possible area over which the benefits are distributed. The notion is to combine the most
efficient allocation of public goods whilst avoiding taste differences (Atkinson and Stiglitz,
1980).
Table 2: Sub-Central Government Expenditure as a Percentage of General
Government Expenditure
Total Expenditure |
Expenditure on Goods and Services | ||||||||||
Federal Countries |
1985 |
1990 |
1995 |
latest |
%∆ |
1985 |
1990 |
1995 |
latest |
%∆ | |
Australia |
46 |
50 |
48 |
50 |
9 |
Australia |
"^65^ |
~64~ |
~64~ |
~66~ |
1 |
Canada |
58 |
57 |
58 |
60 |
3 |
Canada |
77τ |
~79~ |
^^8Γ |
~82~ |
7 |
Germany2 |
40 |
40 |
38 |
35 |
-13 |
Germany |
^3Γ |
^^53^ |
~47~ |
-10 | |
Switzerland3 |
51 |
51 |
49 |
49 |
-4 |
Switzerland |
IF |
~58~ |
^60^ |
^^63^ |
77 |
USA |
38 |
41 |
45 |
48 |
26 |
Usa |
^^67~ |
^^64^ |
~63^ |
~бГ |
-9 |
Spain |
28 |
33 |
30 |
36 |
29 |
Spain |
^35^ |
~6Γ |
~69~ |
~70~ |
26 |
Unitary Countries |
1985 |
1990 |
1995 |
latest |
%∆ |
1985 |
1990 |
1995 |
latest |
%∆ | |
Denmark |
54 |
54 |
54 |
56 |
4 |
Denmark |
68 |
69 |
~69^ |
~W |
2 |
France |
17 |
18 |
19 |
18 |
6 |
France |
^26^ |
^^29" |
^3T^ |
IT |
28 |
Italy |
■ ■ |
■ ■ |
23 |
25 |
9 |
Italy |
■ ■ |
■ ■ |
~54^ |
зг |
-6 |
Netherlands |
32 |
28 |
28 |
26 |
-19 |
Netherlands |
τ5T |
^48- |
^^50^ |
4 | |
Norway |
36 |
36 |
37 |
38 |
6 |
Norway |
~64~ |
~63~ |
~бГ |
-6τ |
3 |
Sweden |
38 |
39 |
33 |
37 |
-3 |
Sweden |
~76~ |
~76~ |
~70~ |
7тГ |
-6 |
UK |
29 |
29 |
26 |
25 |
-14 |
Uk |
~41^ |
~42^ |
~40~ |
^39^ |
-6 |
Source: IMF Government Financial Statistics, various issues
Notes:
1 The figures for Switzerland relate to 1984 and 1991 rather than 1985 and 1990. The
latest figure for each country the year is the same as that given in Table 1, except in the
cases of Germany and Italy =1998, and Switzerland = 1999.
2 Expenditure on goods and services only excludes interest payments on debt, subsidies
and transfers out of the government sector and capital expenditure, all of which are
predominantly the responsibility of central government.
3 The %∆ column gives the percentage change in expenditure between 1985 and the latest
date for which information is available.
6 This explains why the increase shown in Table 2 is not large.
More intriguing information
1. SLA RESEARCH ON SELF-DIRECTION: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ISSUES2. Anti Microbial Resistance Profile of E. coli isolates From Tropical Free Range Chickens
3. Urban Green Space Policies: Performance and Success Conditions in European Cities
4. AGRICULTURAL TRADE LIBERALIZATION UNDER NAFTA: REPORTING ON THE REPORT CARD
5. Quelles politiques de développement durable au Mali et à Madagascar ?
6. The name is absent
7. Reversal of Fortune: Macroeconomic Policy, International Finance, and Banking in Japan
8. EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES
9. Behavioural Characteristics and Financial Distress
10. Correlation Analysis of Financial Contagion: What One Should Know Before Running a Test