|
Table 18 - Emilia Romagna | |||
|
Time |
PPH |
PPH% vs. average |
% decrease |
|
0 |
0.944 |
-5.62 |
n.a. |
|
1 |
0.944 |
-5.64 |
0.23 |
|
2 |
0.943 |
-5.66 |
0.41 |
|
3 |
0.943 |
-5.67 |
0.56 |
|
4 (year 1) |
0.943 |
-5.68 |
0.66 |
|
5 |
0.943 |
-5.69 |
0.73 |
|
6 |
0.943 |
-5.69 |
0.75 |
|
7 |
0.943 |
-5.69 |
0.73 |
|
8 (year 2) |
0.943 |
-5.69 |
0.68 |
|
9 |
0.943 |
-5.68 |
0.58 |
|
10 |
0.943 |
-5.66 |
0.45 |
|
11 |
0.944 |
-5.65 |
0.27 |
|
12 (year 3) |
0.944 |
-5.63 |
0.57 |
|
Table 19 - |
Campania | ||
|
Time |
PPH |
PPH% vs. average |
% decrease |
|
0 |
0.570 |
-43.04 |
n.a. |
|
1 |
0.569 |
-43.14 |
0.16 |
|
2 |
0.568 |
-43.23 |
0.32 |
|
3 |
0.567 |
-43.31 |
0.47 |
|
4 (year 1) |
0.566 |
-43.40 |
0.62 |
|
5 |
0.565 |
-43.48 |
0.77 |
|
6 |
0.564 |
-43.56 |
0.91 |
|
7 |
0.564 |
-43.64 |
1.05 |
|
8 (year 2) |
0.563 |
-43.72 |
1.19 |
|
9 |
0.562 |
-43.80 |
1.32 |
|
10 |
0.561 |
-43.87 |
1.45 |
|
11 |
0.561 |
-43.94 |
1.58 |
|
12 (year 3) |
0.560 |
-44.01 |
1.70 |
The evidence from this set of public expenditure indicators is similar to that from socio-
economic ones. PPH is far below the national average for Lombardy (-29%) and Campania (-
43%), while it is only slightly below for Emilia Romagna (-5%). The main difference with the
previous findings lies in the values of Lombardy, which has roughly doubled its distance from
national average, thus showing a significant capacity of turning public expenditure into well-
being (or at least in a relevant component of well-being). The values from the simulations run,
both with positive and negative growth rates, have approximately the same magnitude as the
ones derived from socio-economic indicators.
4.3 Socio-economic indicators vs. public expenditure indicators
In CFM indicators represent the commodities necessary to achieve functionings. Therefore
when the model is run with different sets of indicators, the value of the functioning changes. So
the values of PPH based on socio-economic indicators is different from the values based on
public expenditure indicators.
In the following three tables are reported the values of PPH for both the sets of indicators and
the percentage variation of the former with respect to the latter, under the same hypothesises of
Simulation A and C of sections 4.1 e 4.2.
26