THE 1989 PROGRAM OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE! IN PERSPECTIVE by Rosario G. Manasan WORKING PAPER SERIES NO, 88-26
December 1988
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
List
of
i.
Nominal National Basis
2. 3.
Rate of Growth of National Government of GNP
4. 5. 6.
Real Per Capita Expenditures Rate of Growth of Economic Percentage Distribution of Net of Debt Service
7. 8. 9. 10. ii. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Charts
Government
Expenditures
Nominal National Government Expenditure and Revenues
Obligation
Expenditures as a Percentage
Rate of Growth of Education Expenditures, 1975-89 Share of EducationExpenditures in the Government Budget Education Expenditures as a Proportion of GNP Rate of Growth of Health Expenditures (percent) Health Expenditures as a Proportion of GNP RealPer Capita Expenditures on Health, 1975-1985 Social Service, Labor and Employment, and Housing and Community Development as a Proportion of GNP Agriculture, Agrarian Reform, and Natural Resources Expenditures as a Proportion of GNP Rate of Growth of Expenditures on Infrastructure/Utilities Sector Infrastructure/Utilities Defense and Peace and of GNP
18. 19.
Rate of Growth of Expenditures Maintenance and Other Operating of GNP
20.
Capital Outlays of GNP
21.
Transfers
to
Expenditure as Order Expenditures
Exclusive
Government
List
2. 3.
an
Net of Debt Service and Social Services (% change) Total Government Expenditures
16. 17.
i.
on
of
onPersonal Expenditures Net
Corporations
of
a Proportion of as a Proportion
Lending as
Services as a Proportion as
a
GNP
a Proportion
Proportion
of
GNP
Tables
Government Expenditures on a Cash and on Basis as a Proportion of GNP, 1975-1989 Cash Disbursement Program, 1987-1989 Incentive Availments by Type of Incentive
an
Obligation
(Million
of
Pesos)
THE 1989 PROGRAM EXPENDITURES IN
OF GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE
by Rosario
i.
The
purpose
of
historical
this
G.
short
perspective of
government
exercise
is
a presentation with
expenditure
of
to
provide
a
which
to
assess
the
1989
by-product
of
thi_
A
the "revealed
differences
policies
qualitatively
is
expenditures.
professed
administrations.
paper
against
program
contrasted
Manasan*
of
the
revenue
(2)
sectoral
(3)
other
budget
related
issues.
The
term_
" to tal
government
this
government paper
and
covered
continuing
*Research Studies.
target
and
distribution
expenditures (2)
the
and
study
government
the
will
as
Marcos
review
and
evaluate:
the
in
between
the
(i)
programmed
differences"
Aquino
Specifically,
broad
implied of
by
to
(i)
appropriations
Fellow,
government
expenditures" refer
Philippine
fiscal
the
budge
sum
(3)
t"
u_ed
and
of
"total
government
AppropriationS. special
Institute
and
interchangeably
total
General
and
figures,
expenditure>,
are
the
deficit
for
Act,
fundB.
Development
2.
Total
government
sharply are
in
1986-1989
characterized
annual
rate
against
the
growth per
in trend
nominal
per
expenditure_
Thu_,
year_.
The
while
that
for
perspective,
historical
the it
revenue
and
expenditure
per
mo_t
of
real
growth. 26.8
cent
a_
per
rate
of
from
(Chart
one
as
A slight
period
1989
year_ Average
per
declined in
rose
Aquino
1975-1985.
_econd
cent
35.8
2).
looks
at
capi ta
expenditure_
highest
for is
1975
22.8
A
real,
gore rnmen
A_ian
to
t
be
revenue_
to
reached
15
_o of
GNP
1985
is
15.5
per
(Chart
per
for
when the
by
cent
collection_
is
compared
in
GNP grew
(Chart
of
GNP
from not
The per
1987.
a revenue
cent
high. the ratio
cent The
yield 3).
remarkably
i_, thi_
wi th
government.
cent
of
Cent
1989
13.5
15
3).
Viewed
averaged
per
backed per
last
25
budget
equal_
the
GNP
to
1989
in
Countries.
performance
revenue
of
in
level to
equal
Philippine
16.4
that
in
basis,
the
wa_
whether
it_
figure
equal
is
true
GNP,
is
to
rate
the
government
level
projected
general,
expendltures
or
appear_
government
1975-1985
in
1986'1988
for
In
average
expenditure_
average
However,
of
obligation
period.
average
Government about
cent
capi ta
cent
an
1986-1989
observable
programmed
per
in
to 20.0
the
on
accelerated
public
i_
in
i).
perceptible
1987
similar
25.6
per
nominal
cent
an
increase
16.6 is
of
(Chart by
of
deceleration
of
expenditureS,
in 1989
that
i_
While
it
well
in
3
1987
it
1989
doubtful
given
added of
is
the
tax
and
the
are
no
us
that
be
in
the
fiscal a_
3.4
4.4
and
fiscal
last 4
in
years
the
proposed
GNP
ted
that
significantly
to
Finally,
to
be
et.
are
met,
shift
administration
we
in
wa_
the
cash
relafive•to
be
GNP.
in
the
vicinity
of
4.0
we
note
and
4.3
Numerous 1988)
have
contributed
1983-1985.
the
administration'_
emphasized
management that
the
1983.
ha_
_hould
between
particular,
development
that
of
the
Manasan,
grant
it
in
and
of
the
administration's
deficit
crisis
be
experience
In
1981
should
disbursement then
1985,
economic
if
a
al.
thi_ the
in
1989 ThuB,
percent
deficits
budget
suggests
GNP.
the
2.5
unsustainable.
even
targets
fiscal
for
will
that
government'_
cash
Philippine
respectively,
Dios,
same
than to
the
target
(APT)
taxes
perspective
budget)
the
government
GNP,
(de
is
of
rather
at
that
a
of
value
Trust
amnesty
review
in
disposition
included
the
equal
with
Privatization
percent
1989
GNP
glance
national
studies
15.5
duplicated
programmed
revenue
to
be
experienced
historical
(assuming
reveal of
of
Thu_,
of
could
the
revenues
projection
15
percent
Aquino
Asset
14.5
percent
backward
appear_
the
reasonable
the
A
revenue
by
from• a
of
deficit
sugges
with
deficit
percent
that
as
1987
more
range
program
currently
available.
a
feat
well
•performance
to
1989
that
longer
revenue
as
asset_
fact
this
problems
(VAT)
government
whether
of
that style
Marco,.
there of
the
While
the
difference
between
exceeded
1
averages
5.2
to equal
show
unpaid
percent
that
(87
per
obligations
a
bigger
the
per cash
GNP
the
cash
the is
cent)
or
the
(47
new
expenditures might
per
and of
be
rate
cent)
of is
the
expenditure
just
per
to
be
It
later,
through
either or
new
the
will
if
the
future
than of
than
unpaid that
program cent)
in
net
than is
fairly
of
in
that
1988 while
c0nservative
facing have
in
constitute
up
to
its
to' pay
up
one
increased in
revenues,
the
government but
years'
cent)
increase
borrowings
strategy in
per
postponing
1987-
previous
implic'ation
seems
in
obligations
(13.5
The
projected
Furthermore,
higher
unpaid
1989
and
i).
of
(90.8
constraints.
good
collection
1989
variable
program
rate
rarely
this 1988
(Table
(c)
actually
cuts a
and
1989
the
projection
other
1987
disbursement
(b)
budget
1975-1985,
in
in
2).
is
obligation
retirement
cent) deficit
in
lower
(Table
the
in
in
resource
revenue
GNP
amortization
way
This
of
1989
government
seriou_
GNP
proportion
principal (10.3
of
cent),
per
and
of
(a)
in
(34.9
the
of
obligation
1988
1988
percent
Scrutiny
1989
cash
percent
1.4
closer
the
might
interim.
can
improve
not
be
so
otherwise.
3.
Debt
service
government the
net
In
1989,
on
account
owned
and/or
lending debÂŁ
of
the
controlled
category) service
both
has is
government
corporations
grown
equal
national
to
and
(GOCCs)
very
rapidly
11.2
per
cent
since of
(via 1982.
GNP
and
accounts
for
government levels
of
budget.
0.8
cent
of
GNP
so
huge
capacity
to
Despi
the
would
means
4.
In
the
the
than with
Between
adminis
7.9
cent.
in
economic
been social
a
per
social
the
averaged
15.9
our
economic
former
of
and
burden
in
V255
need
without
it
the
a deficit
in
perhaps
is
the
government's
to
the
in
the
the
service
the
people. in
capita
_252 or
for
of
1986-1989 per
1975
cent
alarming
services
of
their
than
hampers
real
of
debt
cent
at
in
services
general
service
the
government
1989
1982
is
still
figure
government
to
requirement_
appear
during
tra tion' s•
the
policy
the
annual
per
cent
compared
this
with
1975-1985
18.7
total (Chart
economic 5).
reallocation increasing
sector_
sectors
1989,
Contrast
sectors
even
_ervice
the
the
1986
per
more
figure
per
total
of work
could
be
4).
general,
line
1975
which
is
needed
debt
5.0
the
with
such_that
growth
highlights by
and
outlays,
of
of
figures
rather
debt much
cent
surplus
What
Substantial
(Chart
favored
a
the
net
Thi_
reduced
3).
programmed
than
_280.
show
which
expenditures lower
is
provide
government's
out
per service
to
te
per
these
(Chart
extent
43.9
Compare
balance
1984-1988
astounding
budget.
Debt
fiscal
the
an
of its
rate
services A_
a
fiscal
share
of
of
be
Aquino
more
years
in
pronouncemen
ts.
growth
the
to
of
the
former's
average and
consequence, resources the
to
total
growth
13.7
percent there
with budget
has the net
:6
of ° debt
service
from
in
and
economic
1989
per
cent
at
the
to
the
39.6
general
public
sectors
suffering because
expenditures exhibited years.
In
all
sectors
the
a
in
nominal,
well
defined years,
l•s
almost
twice
that
real
per
capita
in
thi_
with
the
2.9
per
average
the most
- 11.7
11.5
per
important
distribution to • the looks 22.8
total even
per
per
sectors payments
average
in
If
looks
one
net with the
of
1975-1985 has
debt
per
in
grown
capita
growth
in
rate
13.0
per
debt
the
22.4
and
increase share
cent
in
making
it
the
Service
in share
then in
average
per
Compare
1989
share cent
by
in
•_ervice,
rate
1975-1983
of
sector's
the
nominal
period.
education's
of
per
annual
1975-1985
at
real
average
education's 13.4
and
it_
average
to
outside
from
social service
latter
Consequently,
Sector
budget
the
cent
increased
cent
better cent
cent
7).
has
the
and
the • economic
during
it
averaged
budget
looks the
trend
terms,
the
total
one
upward
in
on
(Chart
if
•48.7
service
with
real
yearly
1983-1985
from
service
debt
debt
cent
2 above.
these
negative
debt
than
ballooning
32.1 • per
that
contracted
cent
the
Note
except
cuts
to
declining
of
During
growth
terms.
6).
inclusive
of
Section
•in 1986 share
(Chart
deeper
Education
of
cent
administration
in
Aquino
cent
sectors'
of
discussed
terms,
pe r
budget
Share
precikely
5.
per
total
proportional
29.1
the 1989 in
in the from
single
terms
•of
relative picture reaching 1975-1988
7
(Chart
8).
Expressed•
expenditures cent
in
(Chart has
in 1989
put
its
definitely
money
where
in
The of the 1988,
mouth
the
This
government
development
this
in
cent
sector
i_
government.
health the
one
of
While
_ector
the
rate
profeSSed
nominal
exhibited
growth
to
that
of
cent (Chart
against
7.
Both
it_
GNP
in
the
priority
budgetary
above
of
of
the
average
wa_,
in
there
i_
ju_.t _ome
when
expressed
expenditure_ 9
of
the
per iod.
_ector Thu_,
is
education
allocation_
average
health
sector_
growth
budget
in
in
1989 ii),
fact,
_;12 before
the
growing
agaln_t or
_ocial
_evere
reduction_
year_.
While
in
1989
in some
_light
upward
cent
capita (Chart
the
GNP
average
in
level_
(_14
the 10).
health (.8
-per
1975-1985 in
1989
12).
housing
allocation_
improvement
1987,
in
of
just .
(Char__
movement
per
and.
budgetary
average
a percentage
per
and
in
i_
•
1986
a_
crisis
welfare
In
below
_light
.56
real
the
sector.
on
rate
.4
equal
the
share
some
government 4 per
i_
and
•hand,
allocation
averaged
• per
1975-1985
Statements
example,
Thailand
3.3
in
where
other
the
•..government
to reach
is.
the
than
GNP,
average
policy
On
For
cent
example
With
_maller
in
health the
its
of
programmed per
one
provision.
expenditures
6.
1.8
is
_ line
neighbors.
1975-1985
is
the
this
slightly
Asian
from
Thus,
constitutional still
education
up
9).
a._ a •_proportion
have
_ector_ during been
_uffered the
crisis
registered
8
by
these
full
8.
In
sectors
recovery
terms
of
share is
agrarian in
agrarian
the
1986-1988 reform i
as
Marcos
growing
sector
general,
the
expenditures Second
sector as
of
a
has
the in
fastest not
yet
proportion
1989
of
crisis this
growing
GNP,
against
the
5 per
cent
average
the
1986,
per
the
1987
earlier
in
the
in
and
hit
increases 1989
(Chart
(it
15),
cut_.
3 per
to
hardest
is
this
Expressed
expenditure_ at
cent.
relating
massive
1989)
fastest
adj uS tmen t_
questions
Despite
Stand
percent 1983-1985
74.6
was
government
in
agrarian
in
of
big
in
as hand,
.09
is
rate
of
from
Sector
from
Sector
sector
recovered
other
in
concerned.
in
Aquino
increments
sector
years. sector
the
sector
such
the
GNP,
14).
a growth
because
of
agriculture/
average
(Chart
view
infrastructure/utilities a_
experience
the
On
increased
resource
warily
in
biggest
percent
1989
with
the
expenditures
.05
natural
of
the
GNP
and
capacity
during
to
percentage
14).
garnered
and
as
group
(Chart
infrastructure/utilities
Sector in
levels
yet
of
resource
planners
absorptive
The
in
and
government
1988
the
expenditure
9.
budget
in
have
important
years
that
However,
the
most
1975-1982,
.9 percent
In
the
a proportion
in
budget
.natural
such
average to
total
reform's
they
13).
to
reform/
as
1987-1988,
(Chart
agriculture
well
in
cent
pre-crisi_
in in
the 1989 years
9
(Chart for
the
for
i0.
16). bulk
further
Viewed
grew
of
in
than
trend
is
includes
defense
or
defense
its
neighbors.
in
Thailand
In
nominal
A_ian
average
the
adjusting
per
57.0
for to
given
level
the
account
Section
12
in and
by
hand,
GNP
in
order
ii
and
in
2.7
to this
_cales
years
the
decade.
personal 1989
after are
in
and
1988
of i_
personal in
the
6
average
is
in
commendable
there
i_
employee_
possibility
as
expenses
cent
that of
that
Even
ratio
development
Compensation
than
in
the
4 per
studÂŁes
add
cent
cent
the
the
on
per
two
.L1arked
years,
last
1988.
these
the
expenditures
_ervices
Thu_,
in
per
whether
this
expenditures by
the
under
lower
the
it
years hold
i_
a
1989,
Aquino
defense
earlier
sector_
and
recent
sector
of
18).
one
of
in
increase
GNP
1985
the
instance,
46.7
contrast
the
public
to
exhibited
Despite
personal
in
findings
this
grow
cent
(Chart
On
disparity private
to
and
tures
cent
inflation,
increase
1975-1986.
17).
to
per
expenditure
cent
(Chart
government
respectively
service
refer
observations peace
For
projected
in
in
in
4 per
terms, is
that
expendi
of
1989,
_ector
expenditures
These
not
expenditures
expected
thi_
Between
so
evident.
Philippine_'
against
please
1975-1985.
expenditures
ip
services
in
defense
average
category
increase
outlays
way,
downtrend
reverse
expenditures
capital
which
faster
one
the
discussion.)
any
definite
ii.
(Since
that
a
wide
in
the
thi_
may
10
adversely •other
affect
hand,
to
it
Salary
The
incidence is
workers
We
government
agrarian tour ism,
that
anecdotal
s tor ies
personnel
complement to
trimming
be
the
general
off
upgrading
rather
the
of
.he
adjustment
of
piece-meal
uneven
and
health,
the
due
personal
the
various
education
sector_
are
perceived
to
were
well
exhibited
agriculture, in
T_ere
1989),
are
some
increasing reasons.
avowed
the
compensation
same i_
been
their
Thi_
government At
ha_
be
al_o
housing,
bureaucracy.
that
are
of
agencie_
government
the
salarie_
turf-building
approach
the
the
sectors.
the
On
personnel
(particularly,
cer rain
with
in
in
increases
try
in
across
generally
the
indu_
for
increases
increases
resources
consistent fat
the_e
to
marked
of
_ervices.
or
defense
in
and
wheth4r
are
natural
trade
Seem
the
agencies
reform,
public
increase_
and
note
of
highly
in
publicized
deserved.
not
clear
Significant
government
in
not
expenses
sectors.
highly
is
quality
adj us tmen t_
complement. Services
the
doe_
goal
of
time,
a
called
for
implemented
•so
far.
12.
Maintenance interest _evere that
other
payments, cuts these
deterioration The
and
1989
in
operating
transfers,
expenditure_ and
the
crisis
years.
reduc
tion_
may
of
the
levels
of
_ _tock
of
loan It
government
maintenance
repayments
ha_
re sul t
and
exclu_.ive
in
been
suffered pointed
the capital other
of
out•
premature asset_. operating
11
expenditures
13.
indicate
nominal
aS
well
catched
up
in
GNP
its
1989
the
pre-crisis
Capital
as the
the
debt
(Chart
in
20).
al_o
1982
crisis•
levels
exclusive GNP
of and
in net
13.6
34
per
cent
average
in
cutting
measures
and
as
a consequence evident
expenditure term_ in
iow
Since
an
2.1
9
per
and
cent
is
terms.
Still In
in
expected
a Step lower
of
total
to
5.3 1988
in
capital
programmed
This
given
than
reach
years
1988.
link
3.5
a
has
the
87.5
1989,
is
of in
in
worrisome
is
AS
cent
empirical
1989
fact,
expenditure
programmed
in
In
average
average
i_
the has
1988.
per
government cent
in
1983.
and
from of
of
category
1987
per
outlay
lending
cent
cost
The
real
3 per
of
the
investments
outlays
1989
a proportion
likewise
total
growth.
The
as
lending
theoretical
capital
has
particularly
a
than
public
item
the
decreased
in its
expenditure
net
real
to
less
and
direction.
of
from to
in
in
share
In
of
thi_
has
in
tmen t
to
is
GNP,
eStablished
increase
that
1975-1982
licked.
that
years
nominally
It
contraction
inves
crisis
it
been
19).
reduced
declined
before
equal
Thus,
of
cent
well
the
has
.this
_uch
of
burden
been
proportion per
now
significantly
ha_
problem
year_
brunt
years.
contracted
terms,
exclusive
during
Aquino
real
(Chart
outlay_
heavy
it
is
years
instituted
this
Aquino
level
experienced
the
in
that
the
between
per
cent
the
right
the
pre-
outlay_ per
cent
expenditures.
12
Note
that
account
public
for
indicate
that
government to in
14.
more
than Some
5 per
efficiently
in
the
are
huge
Asian
However,
re_pons
activities
absorb
other
cent째 GNP.
agencies
investment
ible not
countries Some
for
undertaking
adequately
increase
in
reports
prepared
capital
outlays
1989.
National
government
transfers
controlled
corporations
years
it
when
Studies was
a
_erious
percent
GNP
government
of
we given
point
that
these
amounts
reflect
expended) allowed
tax
by to
the
bypass
Marcos
of
its
Shown
efforts
to
the
does
budget
to
have
item
in been
to
1.2
rationalize
national not
of and
not
revenues
foregone
government.
The
budgetary
this
the
21).
that
are
earlier
that
government
government
account
for
tax
Investment
other
tax
corporations.
expenditures
the
have
the
fact,
expenditure
Board
government
In
appears
(Chart
out
high
CNP.
the
this
credits, or
in
conventions
like
private
rather
government
sector
exemptions/deductions/ Sl_ecific
be
in
of
expenditures
and/or
leakage
reflective
present
owned
1986)
down
to
government
percent
trimming
like
to
to
Manasan
present
corporate
Finally, budget
cause
in of
3.4
1986,
The
successful
used
averaged
(Amatong
1975-1985.
15.
investments
exemptions Table
insignificant. (and
question
allocation
by is
tax to
3 reveal These
implication, should
process?
they
be
E,m z3
"_0
._
.:_
t'q
"t t_
"
------
f--
13
..,-
"
14
15'
I0
17
18
19
2O
I
I
21
22
23
24.
00 !
.Id-
"O C
•X 1,1,,I mD
O Q,,
I'_ O'a
Z O
..
O
o,, co
m
0D
"
o
,_ ,,,.
,.
,_
_.u_o,J_d
uI
25
26
27
28
ill
!
29
3O
31
32,
e'
.m
i 1)
ILl
"6
0 Q" ll
_ ,_,,,
I
Ill
('I
I
qpm
\
\
__L__
,,, ,,
\
\
0) cO 0_
CO
째
"-
_' CO
O;
_u_oa_dul
33
34
Table GOVERNMENT
EXPENDITURES ON A AS A PROPORTION
1
CASH AND OF GNP,
ON AN OBLIGATION 1975-1989
BASIS
Year
Obl iga tion Ba,_ i_s
Obl iga tion Ba:sis
Di f ference
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
16.0 15.2 14.9 14.8 13.7 14.4 15.8 15.7 14.0 12.6 13.4 18.0 17.4 19.2"* 19.0"*
16.30 16.30 14.10 14.93 14.61 13.48 15.41 15.14 14.69 13.31 11.53 17.69 22.60 24.38** 20.41"*
-0.30 -1.10 0.80 -0.13 -0.91 0.92 0.39 0.56 -0.69 -0.71 1.87 0.31 -5.20 -5.18 -1.41
9:
doe_
not
include
**
projected
value_.
loan
repayment.
35
Table CASH DISBURSEMENT
Expenditure
Net
Add
Cash
Program
Principal zation
Expenditure
Less:
Unpaid :
1987-1989
G ROWT H R A T E
C U L A R S 1987
Less-
PROGRAM,
L E V E L S billion pesos)
(In P A R T I
2
1 1988
I
1989
1987-88
I
1988-89
155.5
190.7
228.9
22.6
20.0
32.8
34.4
46.3
4.9
34.6
122.7
156.3
182.6
27.4"
16.8
12.5
16.8
24.7
34.4
47,0
9,7
10,9
11,9
12,4
9,2
119,9
150.,4
169,8
25,4
Amorti-
Program Obligations
Payment_ of Prior. Years' Accounts Disbursement
Program
12,9 mB_m
Source:
Department
of
Budget
and
Management
36
Table 3. INCENTIVE AVAILNENTS BYTYPEOPINCENTIVE (Millions ofpesos)
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985 d
Total
!LJ3_
!_4_
I,.539
!,475
_6A
!,918
L5j_
4,558!
!_07J 0 O 298 236 3 O 8 532
_,4!! O 0 375, 649 3 0 100 1,299
TaxDeductions • Organizationalexpenses Accelerateddepreciation Losscarryover _/ Expansion investment allowance Labortraining Labor andmaterial cost Investment allowance Reduced Income tax
[£_ 34 153 62 153 2 172 78 4
456 O O 35 , 90 I 0 160 170
Z!! O. 0 100• 175 I 0 51 407
_!_ 0 0 98 84 4 O 39 322
_ZS 0 0 119 149 4 0 27 376
L9_ 0 O 7 fir 2 0 82 286
Export trader Service exporter Newbrand name Water treatment •National dev,fundallowance I_ofincrenencz! sales Other deductions
4 90 0 0 0 O I
O 0 0 0 O 0 0
0 0 0 0 O 0 0
O O O 0 O 0 0
O 0 O O 0 0 0
0 O O 0 50 0 0
142 111 33 0 0 0 0
301 98 5 37, 0 0 0
508 iG3 26 I 0 0 0
546 164 38 I 0 0 0
841 203 97 9 0 0 0
622 523 33 11 0 0 0
1,482 598 77 32 3 0 0
1,391 41 75 0 34 0 0
95
146
I_
178
24_
130
282
606
57 8 I 29 0 (!
82 _8 .0 25 0 0
86 58 .0 _3 0 _
101 108 0 32 0 0
58 6V 0 23 0 0
85 78 0 26 44 49
216 67 0 15 i33 174
Dutyandtax onlachinery _/ Sales tax_/ Oapital gains tax Breeding stocks _/ Percentage tax Export taxa! Other exemptions Tax_redils Sales _a_on raw_aterials a/ _umestic equipment a/ Infrastructure works Witholding _fixon interest _/ Newvalue earnnd a/ Netlocal content _/ "
_I 43 0 44 0 0
0 0 O 0 I I O
AvaiJabie unde_ PD 1789 asamended byBP:_1andEO1945. Note:hCa shn_nare foravailmen_s approved bFBO!.Notallapproved iocentives areactuallyused. Source: BOl,
0 0 0 0 0 7 O