is more
expensive that normal but is gone down again of the highs reached in 2006.The world price of sugar is
situated at half of the price subsidized in Morocco, while the world prices are equal to 70% of
Moroccan price. The recent surge of the world wheat prices, in summer 2007, has pushed the
Moroccan authorities to freeze tariffs temporarily.
2.5. ¶New agricultural strategy ¶
Based on this diagnosis, a new agricultural strategy 2009-2020, entitled "Green Morocco Plan"3 is
designed and which outlines articulate around the following objectives:
 Promote this sector in order to create value added and employment, to promote exports and to fight
against poverty in particular in rural areas. The additional value added on which table the plan is 70 to
100 billion dirhams;
 Associate all the actors of the sector and all the chain of the sector so that the programs selected
profit to all;
 Remedy the weakness of the actors and the complicated statute of landed must be taking into
consideration starting from the successful experiences in other foreign countries;
 Intensify private investments with important knock-on through the development of the
partnerships;
 Effective implementation of 1500 projects for both pillars of the plan.
The action plan is organized around two pillars which are:
Pillar n°1. Aims to develop an agriculture with a high value-added and with high productivity turned
mainly towards export on the level of 560000 exploitations and 961 projects, that is an investment cost
of about 121,2 billion dirhams;
Pillar n°2. Aims to upgrade integral fabric production to the level of 840 000 targeted farmers and 545
projects, that is an investment of about 19,25 billion dirhams.
Other parallel actions are planned to supplement these projects adopted by the two pillars and whose
additional investment cost would border 52,50 billion dirhams, and this to upgrade irrigation
perimeters.
Thus, the total volume of investments required in the Green Morocco Plan is increased to almost 193
billion dirhams.The share of the State in this investment is estimated at 68,6 billion dirhams, a
contribution rate of 35,5%.
Nevertheless, Moroccan agriculture has to its credit a successes promising. The fields concerned are:
3
Ministry of Economy and Finance (2012), « Report on the special Treasury Accounts », Paper presented in the
occasion of the Finance Act Project of 2012.
5
 Exports of premium fresh strawberries to the British market, frozen strawberries to large French
producers of yoghourt ;
 Exports of specialized tomatoes "cherry" to the European markets and argan oil to France;
 Higher outputs than in Europe in the cultivation of tomato;
 Powerful cooperative dairies, producing 25 liters per day and by optimized nutritional, sanitary and
reproductive strategies;
 A high level of water valuation in the cultivation of melon, grapes, and in certain regional offices
of agricultural development (MADRPM, 2005);
 Remarkable outputs 5 T/ha of wheat in rain-fed with appropriate proration in Doukkala;
 Outputs of 80 T/ha for sugar beet in crop irrigated with C agronomic practices.
3. Budgetary provisions, tax and customs applicable in the profit
of agriculture
During the Sixties, the overwhelming majority of the farmers were exempt from the agricultural
tax applicable at time. The tax bases remained not updated and the maintenance of the low rates were a
major cause of non-effectiveness of this tax. Indeed, the share of agricultural tax income in the total
tax incomes did not exceed 1%. Even worse, this tax was not collected in the early eighties, years
coincided with a severe drought (Akesbi, report of 50 years).The year 1984, was marked by the Royale
decision, exempting until December 31 of the year 2000, of all direct taxes or future agricultural
incomes concerned by the agricultural tax. In 2000, this exemption was further extended up until the
year 2010 then at 20134, time supposed to upgrade the sector in the context of the Green Morocco Plan
(PMV).
3.1. ¶Budgetary provisions ¶
If the producer prices were liberalized on the majority of the markets, distortions still exist for
wheat and sugar which profits from support measures of the State through the special funds "Fund of
prices support for certain foods". Moreover, financial assistances are granted to undertake agricultural
activities and to invest using the subsidies of the Agricultural Development Funds (FDA). On the
consumer side, domestic markets are deregulated except for wheat, sugar and livestock which remain
subject of administered prices. Public purchases quotas are removed, except for the regime of National
Wheat Flour Tender. Subsidies are granted through the FDA to modernize the exploitations and to
improve the agricultural infrastructures.
The Agricultural Development funds whose Ministry of Agriculture is authorizing and constitutes a
budgetary support beside the State budget. This account is created in by the Finance Act of 1986 then
modified and supplemented in 2007.This funds aims to contribute to (i) the granting of the subsidies
and incentives for State encouragement of private investment in the agricultural sector and to the
financing of the operations of purchase, storage, transport and distribution of barley in particular
during drought and the upgrading of the agricultural chain. These financial assistances from the State
supported by the funds are distributed to the farmers trough the Crédit Agricole of Morocco (CAM)5.
The Prices support of certain foods funds whose ministry for the Economy and Finances is
authorizing, was created in 1995 to trace the operations related to the protection of certain basic
agricultural products provided by law n°13-89 relating to the foreign trade in the form of import levy
equal to the difference between the reference price and the real price on importation. The resources
mobilized within this framework are intended to contribute to the financing of the compensation
4
Article 7 of the Finance Act n° 40-08 for the fiscal year 2009 and article 7 of the Finance Act n° 43-10 for the fiscal year
2011.
5 Ministry of Economy and Finance (2012), « Annual Report on the special Treasury Accounts », Paper presented in the
occasion of the Finance Act Project of 2012, pp. 77-84
6
system of sugar and flour in order to safeguard the purchasing power of underprivileged populations
and ensure the stabilization of prices selling of such products.
The correlation between the prices increase of those products on the international market and the
revenues decline in the title of the tariff equivalents thereto is illustrated as follows6:
Table 2.1 Average prices and receipts in millions of dirhams for sugar and common wheat
2008
2009
2010
Raw sugar
Average prices $/T * (1)
Receipts in million
dirhams
376
518
427
322
478
250
Common wheat
Average prices $/T
Receipts in million
dirhams
302
3
190
301
231
648 * (2)
* (1): This is about average price of importation of raw sugar cost and freight ($/t)
* (2): Average price of common wheat for the first half of 2011:172 $/t
Under the year 2011, and following the suspension of tariffs on common wheat and the
decreasing of equivalent tariffs receipts of raw sugar, due to the outbreak their prices on the
international market, the receipts of the account reached under 2011 an amount of 420 million dirhams
against 907 million dirhams in 2010, that is a decline of 54%.
3.2. ¶Tax provisions ¶
On this point, it should be noted that the determination of tax exemption of the agricultural
activity is most evident on the level of production exploited intensively and/or destined to export. The
object is to reduce the pressure on prices and possibly to improve their competitiveness in foreign
markets. In any case, on the upstream, the principal inputs (fertilizers, seeds, pesticides ...), the
livestock and the various agricultural equipment are exonerated from the value-added tax (and if
necessary, most often of the tariffs and taxes on importation).On the downstream, the agricultural
products sold in a fresh state like some among those having undergone a transformation (bread, milk,
olive oil) is also exempted from the VAT.
In our opinion, the exemptions have led to an erosion of the tax base, which has accentuated the
tax burden for an ever smaller number of taxpayers. This erosion is prejudicial especially if it is known
that about half of informal sector is consisted by agricultural activities, a total of 40% of the GDP
(HCP, 1999).
In figures, the latest report on the tax expenditure prepared by the General Directorate of Taxes
(DGI)7 evaluates the exemptions granted for the agricultural and fishing sector as VAT passed to 4,3
billion dirhams in 2011 and to 4 billion dirhams for 20 measures evaluated in 2010, an increase of
almost 32,5%. Thus, over the last two years, the agricultural and fishing sector was the second sector
after the property having profited from derogatory tax measures in 2011. It represents about 13.4% of
total measures listed on this exercise.
One must wonder immediately about the effectiveness of exemptions as an instrument of
economic policy, in particular for the promotion of investment. In this regard, experience shows that in
tax policy, foreign investors expect a simple, transparent and stable system. The exemptions influence
their decisions only in a marginal way8. Even worse, the VAT exemptions relating to the agricultural
activities lead the farmers to support vestiges of VAT in their intermediate consumptions. For
example, an exempted stockbreeder supports permanently the VAT on veterinary consultations or the
VAT compound feeds for livestock. In the case where the final product is exempt from VAT, the
Moroccan agricultural producer is thus penalized by a negative effective protection because of the
persistence of VAT on intermediate consumptions, and absence of VAT on imported products
6
Ministry of Economy and Finance (2012), « Annual Report on the special Treasury Accounts », Paper presented in the
occasion of the Finance Act Project of 2012, pp. 38-41
7
Ministry of Economy and Finance (2012), « Annual Report on the special Treasury Accounts », Paper
presented in the occasion of the Finance Act Project of 2012.
8
A study conducted by the IMF and on a large number of countries has shown that the most advanced countries
and better integrated into the global economy have structures more rational tax incentives, such as tax holidays.
7
competitor of local production. The VAT exemption leads therefore to a decrease in famers’ income
while the majority of poor lives from these agricultural activities.
It is time to break with the vicious cycle that has led to the proliferation of exemptions and
derogatory regimes. Indeed, if the agricultural and fishing sectors could not be immediately subjected
to the VAT in spite of the introduction of a suitable qualification threshold, one can consider the
suppression of the exemption granted for the inputs of this sector. At same time, an option could be
offered to the farmers whose turnover exceeds the threshold of VAT, to ask about their tax liability9.
Available information indicates that a threshold included in the fork of 50000 US dollars and 100 000
US dollars would significantly reduce the number of small farms liable. It would also lead to impose
new agricultural beholden. It should be noted that the present study, proposes inter alia, to determine
the effect of the threshold of VAT on the economy as a whole.
This measure also eliminates the vestiges of the VAT for the agribusiness companies. It would
allow also familiarizing a part of the agricultural sector with the accounting and billing rules. This
would facilitate, the adequate moment, the entry of the agricultural sector in the taxation field of
common law. The absence of general threshold of imposition unnecessarily increases the cost of the
tax management. Concerning the small taxpayers, accounting and reporting obligations related to the
liability for the VAT involve disproportionate costs. For the tax authorities, the treatment of a high
number of declarations and payments of a very moderate amount result in a significant mobilization of
an important staff and computer resources available for an excessively law yield, on the detriment of
more productive tasks.
In Morocco, as in other countries, experience has shown that the VAT is not an adapted
instrument for redistribution, nor an effective tool for sectoral interventions. When different rates and
multiple exemptions are used to accommodate the sectoral claims or to serve social objectives, the
VAT logic is weakened. It becomes a complex tax, source of distortions and inefficiency, and its
budgetary output is insufficient. In contrast. a great majority of VAT recently implemented are
founded on a structure much simpler.
3.3. ¶Customs provisions ¶
In the field of customs provisions, it should be noted that the trade liberalization of agricultural
produce is incomplete. Indeed, the protection measures against the imports remain the principal
distortion affecting agriculture and food industries. Tariff protection is the most significant instrument
for the strategic basic commodities (cereals, sugar, oilseeds and meats).
There is a liberal trade arrangement governed by the multilateral and bilateral agreements. The
customs protection measures concerns essentially the commitments entered in the context of the
WTO.As a signatory of the WTO agreement, Morocco gave up the restrictive quotas of importation
and the variable levies. The average customs duties on the agricultural produce amount to 47,8%
which places Morocco among the countries having, in this sector, the highest rates of protection in the
world. By comparison, the average tariffs on the non-agricultural products are only 21%.The foreign
trade is privatized and without monopolies, but the essential imports of basic commodity like wheat
and sugar are taxed on the basis of the reference price. Exports of agricultural products are liberalized.
4. Analytical Considerations drawn from the theory of optimal
taxation ¶
Once that we had analyzed the problems of the agricultural activities in the production and export
and after having shown the budgetary, fiscal and customs efforts in favor of the agricultural sector, we
9
Moreover, the exclusion of traders who achieve a turnover between 1000000 and 2000000 dirhams no longer
seems justified. The current situation is paradoxical. To remedy this, a threshold applicable to all activities and
high enough to increase the effectiveness of the VAT is required. Experience shows that if during the
introduction of the VAT, some countries have initially established a low threshold, the general trend now is to
apply a threshold between 50 000 U.S. $ and 100 000 U.S. dollars to increase the effectiveness of the
management of this tax.
8
will try, in this section, to present the theoretical bases of optimal taxation that can lead our
quantitative study.
The economic literature raises two great interrogations concerning optimal taxation: the first
interrogation relates to the optimal tax structure, that is to say, which ideal tax system should be
putting into place? (Optimal tax design).The second interrogation relates to the optimal reform tax,
that is to say, how to get there? (Optimal tax reform). The theorists of optimal taxation also show that
the competitive equilibrium is a Pareto's optimum which represents an effective state of the economy
and this is why it must be sought.
In the absence of any tax on competitive markets where prices reflect the scarcity of goods and
factors and preferences of agents, no loss occurs and Pareto optimal equilibrium is reached. However,
with the intervention of the state, taxes are justified, although they distort prices. In this way, it is not
possible to achieve the first best optimum, optimal taxation focuses, therefore, on finding a second
rand optimum.
In fact, in reality, many economic activities take place outside the market framework (where there
is no price system) and require government intervention, particularly through taxation. These price
distortions created by taxes or subsidies lead the State to establish a tax system which leads to a
second rand optimum. For example, the State will take on some distributing to others, and to do that, it
must have adequate control to avoid the phenomena of compensation for lost income (situation where
agents seek to recover identical level of satisfaction level before sampling), or reducing the supply of
factors (substitution of the leisure to work).
In general, state intervention in the functioning of markets, including through tax measures to
promote investment, is economically justified if it allows the correcting of market imperfections that
could lead to a level or a sub-optimal allocation of investments.
The presence of externalities, positive and negative, is one source of market imperfection.
Positive externalities include, for example, the benefits that accrue to other companies, due to
investment in training, or intended for research and development. Negative externalities include in
particular the effects on the others undertook pollution and congestion of the infrastructures.
Incentive measures for investment, whether general (designed to increase the overall level of
investment) or specific (designed to favor specific investments) are generally less expensive and
transparent with regard to the generated investment. In addition, they can introduce distortions in the
selection and allocation of investments and therefore lead to a misallocation of resources. Finally, they
make the tax system complex and increase the risk of arbitrariness. Experience shows that the best
way to encourage investment is to have an appropriate macroeconomic policies and a stable and
transparent tax system.
Thus, among the major questions which arise in economy of the taxation, the search of an ideal or
reference taxation appears in the foreground. However, the economic reflection on the taxation does
not stop with the normative aspect, the economist of taxation also adopts a positive approach by
studying the effects of the existing tax system or the planned reforms on the behavior of the agents and
on the macro-economic balance. That is what we intend to do. One can resort, consequently, with
general equilibrium modeling to evaluate the relevance of measures to be brought to the tax system
existing and, consequently, to guide the intuition of the decision makers and the experts face to the tax
reforms to set up. And therefore the theoretical bases that can be used are those of the optimal taxation
of goods and/or incomes.
Several questions are at the heart of the theory of optimal taxation: (i) what are the goods that
must be imposed? (ii) How should be the progressivity of taxes? and (iii) what is the right balance
between tax on goods and income tax? These questions have been a concern of economists in recent
decades starting with Smith, Mill, Dupuit, Arrow, Scitovsky, Edeworth and Wicksell to Pigou,
Samuelson, Harberger, Boiteux, Ramsey, Diamond and Mirrleess. Since the 80s, Atkinson and
Stiglitz, Stern, Ahmad, Deaton, Frewer, Newbery and Tanzi developed modern approaches to
taxation10.
These traditional or modern approaches admit the impossible application of a flat tax, and focus
on the optimal taxation of goods and income, or their combination. While the analysis of optimal
taxation of goods dates back to Samuelson (1951), Boiteux (1956) and Ramsey (1927), the optimal
10
Newbery, D., N. Stern, (1984). The theory of taxation for developing countries », Oxford University Press.
9
taxation of income and Mirrless dates back to Diamond (1971). The optimal combination between the
two taxes has been the subject of an interesting reflection of Stern (1984).
The problem of optimal taxation of consumer goods was enunciated for the first time by Ramsey
(1927) as follows: how to obtain government revenue from taxation of consumer goods in order to
minimize the loss of utility caused by the introduction of a tax?
As for the optimal taxation of income, it has experienced an evolution in the history of economic
thought. In the traditional theory of public finance, the debate of the optimal tax on the income turned
around the principles of the benefit and of the ability to pay tax and those occupied there, for a long
time, a place of choice.
4.1. ¶Optimal taxation of goods and/or income ¶
In terms of the optimal imposition of goods, Ramsey consider the case of a single consumer (or
what is equivalent to many consumers supposed to be identical) to indulge in considerations of
economic efficiency alone. The reasoning is first made in partial equilibrium, in which it is assumed
that the demand of goods does not depend on price or any other property. The implementation of a tax
on consumer goods causes a deadweight loss. This is known as criterion of effectiveness or of
incidence when trying to minimize the deadweight.
We speak, on the other hand, the criterion of equity when we seek to distribute "equitably" the
deadweight between the individuals, which depends on the degree of inequality aversion selected (i.e.
.the relative weight given to the poor people). We see, then, that the minimization of the deadweight
and reducing inequality are two conflicting objectives. The problem of optimal taxation is then
arbitrated between the two criteria of efficiency and equity. To explain this problem, we present in the
first instance the characteristics of a tax system that maximizes the efficiency of the system from
Ramsey rule. The multi-agents will then present the characteristics of an optimal taxation integrating
the two criteria of efficiency and equity11.
Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980) provide an additional restriction under the rule of hypothesis of
Ramsey assuming that the cross-price elasticites are zero. The partial nature of the equilibrium is
increasingly enhanced. Both authors have formulated the problem this way: The minimization of this
deadweight Bk constraint R (R0 is the level of income amount required to government and can be
formulated in the Lagrangian as follows12:
n
L=   B k   (R  R 0 )
(1)
k=1
This gives the two following equalities:
t k X kt


t
X k t k
1 
tk

 d
1 tk k
Where  equal
(2)
.

1 
(3)
and  kd is price elasticity of demand of the good k.
Two fundamental conclusions rise from the work of Ramsey (1927) and those from Atkinson and
Stiglitz (1980):
11
Gautier, J. F., (2001). Taxation optimale et réformes fiscales dans les PED. Une revue de littérature
tropicalisée, Document de travail, DIAL, 2001/02
12 Atkinson, A. et J. E. Stiglitz, (1980). 'Lectures on Public Economics', New York, Mc Graw Hill. Page 368369.
10
 There is interest, from the point of view of the wellbeing to tax more strongly the good whose
demand is inelastic to price than the good whose demand is elastic. The framework of analysis is
standard and suppose that the markets are competitive and without externalities and only goods are
taxed, the work is not;
 In extreme, the optimal tax system is where the tax rate of the respective goods are inversely
proportional to the price elasticities of demand. This is the inverse elasticity rule expressed by
equation 4.3, above (Atkinson, Stiglitz, 1980).
It should note that “The law of inverse elasticity” is a special case of the law of Ramsey, which
allows to obtain a relationship of greater practical interest. Ramsey rule and the rule of inverse
elasticities have the advantage of being easily understood. But the framework of the representative
agent produces a result goes against common sense of social justice. Indeed, since the optimal tax
system implies higher tax rates for goods for which demand is relatively price inelastic, it means that
the basic necessities are usually the most heavily taxed. However, the share of these goods is higher in
the poor households’ budget. Therefore, the Ramsey rule and inverse elasticities lead to increase the
fiscal pressure on the budgets of poor households. Thus, if the goal of minimizing the tax impact is
achieved, it comes at the expense of equity.
But the initial formulation of Ramsey evacuated, as expected, the problem of income
redistribution and prohibits any value judgment. The use of several utility functions can overcome this
problem and consider an economy with many consumers.
In addition, many empirical studies have calculated the deadweight loss, especially after the work
of Harberger (1954) which makes the application of the monopoly13. The empirical literature has
introduced the calculations of each triangle: of consumer and producer. The more modern approach is
one that uses the utility functions and calculates the equivalent variation or compensatory, which
avoids the problems issued by the constraining hypothesis previously adopted and according to which
the demand for a good is independent from the prices of other goods.
Nevertheless, the question of taxation, however, remains interesting. If the goods are taxed at a
uniform rate, cases where they have the same price elasticities of demand, then the same effect can be
achieved by applying a proportional rate on income. In this way indirect taxes can, in principle,
replace direct taxes (Stern, 1984).
In the particular case of agricultural products object of this study, the price elasticities of demand
are almost the same, which presupposes, according to the rule of optimal taxation: (i) to tax the
agricultural products with an uniform VAT rate, (ii) for reasons of efficiency and tax administration,
to heavily tax agricultural products (demand is inelastic to price), (iii) for reasons of equity, tax them,
by against, weakly (basic necessities), and (iv) where appropriate tax agricultural income in replace to
an uniform VAT rate.
In addition, to take account of equity, the analysis of optimal taxation must then be extended to
the context of a multi-agent economy where agents differ by their particular income levels [Diamond
and Mirrlees (1971), Diamond (1975), Mirrlees (1975)].
In terms of optimal income taxation, the work of Mirrlees (1971) has marked a turning point.
Diamond and Mirrlees (1971) developed the first theory of optimal taxation in a multi-agents
framework. The hypotheses analysis also remains essentially the same. One of the most important
conclusions is that marginal tax rates should be lower while income increases. The work of Mirrlees,
with an indisputable rigor theoretical level, is difficult to implement in practice.
There is now H households, represented by the index h. The social utility function W is of type
"Bergson - Samuelson." It represents the aggregation of individual utilities Vh.
To facilitate the interpretation of this equation, we use an expression suggested by Diamond (1975):
bh 
X ih
h
 t i

R h
i
(5)
By substitying bh in (4.5), we obtain the following formulation of the optimal taxes on goods:
13
The difference of price over marginal cost plays the same role as the tax.
11
S ikh
t  H

b h  x kh  
(6)
  1  


xk
h H  x k 

Equation 5 shows that the optimal solution of the rate taxation (ti) is a decreasing function of bh.
h
b represents the "social marginal utility of income." However, this term includes variables related to
equity criteria... It can influence the optimal solution ti according to equity criteria as follows:
i
i
h
- The first term of left
h
of the equation 5 represents the variation of the collective wellbeing

compared to the rates of taxation. The value of this term depends on the social choices of the State,
that is to say, aversion indices for the inequalities desired by the company. Indeed bh is even bigger
than the social utility function is concave, i.e. that the social weight given to the poor is important. In
addition, bh is also an increasing function of the marginal utility of income of individual h. For these
reasons, bh is a decreasing function of individuals’ income.
- The second term of left
t i
i
X ih
of the equation 5 measures the change in tax receipts caused by
R h
a change in the household income h. If this variable represents efficiency criterion, its value also
depends on the initial level of income of household h. The marginal propensity to consume is indeed a
decreasing function of income. bh is even higher than the good i is consumed by the poorest people in
the society.
In fine, the optimal taxation rates t is a decreasing function of bh, which is even larger than the
product "i" is consumed by poor households. In addition, the solution of optimal taxes still influences
by efficiency criterion. Equation 6 shows indeed a highest substitution elasticity (Sik) reduces the
solution of tax rate on good i. However, we should remind that goods with low price elasticity (low
Sik) are generally those whose share of the household budget is higher (essential goods). Thus, the
criterion of incidence and equity criteria are clearly antagonistic.
Since the criteria of efficiency and equity act in the opposite direction on the level of taxes, the
question then arose was whether these effects were not offset each other. Thus, since Diamond and
Mirrlees (1971), the theoretical debates on optimal taxation have mainly focused on the conditions
under which a uniform rate of taxation of goods is optimal. The empirical implications of this debate
are obviously important.
Whether for the taxation of goods or of income, changes in tax rates affects the demand for
consumer goods and the arbitrage between work and leisure. In both cases, the behavior of consumers
of goods and suppliers of work are adjusted based on actual function costs that the tax could generate.
4.2.¶Optimal combination between tax on goods and income ¶
The question of the appropriate combination between the taxation of goods and income has led to
some confusion (Stern, 1984). Several economists have announced that the allocate effect of indirect
taxes is less than the one exercised by direct taxation. Direct taxes on income as indirect taxes on
goods cause a deadweight loss. The second confusion is the belief that to switch from an income tax to
an indirect tax such as VAT could increase the work effort. The reality is that, any price increase due
to VAT, combined with improved income (through the elimination of the tax) would leave incitation
work unchanged. This argument could only hold if there are any transfers of income, for example.
Taxation of income is better than goods under certain very special conditions.
Stern has tried to highlight the importance of assumptions and give an intuitive interpretation
results. There are essentially two theorems: the first deals with the case of linear income tax and the
second case there is a non-linear tax on income. From this work the linear tax can be formalized by the
equation T = a + tY. The problem is to select "t" and "a", which will minimize the risk disincentive on
labor supply. The establishment of the income tax combined with block subsidies may lead to a
situation considered optimal. The tax nonlinear implies that by varying the marginal tax rate, we can
easily define optimal tax on income. A priori, it would suffice to raise the marginal tax rate based on
earned income.
12
Remember that if individuals are identical then the theorem of economic wellbeing stipulates that
the first-best optimum can be achieved with lump-sum transfers that allow required income amount for
the state and a marginal rate of tax on income and goods. On the other side, if individuals are different,
a combination of taxes on income and the goods is required. Each tax is distortionary since the
marginal rate of substitution between labor and goods or even consumer goods, is not equal to the
marginal rate of transformation in production.
At the first theorem Stern assumes that the income taxes are linear and possible in the form of
lump-sum transfers (the same for everyone and a marginal tax rate on constant labor income, which is
equivalent in this context to a rate of proportional tax on goods).
Taxation of goods consumed by the rich offer some progress and indirect taxes improve also
income and increases the progressivity of lump-sum transfers (or reduce the regressivity of the tax),
and the taxation of basic necessities can be the best way to raise incomes (as is the case for Ramsey).
If we have optimal linear tax on income, individuals have an identical preference behavior but
differ in their rates of wages and the direct utility function has the form of a Stone-Geary expressed by
LES (Linear Expenditure System), (see above).
So the optimal indirect taxes are uniform. The important condition is that (i) the Engel curve is
linear and identical (that is to say, all goods have a constant marginal propensity to consume and a
minimum required to consumption x0, (ii) a weak separability between leisure and work. Deaton
(1979) shows that if a subgroup of well satisfies both conditions, then the taxes on the goods must be
uniform (in the case of agricultural products, for example).
The second theorem if we have a case of optimal nonlinear taxes on income, individuals differs by
their wage rate only. The weak separability implies a marginal rate of substitution between goods is
independent in relation to work.
In total, the choice of the optimal combination between the two types of taxes is not easy and
other authors such as Brennan and Buchanan, raised the issue differently: rather than trying to make a
difficult choice between various taxes, governments should seek to optimize the collection of taxes.
5. Presentation of the Model
The model used is a dynamic Multi-sector Computable General Equilibrium Model. It registered
voter in the line of the models built by Shoven and Whalley (1970) like Decaluwé and Savard (2001).
Three agents, namely explicitly there the consumers, the producers and the public authorities, are
introduced. However, to take into account the foreign trade and more generally the degree of opening
of the Moroccan economy, we add a fourth agent to it: the rest of the world.
However, it has been belt to address agricultural issues, including taxation and its effects on the
economy and income redistribution. The model also allows evaluating the effects of certain strategic
choices in terms of tax policy. Six agents are taken into account, the small farmers, medium one and
rich, producers, governments and the rest of the world.
5.1 The productive sector ¶
The Moroccan economy as described in the model is composed of 24 sectors whose whole is
represented by "S". Because of agricultural issues discussed, the set is partitioned into two subsets.
The first is the agricultural irrigated noted "IA" and the second includes the non-irrigated areas and
noted "NIA". In addition, sub-sectors of the food industry, other industries, market services and public
administration.
Figure 5.1. Schematic overview of the agricultural production system
13
Production
VA
IC
Capital
Land
Labor
Agriculture
Non-irrigated agriculture
Cereals
Fruits et
vegetables
Other industries
« irrigated » agriculture
Others
Cereals
Fruits et
vegetables
Others
5.2 Behavior of the companies
For each of the 24 sectors of the Moroccan economy, subscripted by I, the behavior of the
companies is summarized by that of a representative firm. Each one of them uses a technology with no
constant returns and operates in imperfect competition. The production, of sector I is a combination, in
fixed proportions, added-value and intermediate consumptions. Thus we specifiy a production
function of the Leontief type.
 CI V 
Yi  min  i , i  ,
(1)
 oii vi 
Where CI i represent the total intermediate consumption of sector I and Vi the addedvalue of this same sector. Parameters oii et vi and are the technical coefficients of the
Léontief function. They respectively represent the quantities of intermediate goods and addedvalue necessary to the production of one unit of good I. Of course, there are the restrictions14:
: 0 < oii < 1, 0 < vi < 1 et vi  oii  1 .
Then, the added-value is modelled in the form of a function on two floors. On the first floor,
we finds a combination, traditional, of capital K i and of incorporated work Li , combination
which is formalized with the type function with an elasticity of technical substitution
equalizes to a unity, is:
then, we note «T i », « K i », « L i » lend, capital and labor, the value added in the sector « i » is given
by this fonction :
14
The strict positivity of the coefficients implicit that sector I production requires at the same time intermediate
inputs and value-added.
14
V i  A i T i K ii Li i ,
………………………..
(2)
Ai is a parameter of scale specific to sector I and i the share of the incomes of the capital
factor in the added-value of good I. The function of production of the sectors is a Cobb-Douglas
function with increasing outputs.¶The total productivity of the factors breaks up into two elements:¶
A first which represents the externality of the public investment of which the effect passes
through the ratio on public/private capital expressed as follow:

G
 K
 Ki

 i



G
 , A second element of technical progress exogenic, A  A  K
i
0 
i


 K

 i


 .



The function of production of the agricultural sector as for the other sectors is supposed with
increasing outputs of scale because the public infrastructures such as the road network allows the
increase in the production and the productivity of the agricultural branches. Beyond the effects of short
term of the variation of public expenditure of investment or of consumption and phenomena transitory
which results from it, the consequences of medium term must be considered.
The nominal GDP is the sum of the values added in all the sectors:
PIB   PiV Vi
(3)
iS
5.3. Bahaviour of households
From the point of view of modeling, it is generally a question of building for each class of
households "H" and/or for the whole of the households of the functions of utility such as their
wellbeing can believe when their respective consumption makes as much, and vice versa.
The functions of utility which we adopt here in the present study are of type ELES (Extended
Linear Expenditure System).Functions ELES describe "Linear Expenditure System).They are
extensions of the ordinary functions (LES, Linear Expenditure System) known as also the functions of
Stone Geary in that which they give to these last a pseudo dimension inter temporal by integrating
there the saving of the households like representative of a future consumption. Compared to the
functions Cobb Douglas and LES ordinary, the functions Stone Geary, whose functions ELES, have
the major asset that the shares budgetary total of the products are not constant but vary with the prices
and the income available. In the same way, the elasticity-income are not forced with the unit: they are
generally located between 0 and 1 for the normal goods ordinary and higher than 1 for the products
being the subject of expenditure than one could qualify the sumptuary ones, generally called produced
of luxury.
For the class of households "H" the function of utility ELES is written:
n
ln(U h )   i ,h ln(CM i ,h  i ,h )   s h ln(SM h ) (4)
n
i 1
Avec  i ,h   s h  1
i 1
Where U h the utility of the consumer represents; CM h overall consumption of product I; i ,h , the
incompressible or minimum consumption of subsistence in product I, SM h saving; i and  s ,
respectively marginal propensities to consume by good and marginal propensity to save.
They are the request of the good "I" is made up of the household consumption " CM i , h ", of the
consumption of the State "G", the request for reason for investment on behalf of the companies "
INV i " and the consumption of the companies in the form of intermediate consumption.
15
The representative consumer distributes his income available in expenditure relating to the purchase of
the various types of goods in their devoting a fixed share of the income " i ".One thus has:
n
CM
i 1
i ,h
Pc i  SM h  RDM h
(5)
There are thus the equations of following requests:
CM i ,h  i ,h 
i ,h RDMS h
(6)
Pc i
Where RDMS h the "super-cash represents" or "the supernumerary income" of the class of household
considered, i.e. the income available remaining after acquisition or provision of the minima of
subsistence.The supernumerary equations of incomes define respectively the values of the budgets
devoted by the classes of households to their consumption total finales (effective), the savings of the
households and total volumes of final consumption for each product.
CM i ,h   Pc i .CM i ,h
(7)
SM h  RDM h  CM h
 g i CG
C i  CM i ,h 
Pc i
h
(8)
(9)
The measurement of the variation of the wellbeing on the total level of the economy can be
approximated through an indicator of the social cost in wellbeing of the simulated scenario.One can as
follows take as indicators of the social cost in wellbeing the weighted average of the individual VE of
the three classes of households considered:
CMS  VE h .
(10)
h
The parameters  which weighting coefficients here are the numerical proportions of each class of
households in the total population of the households. This measurement of the difference in utility
takes as bases the current prices and answers the question of knowing which variation of the income at
these current prices would be equal to the modification under consideration in terms of impact on the
utility. On the whole, a profit (respectively a loss) of wellbeing is measured by a positive equivalent
variation (respectively negative).
The households treat energy like the other goods by devoting the shares to him " i " ( i  SE ).
Certain authors however bind the request of energy by the households to the consumption of the
durable goods.
7.4. Prices
The most significant element of the model is the way in which the prices of the agricultural
produce are modelled subsidized; the durum wheat and the common wheat and sugar. The State
indirectly pours with the consumers a subsidy on the product I whose average rate is noted:
Pi  Pwi e(1   idd )(1   iind )(1   is )
(11)
The representative consumer is supposed to make a distinction between the goods according to their
geographic origin of production. Thus, the Moroccan consumer consider as imperfectly substitutable
two intrinsically identical goods, since one is produced in Morocco and the other abroad15. In other
15
This assumption is known as the Armington assumption (see Armington (1969)). It makes it possible to take
into account the difference of prices between identical goods, but locally produced or imported. It represents an
alternative at the same time compared to “traditional” work (local and foreign products are perfectly
16
terms, we suppose that on the market, the elasticity of substitution is constant and this elasticity is also
constant for any couple of goods being competed with on the same market.
The representative household determines the quantities to consume from each good by
maximizing its utility (equation (1)) under a budgetary constraint. The overall expenditure is equal to
the sum of the related spending with the purchase of the goods coming from the two areas (Morocco
and the rest of the world are indexed per m and r with M  m , r  ) should not exceed the resources
of the household, W
m
.
The constraint of budget is writing thus:
p
k M
ih , k
(12)
x ih ,kW h ,
For the households income, it is made up of a constant share  h , capital incomes, households s wages
wages, w h and transfers of the State T E also of those received from the rest of the world T r .
Ultimately, we have:
W
h
  h i ri K i  w h i Lih T E T r ,
(13)
The income of the representative households is not entirely consumed. Indeed, a part is devoted to
transfers to the rest of the world TRM v and another to saving E. implicitly, like the investment is
exogenic, it adjust to saving so that I=E.
5.4. Public authorities
The behavior of the public authorities is not explicitly modelled16. The State is satisfied to raise four
types of taxes (taxes indirect, customs duties, tax on the household income, income, tax on the
company’s income) which the product is used to finance its different expenditure. Its receipts are thus
composed of the incomes of the indirect taxation:
RTI  i  iva [qih ,m x ih ,m  (1   idd )eimr x ih ,r ],
(14)
Of incomes related to the customs duties
RDD   idd e imr q ih ,r x ih ,r ,
(15)
i
and of those related to the direct taxes on the households and the companies
RTD   dhW
h
  deW e ,
(16)
Let us note in addition that the public expenditure is consisted of the consumer expenditure and of the
investment, of the debt service and transfers carried out in favour of various agents.
5.5. Sequential dynamics of the model
homogeneous, the elasticity of substitution being infinite) and “structuralist” (the differentiated products are
perfectly complementary, the elasticity of subsititution being zero).
16
In the sense where the public authorities do not adopted an optimizing behavior.
17
The dynamics of the model is thus the following one:the offer of work crôit atan exogenic rate
fixed at 3% per annum. This rate corresponds to the average demographic growth of Morocco
supposes that the majority of the transfers coming from the rest of the world towards the urban and
rural households come from immigrant workers originating in Morocco. One thus postulates that their
transfers increase at the same rate/rhythm as the remained population with the Country the public
investment of the period T, determined in an exogenic way allows to increase the public capital of the
following period which is depreciated of 2.5 percent per annum.The private investment, as for him, is
distributed between the sectors according to fixed keys' which are given starting from the initial
relative equipments in physical capital of each sector. As in the case of the public sector, the private
K
investment increases the stock of capital, i which is depreciated at the same rate as that of the public
investment. Finally, the dynamic equations of the model are as follows:
Lts 1  Lts .(1  n )
(17)
TRM th1  TRM th .(1  n )
(18)
K tG1  K tG .(1   )  IG tv 0
(19)
K ti1  K ti .(1   )   i IPt v 0
(20)
p
p
t 1
It
I
PIB t
IGt
b
 c ln
d
PIB t
PIB t 1
PIB t 1
PIB t
(21)
With:
L ts :Offer work
n : Annual growth rate of the working population;
TRM th1 :Transfers of the rest of the world to the households
K tG : Public capital
IG t : Public investment (value)
IG tv 0 : Public investment (volume)
 : Rate of depreciation of the private capital public and private of sector I
K ti1 :Private capital of sector I
I t p : Total private investment (value)
IPt v 0 : Private investment (volume)
 i : Coefficient of allocation of the investment deprived between the sectors of production
6. Calibration, Scenario and simulations results
What fiscal measures can be implemented to minimize the potential negative effects of taxation
of the agricultural sector? One can show that the government cannot completely eliminate these
effects, but only reduce them. To show this we have implemented five economic policies labeled
scenario 2…, scenario 7. The following table lists their contents.
Table 6.1.Possible scenarios for appropriate tax regime for the agricultural sector
18
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Scenario 6
Scenario 7
Scenario 8
Introduce for the whole agricultural sector VAT, RT17 and CT18 with
production subsidy from the FDA with customs duties on agricultural
products
Preserve the exemption from VAT for the whole agricultural sector and
introduce RT and CT only on agricultural income
Introduce for the whole agricultural sector a VAT from a threshold of 7
million dirhams of turnover and maintain the RT and CT on agricultural
income
Introduce for the whole agricultural sector VAT, RT and CT with ADF
subsidy and the suppression of customs duties on agricultural products
Introduce for the whole agricultural sector a VAT from a threshold of 5
million dirhams of turnover and RT and CT on agricultural income
Introduce for the whole agricultural sector aVAT from a threshold of 7
million dirhams of turnover and RT and CT on agricultural income
Introduce for the 'irrigated' sub-sector the VAT, RT and CT with production
subsidy from ADF and remove tariffs on agricultural products
Introduce for the 'irrigated' sub-sector the VAT, RT and CT with production
subsidy from ADF and the suppression of customs duties on agricultural
products and improve agricultural productivity by 5%
The accounting framework of the model is provided by the Social Accounting Matrix of the
Moroccan economy built from Input-output table (IOT) data of 2009 published by the High
Commission for Planning in 2010. For brevity we do not describe all transactions from the IOT and
other macro-economic data to construct the matrix. From the traditional matrix presented above, we
constructed a second matrix that takes into account the energy sectors. To do this, we proceeded in
two steps. First step. We determined the productions Y i ( i  SE ). From the data of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, presented in Table and for each of the twenty agricultural sectors
(agriculture, food industry, other industries market services and public services), we determined the
share of agricultural production in the total production.
6.1. Resultats
The Moroccan farmers, especially largest among them, are given a very wide aid of the
government. For the encouragement of the investments deprived in the agricultural sector, the State
grants, within the framework of the agricultural Development funds, the financial assistances in the
form of subsidies and premiums, without counting measurements relating to the protection of the
Moroccan products at the borders. As one can note it simulations which envisages the assistance of the
agricultural development funds, the indicator of equivalent variation within the meaning of hicks is
positive for the small farmers and the means, respectively 1% and 1.5% of the GDP.
In simulation 1, the results in average show that the small farmers will gain in term of wellbeing
following 0,47%. The net budgetary position improves achieve the trade balance will be at deficit
around .In simulation 2, the results in average show that the small farmers will gain in term of
wellbeing following is … %.The net budgetary position acheive and the pay of the trade balance will
be at deficit around In simulation 4, the results in average show that the small farmers will gain in
term of wellbeing 0,44 %. The net budgetary position improves .
In simulation 5, the results in average show that the small farmers will gain in term of wellbeing
is 0,44%. The net budgetary position improves is the trade balance will be at deficit around. In
simulation 6, the results in average show that the small farmers will gain in term of wellbeing
following at 0,48% %. The net budgetary position improves at the trade balance will be at deficit
around -173505009,21 million of dirhams.
17
18
Income tax
Corporate tax
19
In simulation 7, the results in average show that the small farmers will gain in term of wellbeing
is %. The net budgetary position improves at 15449,15the trade balance will be at deficit around 184045965,93 million of dirhams.In simulation 8, the results in average show that the small farmers
will gain in term of wellbeing following is .The net budgetary position improves at 1the trade balance
will be at deficit aroundIn all simulations, it should be stressed that the installation of a suitable mode
for the agricultural sector will give its effects only with one delay.In other words it is only as from the
following year of the installation of the tax on the sector that the incomes of the primarily poor and
average farmers will improve relatively.
Moreover, the agricultural sector is practically excluded from the field of the taxation. The
exemption of the agricultural incomes relates at the same time to the direct taxes and the indirect taxes
for principal inputs (manures, seeds, products plant health, etc), the livestock and the various farm
equipments. The major part of these exemptions can be used only in great agriculture. On account of
the tax equity, great agriculture must pass to the contribution to the finance public, more especially as
it is especially it which profits from the main part of the subsidies know-indicated.
It would be an part of the results of simulations preferable to introduce a VAT into the
agricultural sector and to defer income tax on the average farmers up to 2015 because it is starting
from this date that their wellbeing expressed in term of equivalent variation becomes higher and
reaches of 0,60%.
Simulations also show that it are better to subject the companies which must declare the VAT
with a higher threshold of 7 million dirhams instead of 5 million dirhams.¶
The permanent assistantship never made a sector more productive or more competitive.¶To
support the competitiveness of the agricultural sector by the only setting except field of the tax can be
only prejudicial with the sector and the economy of the country in general.¶The imposition of the
agricultural incomes does not affect of anything competitiveness sector, since it comes after
calculation from and thus the agricultural production cost turnover.
The imposition of the income is a division with the community, it does not influence the costs as
the professional tax, whose sector is exonerated or the VAT on the purchases that the farmers cannot
deduce.¶It is necessary to reinforce the competitiveness of the farmers and to encourage them by the
various tools of the economic policy of the State to be profitable.¶However, when the latter carry out
benefit, they must achieve the duty citizen as well as the other sectors, which miss neither of
characteristics nor of problems.¶The social aspect can be currently safeguarded by a particular device
with the small agriculture which is useful, of pretext to the exemption of large.¶
The tax on agriculture will not touch the mass of the small farmers, since their incomes will not
reach the threshold of imposition.¶The least small and the large farmers, rather powerful, mainly
thanks to the tax leave and State grants great, have the duty to join the State of revenue duty and to
contribute to the budget of the State. The fiscalisation must play a role structuring in favour of the
development of the agricultural sector in its specificity by defining the technical plan of the
fiscalisation of the sector, this study indicates that it would be wise to set up suitable methods as
regards agricultural VAT.¶
They are in particular the rates to be retained and of the mode of covering of the VAT As regards
the imposition of the incomes of the farmers as regards IS or IR, this study makes show that thresholds
of exemption and practical methods of imposition require an agricultural chart of accounts for a better
financial control of their activity.¶
After simulations, they is seen that the simulation 8 where Introduce for the 'irrigated' subsector the VAT, RT and CT with production subsidy from ADF and the suppression of customs duties
on agricultural products and improve agricultural productivity by 5% which the results are more
satisfactory in terms of collective wellbeing and revenue from taxes for the general budget.
Table 6.1. Macroeconomic consequences in average
GDP
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
8670765,45
769962,19
V
0,47%
0,48%
0,14%
mployments
4539336,00
4961498,64
20
O.B.B.
T.B
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Scenario 6
Scenario 7
Scenario 8
0,44%
0,48%
0,45%
0,49%
841826,56
892970,08
1066242,99
0,13%
0,15%
427866,44
4676383,57
15449,15
-173505009,21
-184045965,93
6101227,02
O.B.B. Ordinary budget balance
T.BC.Trade balance
VEsf Small farmers ¶
VEmf : Medium farmers
VErf : Rich farmers ¶
6.2. Sensitivity Analysis
In general, the sensitivity analysis consists in studying the robustness of simulations obtained.
Indeed, when a computable general equilibrium model is calibrated, it is not possible to fix, with
certainty, the value of each one of its parameters. It is particularly the case of elasticities which we
evaluate in a more or less ad hoc way. The uncertainty on their true values generates consequently an
uncertainty on the out-put results.
6.2.1. Overview of the analytical method:
The sensitivity analysis consists in measuring the sensitivity of the final results by evaluating the
impact of the modifications of the parameter’s values on the values of the out-put variables. While
referring us to Abdelkhalek and Dufour (1998, 2002) and Dawkins (2005), we can distinguish two
great types of procedures:
i) Systematic sensitivity analysis and conditional (for example Harrison (1986), Harrison, Jones,
Kimbell and Wigle (1993)) study the effect on the final solution of unilateral perturbations (we can say
one by one) of each parameter, the clause ceteris paribus are applying.
ii) Systematic sensitivity analysis and unconditional (Wigle (1991), Harrison, Jones, Kimbell and
Wigle (1993)) examine a grid of values of the parameters by taking account of their possible
interactions. This last approach is thus more rigorous, since it takes into account the cross effects
between the various variables (Piet, 2002).
Several projections were made recently out of matter of unconditional analysis. Thus, Harrison
and Vinod (1992) developed an approach by sampling of Monte Carlo resting on the specification a
priori of a distribution for each parameter. Arndt (1996), De Vuyst and Preckel (1997) and Dawkins
(2005), as for them, extended the preceding procedure by using the Gaussian quadrature method,
usually used on occasion of numerical calculation of integrals. The latter presents the favours of being
more sparing in calculations and especially to be based on properly exact replications, and not
approximated of model, contrary to the approache of Harrison and Vinod which underestimates the
variability of the parameters (De Vuyst and Preckel (1997)).
Via an unconditional sensitivity analysis, we wish to check that the variability of the model as a
whole is not too important in the event of simultaneous modification of all the parameters. To do this,
the Gaussian quadrature method is implemented. While sending to Arndt (1996), De Vuyst and
Preckel (1997) and Piet (2002) for more precise details, here is the essential.
Every model can be summarized with the vector function G (X, θ) =0 where X is the vector of the
output variables and θ that of the parameters. The vector of the solutions, that we note x*, is thus a
function of θ: x*=x* (θ). So the uncertainty relating to the vector of the parameters refers directly on
that of the solutions of the model. The unconditional sensitivity analysis precisely consists in
estimating the error relating to the vector of solutions of the model compared to the error relating to
the parameters, the whole while taking of account the effects of interaction between those latter. It
consequently amounts to estimate the moments (we stoped generally with the expectation and the
variance) of the vector x* and this, according to the hazard θ. So, we show that the expectation of the
solutions of the model is a function of the potential values of the vector of the parameters:
E[x*( )]=  x*( )g( )d
…
(22)

21
Where G(θ) represents the density of the random vector absolutely continuous θ and ω indicates
the area of integration, in this case all the values which can take the parameters. (Without going into
the details, let us note simply that the Gaussian quadrature method make it possible to evaluate the
integral (26).) Following Arndt (1996) and Piet (2002), there will be recourse, to estimate the
distribution of the parameters, with a quadrature with order 3, which bases itself on the formula of
Stroud.
6.2.2. Application of the unconditional procedure
We carry out first of all the calculation of the squarture for all the twenty and one elasticities of the
model (three elasticities for each of the seven sectors). We evaluate also forty-two points of squarture:
K = 1,…, 144. Lastly, we obtain the values of three elasticities for each of the seven sectors and of the
forty-two points of squarture, that is to say a matrix with dimension 144x82.
The following stage results in simulating the model once again.We concentrate then at the first
two time of the vector thus generated. The first one between them (i.e the expectation) is to be
compared with the solution given by the central values, or calibrated, of the parameters and the second
one, the variance, with the variability of the parameters, which is posed equal to 20% in this case. The
table 6 hereafter indexes all the results concerning the output variable “Well-being of the households”.
Table 6.1. Output Values obtained by the Gaussian quadrature method
(Variable “small farmers wellbeing)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
299377,8
302371,6
305395,3
308449,3
311533,7
314649,1
317795,6
320973,5
324183,3
327425,1
330699,4
334006,3
337346,4
340719,9
344127,1
347568,3
351044
354554,5
358100
361681
363489,4
365306,9
367133,4
368969,1
370813,9
372668
374531,3
376404
378286
380177,4
382078,3
383988,7
385908,6
387838,2
389777,4
391726,3
393684,9
395653,3
397631,6
399619,8
401617,8
403625,9
405644,0
407672,2
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
417966,5
420056,3
422156,6
424267,4
426388,7
428520,7
430663,3
432816,6
434980,7
437155,6
439341,3
441538,1
443745,7
445964,5
448194,3
450435,3
452687,4
454950,9
457225,6
459511,8
461809,3
464118,4
466439,0
468771,2
471115,01
473470,58
475837,94
478217,13
480608,21
483011,25
485426,31
487853,44
490292,71
492744,17
495207,89
497683,93
500172,35
502673,21
505186,58
507712,51
510251,08
512802,33
515366,34
517943,17
22
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
531021,89
533677,00
536345,38
539027,11
541722,25
544430,86
547153,01
549888,78
552638,22
555401,41
558178,42
560969,31
563774,16
566593,03
569425,99
572273,12
575134,49
578010,16
580900,21
583804,71
586723,74
589657,35
592605,64
595568,67
598546,51
601539,25
604546,94
607569,68
610607,53
613660,56
616728,87
619812,51
622911,57
626026,13
629156,26
632302,04
635463,55
638640,87
641834,07
645043,24
648268,46
651509,80
654767,35
658041,19
45
409710,6
46
411759,2
47
413818,0
48
415887,0
Theoretical average (sim 1)=
1041071,5
Empirical average 955911,6
93
94
95
96
520532,89
141
523135,55
142
525751,23
143
528379,99
144
Theoretical average (sim 2)=
1042354,2
661331,40
664638,05
667961,24
671301,05
Standard deviation (ET)=31432,04, ratio AND average =
0,087875
It arises from the examination of this table that the model is relatively stable. Indeed, a
variation of 20% of all the parameters generates an increase of 8,8% of the wellbeing of the
households. That means that, even if an uncertainty remains as for the true value of certain
parameters, it deteriorates only in a tiny measurement the direction and the value of the
results.
It is finally possible to define a confidence interval on the variable “Wellbeing”. To do
this we used the Bienaymé-Tchebychev inequality, which is stated as follows: if X is a
random variable admitting a moment in order 2, then for any K > 0.
Var(X)
k2
Consequently, mutatis-mutandis, by considering a level of significance it follows that the
“true average” μ of the level of wellbeing is included in the following interval:
P(|X-E(X)|  k) 
P(924479,6 <  < 987343,6)  0,95
It appears immediately that the “theoretical” averages obtained starting from simulations Sim1 and
Sim2 are included in this interval.
7. Conclusion and recommandations
The Moroccan farmers, especially largest among them, are given a very wide aid of the
government. For the encouragement of the investments deprived in the agricultural sector, the State
grants, within the framework of the agricultural Development funds, the financial assistances in the
form of subsidies and premiums, without counting measurements relating to the protection of the
Moroccan products at the borders. Moreover, the agricultural sector is practically excluded from the
field of the taxation. The exemption of the agricultural incomes relates at the same time to the direct
taxes and the indirect taxes for principal inputs (manures, seeds, products plant health, etc), the
livestock and the various farm equipments. The major part of these exemptions can be used only in
great agriculture. On account of the tax equity, great agriculture must pass to the contribution to the
finance public, more especially as it is especially it which profits from the main part of the subsidies
know-indicated.¶
The permanent assistantship never made a sector more productive or more competitive. To
support the competitiveness of the agricultural sector by the only setting except field of the tax can be
only prejudicial with the sector and the economy of the country in general. The imposition of the
agricultural incomes does not affect of anything competitiveness sector, since it comes after
calculation from and thus the agricultural production cost turnover. The imposition of the income is a
division with the community, it does not influence the costs as the professional tax, whose sector is
exonerated or the VAT on the purchases that the farmers cannot deduce. It is necessary to reinforce the
competitiveness of the farmers and to encourage them by the various tools of the economic policy of
the State to be profitable. However, when the latter carry out benefit, they must achieve the duty
citizen as well as the other sectors, which miss neither of characteristics nor of problems. The social
aspect can be currently safeguarded by a particular device with the small agriculture which is useful,
of pretext to the exemption of large. The tax on agriculture will not touch the mass of the small
farmers, since their incomes will not reach the threshold of imposition. The least small and the large
23
farmers, rather powerful, mainly thanks to the tax leave and State grants great, have the duty to join
the State of revenue duty and to contribute to the budget of the State.¶
Via an unconditional sensitivity analysis, we wish to check that the variability of the model as a
whole is not too important in the event of simultaneous modification of all the parameters. To do this,
the Gaussian quadrature method is implemented as developed by Arndt (1996), De Vuyst and Preckel
(1997) and Piet (2002). From the methodological point of view, an unconditional sensitivity analysis
allows to give evidence of the robustness of the results.
In the same way, not taken it into account of the arbitration between female work, leisures and
housework implies the inexistence of perverse effects on female labor.
Lastly, the perfect competition is postulated on the markets of the goods and services. The
introduction of elements of imperfect competition and the increasing returns to scale could at the very
least moderate the results obtained. Similarly, the taking into account of the imperfect intersector
mobility of the workers would constitute an interesting prolongation of this work.
It remains however - it will be the ultimate conclusion - that our model such it is founded on
the selected hypotesis appears completely robust against the modifications of its essential parameters
and consequently, its validity appears also assured.
8. Bibliography ¶
[1] Armington P. (1969). A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production,
IMF Staff Papers, (16), pp. 159-176.
[2] Abdelkhalek, T. (2006). Commercial Liberalization and poverty in Morocco: An analysis in CGE
micro-simulated, Working paper, MPIA, 2006- 12.
[3] Armington P., (1969). A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production,
IMF Papers Staff, (16), pp. 159-176.
[4] Atkinson, A. and J. E. Stiglitz, (1980). Lectures on Public Economics, New York, Mc Graw Hill.
[5] Carpos, P., K. Conrad, S. Proost and D. Van Regmorter (1999). The Gem-e3 Model: Reference
Manual, National Technical University of Athens.
[6] Newbery, D., N. Stern, (1984). The theory of taxation for developing countries, Oxford University
Press.
[7] Gautier, J. F., (2001). Optimal Taxation and tax reforms in the developing countries. A review of
tropicalized literature, Working paper, DIAL, 2001/02
[8] Marouani, M. A. (2004). Effects of the agreement of association with the European Union and of
the dismantling of the multifibre agreement on employment in Tunisia: An analysis in intertemporal
general balance, Working paper, DIAL.
[9] Martin, M. C., M. Souissi and B. Decaluwe, (1993), Modèle 3 - modèle réel d'une économie
ouverte avec gouvernement », in PARADI (Programme d'analyses et de recherches économiques
appliqués au développement international) Vol 2.
[10] Ministry for the Economy and Finances, (2000). National Bases on the taxation in Morocco,
News bulletin of the Ministry for the Economy and Finances, Al Maliya, N 24.
[1] Karim, M. (2010). Viabilité des finances publiques marocaines, Edition l’Harmattan.
[12] Marouani Mr. A., (2004), "Effects of the agreement of association with the European Union and
of the dismantling of the multifibre agreement on employment in Tunisia:An analysis in intertemporal
general balance ", Working paper DIAL, DT/2004/01.
24
[13] Schubert, K. (1993). Models of Calculable General Equilirium: A review of the literature,
Political Review of Economy, 103, pp. 775-825.
[14] Shoven J. B. et J. Whalley (1984). Applied General Equilibrium Models of Taxation and
International Trade : an Introduction and a Survey, Journal of Economic Literature, 22, pp. 10071051.
[15] Shoven J. B. et J. Whalley, (1992). Applying General Equilibrium, Cambridge University Press.
[16] Varian, H. (1997). Introduction has Microéconomie, De Boeck Université, Collection Openings,
Prémisses.
Appendice 1 : Sectors, Symbole and Production value
The equations of the indirect utility are derived thereafter while replacing CM i ,h and SM h in the
equations, by their corresponding expressions of equations 1
 i , h

UI h   
.(RDM h   Pc i .i ,h ) 
i
i  Pc i

i , h


.   s h .(RDM h   Pc i .i ,h ) 
i


25
s h
(1)
The functions of expenditure are defined by the equations;;;en considering a vector of price PC given:

UI

DEPh (Pc ,UI h )   s h 
i ,h
  s h  i , h
i



i , h
 . Pc i . Pc i .i ,h ).RDM h
i
 i

(2)
To appreciate the profit or the loss of wellbeing for each category of households H consecutive to a
modification of the prices and incomes, we built an indicator of equivalent variation within the
meaning of Hicks (VEH).
The principle in is simple : That is to say the function of indirect utility monetary
UI (Pc1 ;Pc0 ,RDM1 ) which measures the sum (monetary) of which the consumer, confronted with the
vector of the prices Q, need would have to be at least as well as if the vector of the prices were equal
to Pc0 and its income equal to RDM1. Function UI is thus identically equal to the function of
expenditure DEP (Pc1 ;U(Pc0 ;RDM1 )) :
UI (Pc1 ;Pc0 ,RDM1 )  DEP (Pc1 ;U(Pc0 ;RDM1 ))
.
(3)
Where U(Pc0 ;RDM1 ) the level of utility associated with the income represents RDM1 .If one
considers the two states  (q;p' ;w ' ) and  (q;p0 ;w 0 ) , the equivalent variation is then defined by:
V E  DEP  Pc 0 ,UI (P 1 , RDM 1 )   DEP  Pc 0 ,UI (P 0 , RDM 0 ) 
(4)
V C  DEP  Pc 1 ,UI (P 0 , RDM 0 )   DEP  Pc 1 ,UI (P 1 , RDM 1 ) 
(5)
In these two equations, figures 0 and 1 return respectively to equilibrium initial and contrefactuel.
0
0
0
One can notice that the term DEP  Pc ,UI (P , RDM )  of the equation 4 the term
DEP  Pc 0 ,UI (P 0 , RDM 0 )  of the equation,, correspond respectively to RDM1 and E RDM1
.Thus starting from equations 1 and expressions 2, it comes:


1
1
i , h
 UI h (Pc , RDM h 
0
(6)
VEh  
.
Pc
. Pc i0 .i ,h )  RDM h0



i


s
i ,h

s

i
i
h  i ,h


i


 P0 
VE h  RDMS h .  i 1 
i  Pi 
i , h
 RDMS h0
(7)
 RDMS h1
(8)
In the same way:
 P1 
VC h  RDMS h .  i0 
i  Pi 
i , h
Appendice 2 : Sectors, Symbole and Production value
Sectors
Durum wheat
Common wheat
Barley
But seed
Rice
Symbole
DW
CW
BAR
BSE
RIC
26
Production
4394,69
2929,80
2929,80
2929,80
4394,69
Sugar beets
Sugar cane
Oleaginous seeds
Crude fiber
Berseem
Citrus fruits
Frech olives
Grapes
Dates
Other fruits
Other products
Breeding
Forests
Fishing
Others agricultural
SBE
SCA
OSE
CFI
BER
CFR
FOL
GRA
DAT
OFR
OPR
BRE
FOR
FIS
7324,49
7324,49
8789,39
2929,80
4394,69
2929,80
8789,39
2929,80
10254,29
2929,80
2929,80
4394,69
11719,18
21973,47
29297,97
Appendice 2 : Results of simulations
Table 6. (Scenario 1), Macroeconomic consequences
Base
GDP ¶
Private consumption ¶
Ordinary expenditure ¶
Compensation ¶
Public investment ¶
Private investment ¶
Ordinary receipts ¶
Ordinary balance ¶
Exports ¶
Exports of agricultural products¶
Imports ¶
Imports of agricultural products
Commercial balance ¶
Rate of inflation * ¶
VE small farmers ¶
VE medium farmers ¶
VE rich farmers ¶
Total employment ** ¶
Agricultural employment ** ¶
T+ 1
732449,00
52052,10
159898,00
18083,00
46763,00
140289,00
172570,00
12672,00
113020000,00
2519300,10
263981702,00
2421300,00
-150961702,00
1,00%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10400000,00
4191200,00
T+2
739773,49
52572,62
161496,98
18263,83
47230,63
141691,89
174295,70
12798,72
114150200,00
2544493,10
266621519,02
2445513,00
-152471319,02
1,01%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10504000,00
9180000,00
T+5
754568,96
53624,07
164726,92
18629,11
48175,24
144525,73
177781,61
13054,69
116433204,00
2595382,96
271953949,40
2494423,26
-155520745,40
1,03%
0,44%
0,45%
0,13%
10714080,00
9363600,00
Average
800754,62
56906,30
174809,52
19769,36
51123,95
153371,86
188663,27
13853,75
123559847,55
2754241,16
288599706,74
2647101,92
-165039859,18
1,09%
0,47%
0,48%
0,14%
11369867,41
9741889,44
793288,93
56375,74
173179,72
19585,04
50647,31
151941,92
186904,30
13724,58
122407859,97
2728562,50
285909000,28
2622422,15
-163501140,32
1,08%
0,47%
0,48%
0,14%
11263862,53
4539336,60
Table 2. (Scenario 2), Macroeconomic consequences
Base
GDP ¶
Private consumption ¶
Ordinary expenditure ¶
Compensation ¶
Public investment ¶
Private investment ¶
Ordinary receipts ¶
Ordinary balance ¶
Exports ¶
Exports of agricultural products¶
Imports ¶
Imports of agricultural products ¶
Commercial balance ¶
Rate of inflation * ¶
VE small farmers ¶
VE medium farmers ¶
VE rich farmers ¶
Total employment ** ¶
Agricultural employment ** ¶
T+ 1
732449,00
52052,10
159898,00
18083,00
46763,00
140289,00
172570,00
12672,00
113020000,00
2519300,10
263981702,00
2421300,00
-150961702,00
1,00%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10400000,00
4191200,00
T+2
761746,96
54134,18
166293,92
18806,32
48633,52
145900,56
179472,80
13178,88
117540800,00
2620072,10
274540970,08
2518152,00
-157000170,08
1,04%
0,45%
0,46%
0,14%
10816000,00
4358848,00
T+5
799834,31
56840,89
174608,62
19746,64
51065,20
153195,59
188446,44
13837,82
123417840,00
2751075,71
288268018,58
2644059,60
-164850178,58
1,09%
0,47%
0,48%
0,14%
11356800,00
4576790,40
Table 3. (Scenario 3), Macroeconomic consequences
27
925908,19
65800,44
202131,30
22859,20
59114,35
177343,04
218150,31
16019,01
142871577,03
3184714,02
333706265,01
3060829,49
-190834687,98
1,26%
0,54%
0,56%
0,16%
13146915,60
5298206,99
Average
867065,45
61618,73
189285,58
21406,47
55357,55
166072,65
204286,56
15000,98
133791891,73
2982321,06
312498772,72
2866309,57
-178706880,99
1,18%
0,51%
0,52%
0,15%
12311411,02
4961498,64
Base
GDP ¶
Private consumption ¶
Ordinary expenditure ¶
Compensation ¶
Public investment ¶
Private investment ¶
Ordinary receipts ¶
Ordinary balance ¶
Exports ¶
Exports of agricultural products¶
Imports ¶
Imports of agricultural products ¶
Commercial balance ¶
Rate of inflation * ¶
VE small farmers ¶
VE medium farmers ¶
VE rich farmers ¶
Total employment ** ¶
Agricultural employment ** ¶
T+ 1
732449,00
52052,10
159898,00
18083,00
46763,00
140289,00
172570,00
12672,00
113020000,00
2519300,10
263981702,00
2421300,00
-150961702,00
1,00%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10400000,00
4191200,00
T+2
800754,62
56906,30
174809,52
19769,36
51123,95
153371,86
188663,27
13853,75
123559847,55
2754241,16
288599706,74
2647101,92
-165039859,18
1,09%
0,47%
0,48%
0,14%
11369867,41
4582056,57
T+5
800754,62
56906,30
174809,52
19769,36
51123,95
153371,86
188663,27
13853,75
123559847,55
2754241,16
288599706,74
2647101,92
-165039859,18
1,09%
0,47%
0,48%
0,14%
11369867,41
4582056,57
840865,36
59756,80
183565,94
20759,63
53684,81
161054,44
198113,64
14547,70
129749105,82
2892204,35
303056005,91
2779698,37
-173306900,09
1,15%
0,49%
0,51%
0,15%
11939397,46
4811577,17
Average
769962,19
54718,01
168087,35
19009,14
49158,02
147474,06
181408,36
13321,01
118808445,01
2648328,86
277501818,50
2545309,57
-158693373,49
1,05%
0,45%
0,46%
0,14%
10932647,57
4405856,97
Table 4. (Scenario 4), Macroeconomic consequences
Base
GDP ¶
Private consumption ¶
Ordinary expenditure ¶
Compensation ¶
Public investment ¶
Private investment ¶
Ordinary receipts ¶
Ordinary balance ¶
Exports ¶
Exports of agricultural products¶
Imports ¶
Imports of agricultural products ¶
Commercial balance ¶
Rate of inflation * ¶
VE small farmers ¶
VE medium farmers ¶
VE rich farmers ¶
Total employment ** ¶
Agricultural employment ** ¶
T+ 1
732449,00
52052,10
159898,00
18083,00
46763,00
140289,00
172570,00
12672,00
113020000,00
2519300,10
263981702,00
2421300,00
-150961702,00
1,00%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10400000,00
4191200,00
T+2
776395,94
55175,23
169491,88
19167,98
49568,78
148706,34
182924,20
13432,32
119801200,00
2670458,11
279820604,12
2566578,00
-160019404,12
1,06%
0,46%
0,47%
0,14%
11024000,00
4442672,00
T+5
830743,66
59037,49
181356,31
20509,74
53038,59
159115,78
195728,89
14372,58
128187284,00
2857390,17
299408046,41
2746238,46
-171220762,41
1,1%
0,5%
0,5%
0,1%
11795680,00
4753659,04
1017696,70
72323,47
222169,28
25125,31
64974,56
194923,68
239776,31
17607,03
157034934,95
3500425,83
366787731,40
3364260,20
-209752796,44
1,4%
0,6%
0,6%
0,2%
14450215,21
5823436,73
Average
747245,20
53103,60
163128,10
18448,29
47707,66
143122,98
176056,09
12927,99
115303117,25
2570192,49
269314396,89
2470212,69
-154011279,64
1,02%
0,44%
0,45%
0,13%
10610090,42
4275866,44
Table 5. (Scenario 5), Macroeconomic consequences
Base
GDP ¶
Private consumption ¶
Ordinary expenditure ¶
Compensation ¶
Public investment ¶
Private investment ¶
Ordinary receipts ¶
Ordinary balance ¶
Exports ¶
Exports of agricultural products¶
Imports ¶
Imports of agricultural products ¶
Commercial balance ¶
Rate of inflation * ¶
VE small farmers ¶
VE medium farmers ¶
VE rich farmers ¶
Total employment ** ¶
Agricultural employment ** ¶
732449,00
52052,10
159898,00
18083,00
46763,00
140289,00
172570,00
12672,00
113020000,00
2519300,10
263981702,00
2421300,00
-150961702,00
1,00%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10400000,00
4191200,00
T+ 1
T+2
783720,43
55695,75
171090,86
19348,81
50036,41
150109,23
184649,90
13559,04
120931400,00
2695651,11
282460421,14
2590791,00
-161529021,14
1,07%
0,46%
0,47%
0,14%
11128000,00
4484584,00
T+5
846418,06
60151,41
184778,13
20896,71
54039,32
162117,97
199421,89
14643,76
130605912,00
2911303,20
305057254,83
2798054,28
-174451342,83
1,2%
0,5%
0,5%
0,2%
12018240,00
4843350,72
Table 6. (Scenario 6), Macroeconomic consequences
28
1066242,99
75773,45
232767,23
26323,84
68073,98
204221,95
251214,15
18446,92
164525834,62
3667403,57
384284284,60
3524742,55
-219758449,98
1,5%
0,6%
0,6%
0,2%
15139521,15
6101227,02
Average
817239,09
58077,78
178408,18
20176,33
52176,40
156529,20
192547,13
14138,94
126103471,80
2810940,45
294540869,88
2701595,61
-168437398,08
1,12%
0,48%
0,49%
0,15%
11603929,45
4676383,57
Base
GDP ¶
Private consumption ¶
Ordinary expenditure ¶
Compensation ¶
Public investment ¶
Private investment ¶
Ordinary receipts ¶
Ordinary balance ¶
Exports ¶
Exports of agricultural products¶
Imports ¶
Imports of agricultural products ¶
Commercial balance ¶
Rate of inflation * ¶
VE small farmers ¶
VE medium farmers ¶
VE rich farmers ¶
Total employment ** ¶
Agricultural employment ** ¶
T+ 1
732449,00
52052,10
159898,00
18083,00
46763,00
140289,00
172570,00
12672,00
113020000,00
2519300,10
263981702,00
2421300,00
-150961702,00
1,00%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10400000,00
4191200,00
T+2
769071,45
54654,71
167892,90
18987,15
49101,15
147303,45
181198,50
13305,60
118671000,00
2645265,11
277180787,10
2542365,00
-158509787,10
1,05%
0,45%
0,46%
0,14%
10920000,00
4400760,00
T+5
815215,74
57933,99
177966,47
20126,38
52047,22
156141,66
192070,41
14103,94
125791260,00
2803981,01
293811634,33
2694906,90
-168020374,33
1,11%
0,48%
0,49%
0,14%
11575200,00
4664805,60
970934,99
69000,31
211960,92
23970,84
61989,07
185967,21
228758,93
16798,01
149819403,32
3339586,25
349934357,47
3209677,24
-200114954,15
1,33%
0,57%
0,58%
0,17%
13786248,40
5555858,11
Average
841826,56
59825,11
183775,78
20783,36
53746,18
161238,54
198340,10
14564,33
129897423,53
2895510,46
303402432,74
2782875,88
-173505009,21
1,15%
0,49%
0,51%
0,15%
11953045,52
4817077,34
Table 7. (Scenario 7), Macroeconomic consequences
Base
GDP ¶
Private consumption ¶
Ordinary expenditure ¶
Compensation ¶
Public investment ¶
Private investment ¶
Ordinary receipts ¶
Ordinary balance ¶
Exports ¶
Exports of agricultural products¶
Imports ¶
Imports of agricultural products
Commercial balance ¶
Rate of inflation * ¶
VE small farmers ¶
VE medium farmers ¶
VE rich farmers ¶
Total employment ** ¶
732449,00
52052,10
159898,00
18083,00
46763,00
140289,00
172570,00
12672,00
113020000,00
2519300,10
263981702,00
2421300,00
-150961702,00
1,00%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10400000,00
T+ 1
T+2
732449,00
52052,10
159898,00
18083,00
46763,00
140289,00
172570,00
12672,00
113020000,00
2519300,10
263981702,00
2421300,00
-150961702,00
1,00%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10400000,00
T+5
739773,49
52572,62
161496,98
18263,83
47230,63
141691,89
174295,70
12798,72
114150200,00
2544493,10
266621519,02
2445513,00
-152471319,02
1,01%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10504000,00
762189,37
54165,62
166390,50
18817,24
48661,77
145985,30
179577,03
13186,53
117609065,21
2621593,79
274700417,67
2519614,49
-157091352,46
1,04%
0,45%
0,46%
0,14%
10822281,70
Average
892970,08
63459,66
194940,71
22046,01
57011,42
171034,27
210389,87
15449,15
137789086,86
3071421,52
321835052,78
2951944,05
-184045965,93
1,22%
0,52%
0,54%
0,16%
12679229,37
Table 8. (Scenario 8), Macroeconomic consequences
Base
GDP ¶
Private consumption ¶
Ordinary expenditure ¶
Compensation ¶
Public investment ¶
Private investment ¶
Ordinary receipts ¶
Ordinary balance ¶
Exports ¶
Exports of agricultural products¶
Imports ¶
Imports of agricultural products ¶
Commercial balance ¶
Rate of inflation * ¶
VE small farmers ¶
VE medium farmers ¶
VE rich farmers ¶
Total employment ** ¶
Agricultural employment ** ¶
732449,00
52052,10
159898,00
18083,00
46763,00
140289,00
172570,00
12672,00
113020000,00
2519300,10
263981702,00
2421300,00
-150961702,00
1,00%
0,43%
0,44%
0,13%
10400000,00
4191200,00
T+ 1
T+2
754422,47
53613,66
164694,94
18625,49
48165,89
144497,67
177747,10
13052,16
116410600,00
2594879,10
271901153,06
2493939,00
-155490553,06
1,03%
0,44%
0,45%
0,13%
10712000,00
4316936,00
29
T+5
784599,37
55758,21
171282,74
19370,51
50092,53
150277,58
184856,98
13574,25
121067024,00
2698674,27
282777199,18
2593696,56
-161710175,18
1,07%
0,46%
0,47%
0,14%
11140480,00
4489613,44
882567,58
62720,40
192669,79
21789,19
56347,28
169041,84
207938,97
15269,18
136183936,88
3035641,53
318085891,38
2917555,89
-181901954,50
1,20%
0,52%
0,53%
0,16%
12531524,89
5050204,53
Average
1066242,99
75773,45
232767,23
26323,84
68073,98
204221,95
251214,15
18446,92
164525834,62
3667403,57
384284284,60
3524742,55
-219758449,98
1,5%
0,6%
0,6%
0,2%
15139521,15
6101227,02