
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
On the Italian ACE and its impact on enterprise performance: A PLS-path modeling analysis
Cite this article
as: S. Balzano, F. Oropallo, V. Parisi; 2011; On the Italian ACE and its impact on enterprise performance: A PLS-path modeling analysis; International Journal of Microsimulation; 4(2); 14-26.
doi: 10.34196/ijm.00050
- Article
- Figures and data
- Jump to
Figures
Figure 1

The causal model for performance estimation.
Legend: OS = Operating surplus, VADD = Value added, INV-TA = Investments (tangible assets), INV-IA = Investments (intangible assets), EXP = Turnover from exports
Figure 3

Changes in the implicit corporate tax rates due to the DIT system. Years 1998–2000.
Source: Authors’ computations
Tables
Table 1
Number of companies present in the database by business sector; years 1998–2001.
1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Business sector | LE | LE | SME | LE | SME | LE | SME |
Mining, manufacturing | 4,779 | 4,763 | 5,566 | 4,456 | 7,196 | 4,967 | 9,648 |
Electricity | 102 | 99 | 254 | 74 | 245 | 122 | 257 |
Construction | 322 | 328 | 430 | 299 | 705 | 336 | 708 |
Wholesale and retail | 703 | 744 | 2,704 | 711 | 3,243 | 923 | 3,606 |
Hotels, transport, real estate | 1,814 | 1,997 | 3,737 | 1,907 | 5,208 | 2,313 | 5,105 |
Education, health, social services | 557 | 578 | 1,352 | 562 | 1,590 | 709 | 1,770 |
Total | 8,277 | 8,509 | 14,043 | 8,009 | 18,187 | 9,370 | 21,094 |
-
Source: ISTAT.
Legend: LE: Large Enterprise; SME: small and medium-sized enterprises.
Table 2
Simulated number of companies in the dataset eligible to the DIT allowance. Years 1998–2000.
1998 | 1999 | 2000 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | % | Number | % | Number | % | |
Large firms | 3,070 | 37 | 3,692 | 43 | 4,405 | 55 |
Total | 8,277 | 100 | 8,509 | 100 | 8,009 | 100 |
Small and medium sized firms | 4,217 | 30 | 9,772 | 54 | ||
Total | 14,043 | 100 | 18,187 | 100 |
-
Source: Authors’ computations
Table 3
Regression analysis: average performance (years 1999, 2000, 2001) of companies not benefiting (DIT=0), benefiting (DIT=1) from DIT in the previous year. Large firms.
1999 | 2000 | 2001 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value | t | Pr>| t | | Value | t | Pr>| t | | Value | T | Pr>| t | | |
< | < | ||||||||
Intercept | 0.000 | 474.755 | 0,0001 | 0.000 | 201.248 | 0,0001 | 0.000 | 167.450 | < 0,0001 |
< | < | ||||||||
DIT=0 | 8.083 | 376.577 | 0.0001 | 5.164 | 188.882 | 0.0001 | 3.235 | 57.039 | < 0.0001 |
< | < | ||||||||
DIT=1 | 8.147 | 474.755 | 0.0001 | 5.234 | 201.248 | 0.0001 | 3.183 | 167.450 | < 0.0001 |
Table 4
Regression analysis: average performance (years 2000, 2001) of companies not benefiting (DIT=0), benefiting (DIT=1) from DIT in the previous year. Small and medium sized firms.
2000 | 2001 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value | t | Pr>| t | | Value | T | Pr>| t | | |
Intercept | 0.000 | 946.448 | < 0.0001 | 0.000 | 912.961 | < 0.0001 |
DIT=0 | 8.356 | 634.464 | < 0.0001 | 8.468 | 351.932 | < 0.0001 |
DIT=1 | 8.827 | 946.448 | < 0.0001 | 8.507 | 912.961 | < 0.0001 |
-
Source: Authors’ computations
Table A1
Weight of performance factors; 1998–2001.
Large firms | Small and medium sized firms | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | ||
PERFORMANCE | Operating surplus | 0.831 | 0.823 | 0.829 | 0.847 | 0.750 | 0.742 | 0.884 |
Value added | 0.936 | 0.901 | 0.882 | 0.879 | 0.825 | 0.781 | 0.895 | |
Investments (tangible assets) | 0.936 | 0.961 | 0.902 | 0.881 | 0.381 | 0.339 | 0.325 | |
Investments (intangible assets) | 0.213 | 0.716 | 0.574 | 0.473 | 0.385 | 0.341 | 0.326 | |
Turnover from exports | 0.399 | 0.346 | 0.444 | 0.474 | 0.592 | 0.573 | 0.415 |
-
Source: Authors’ computations.
Table A2
Enterprise performance (standardized values) by business sector, firm size; years 1999, 200, 2001.
1999 | 2000 | 2001 | N % (2001) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Business sector | ||||
Mining, manufacturing | 0.263 | 0.200 | −0.071 | 47.97 |
Electricity | 0.229 | 0.242 | 2.076 | 1.24 |
Construction | −0.114 | −0.082 | −0.651 | 3.43 |
Wholesale and retail | −0.029 | −0.011 | 0,372 | 14.87 |
Hotels, transport, real estate | −0.073 | −0.071 | −0.227 | 24.35 |
Education, health, social services | −0.125 | −0.075 | 0,174 | 8,14 |
Firm size (number of employees) | ||||
1-19 | −0.097 | −0.078 | 1.424 | 39.33 |
20-49 | 0.613 | 0.437 | 1.839 | 16.57 |
50-99 | 1.886 | 1.339 | 2.006 | 16.68 |
100-249 | 0.111 | 0.053 | −3.838 | 18.42 |
250-499 | −0.035 | −0.029 | −3.712 | 5.45 |
500-999 | 0.105 | 0.314 | −3.492 | 2,08 |
more than 999 | 1.710 | 1.958 | −1.610 | 1.47 |
-
Source: Authors’ computations.