The Q&A in this issue features seven questions about emerging markets and the financial crisis (by Ayhan Kose); the research summaries are "Tax Revenue Response to the Business Cycle" (by Cemile Sancak, Ricardo Velloso, and Jing Xing) and "Banking Crisis Resolution: Was this Time Different?" (by Luc Laeven and Fabian Valencia). The issue also lists the contents of the second issue of the IMF Economic Review, Volume 58 Number 2; visiting scholars at the IMF during October-December 2010; and recent IMF Working Papers and Staff Position Notes.

Is there a minimum tax to GDP ratio associated with a significant acceleration in the process of growth and development? We give an empirical answer to this question by investigating the existence of a tipping point in tax-to-GDP levels. We use two separate databases: a novel contemporary database covering 139 countries from 1965 to 2011 and a historical database for 30 advanced economies from 1800 to 1980. We find that the answer to the question is yes. Estimated tipping points are similar at about 123⁄4 percent of GDP. For the contemporary dataset we find that a country just above the threshold will have GDP per capita 7.5 percent larger, after 10 years. The effect is tightly estimated and economically large.

Emerging market economies (EMEs) have become the darlings of international investors and the focus of enormous attention in academic, media, and policy circles. M. Ayhan Kose and Eswar Prasad present the definitive account of the evolution of EMEs and use the lens of the global financial crisis to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. Led by a set of large and dynamic countries—including Brazil, China, India, and Russia—EMEs have become a dominant presence in the world economy. They now account for a substantial share of world output and have been a major driver of global growth during the past decade. They are significant players in international trade and financial flows and are beginning to exert rising clout in global policy debates. However, the financial crisis of 2007–09 and the worldwide recession that followed cast a pall over the notion that EMEs had become self-reliant and "decoupled" from demand conditions in and financial flows from advanced countries. Kose and Prasad, prominent experts on emerging market economies and globalization, draw on their extensive research to assess the resilience of EMEs in the face of the global financial crisis. Their analysis shows that EMEs, as a group, weathered the crisis much better than the advanced countries, and most of these economies have bounced back rapidly from the global recession. The authors track down the reasons for this resilience and explain why some countries in this group have done better than others. Based on this analysis, they draw lessons for the durability and sustainability of these economies' long-term growth. This book is important reading for anyone trying to anticipate the future growth of emerging markets or contemplating business opportunities in these economies.

The Fund has recognized in recent years that one cannot separate issues of economic growth and stability on one hand and equality on the other. Indeed, there is a strong case for considering inequality and an inability to sustain economic growth as two sides of the same coin. Central to the Fund’s mandate is providing advice that will enable members’ economies to grow on a sustained basis. But the Fund has rightly been cautious about recommending the use of redistributive policies given that such policies may themselves undercut economic efficiency and the prospects for sustained growth (the so-called “leaky bucket” hypothesis written about by the famous Yale economist Arthur Okun in the 1970s). This SDN follows up the previous SDN on inequality and growth by focusing on the role of redistribution. It finds that, from the perspective of the best available macroeconomic data, there is not a lot of evidence that redistribution has in fact undercut economic growth (except in extreme cases). One should be careful not to assume therefore—as Okun and others have—that there is a big tradeoff between redistribution and growth. The best available macroeconomic data do not support such a conclusion.

We evaluate and partially challenge the ‘household leverage’ view of the Great Recession. In the data, employment and consumption declined more in states where household debt declined more. We study a model where liquidity constraints amplify the response of consumption and employment to changes in debt. We estimate the model with Bayesian methods combining state and aggregate data. Changes in household credit limits explain 40 percent of the differential rise and fall of employment across states, but a small fraction of the aggregate employment decline in 2008-2010. Nevertheless, since household deleveraging was gradual, credit shocks greatly slowed the recovery.

The Research Summaries in this issue of the IMF Research Bulletin cover “Tax Capacity and Growth” (by Vitor Gaspar, Laura Jaramillo, and Philippe Wingender), and “U.S. Shale Revolution and Its Spillover Effects on the Global Economy” (Ravi Balakrishnan, Keiko Honjo, Akito Matsumoto, and Andrea Pescatori). The Q&A coauthored by Amadou Sy and Mariama Sow covers “Seven Questions about the Relationship between Country Finance and Governance.” A listing of recent IMF Working Papers, Staff Discussion Notes, and Recommended Readings from IMF Publications is included in the IMF Research Bulletin. Readers can also find news on free-to-view articles from IMF Economic Review and a call for conference papers in this issue of the Bulletin.