Home

Generally, the intention of the Government is to gradually curtail overall spending while increasing expenditures on social needs. (...) In the years following independence, public resources available for health care collapsed with the withdrawal of subsidies from Moscow, and public spending on health steadily declined in relation to GDP. (...) One important dimension that the Government has begun addressing is to reduce the inequitable allocation of public spending on health. It is encouraging to note that the health sector reform programme has been expanded to cover large cities such as Bishkek and Osh where per capita spending on health is as much as two times higher than the rest of the country.

The World Bank estimates that only 14 per cent of social spending goes to the poorest.40 Spending on the programmes that benefit the poorest (bolsa alimentaçao, etc.) is very low. Most of social spending is on pensions, health, and unemployment insurance, which are important but still mainly benefit the better-off. Strong resistance from Brazil’s elite and middle-classes to social spending reform makes it difficult to reorient social spending towards the poor, perpetuating and deepening existing social inequalities.

The Government used its enhanced access to cheap credit (as a member State of the European Monetary Union, or euro zone) to fund public spending and offset the country’s low tax revenues.18 It also borrowed to pay for imports that were not offset by tariffs or exports. (...) , Center for Economic and Policy Research, July 2010, pp. 1-2. 16 Between 2000 and 2007, military spending reached 3 per cent of GDP – the highest in Europe. 17 Nicole Itano, “As Olympic glow fades, Athens questions $15 billion cost”, Christian Science Monitor, 21 July 2008. (...) Greece, Complaint No. 76/2012, Decision on merits, 7 December 2012, para. 78. 60 Overall spending on insurance and assistance-based family benefits fell dramatically from around €1.6 billion in 2009 to €900 million by 2011.

Local authorities cut net spending on services in real terms by 19 per cent from 2010–2011 to 2016–2017 and focused remaining spending on statutorily mandated social care and child protection services, demand for which has increased.50 The leader of one city council explained that while being forced to cut preventive services, local governments have faced increased demands for even costlier crisis interventions. Between 2011–2012 and 2016–2017, cash-strapped local authorities reduced spending on preventive housing services by £590 million or 46 per cent, but increased crisis spending on housing by £360 million or 58 per cent.51 42. (...) This figure excludes spending on schools and public health. 51 Adam Tinson, Carla Ayrton and Issy Petrie, A Quiet Crisis: Local Government Spending on Disadvantage in England, New Policy Institute and Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales, September 2018, p. 29. 52 Patrick Butler, “Task force to be sent to protect vulnerable children in Northamptonshire”, Guardian, 13 November 2018. 53 National Accounting Office, “Financial sustainability of local authorities 2018,” pp. 10–11. 54 Gavin Aitchison, “Compassion in crisis: how do people in poverty stay afloat in times of emergency?”

Thorpe, The American Warfare State: The Domestic Politics of Military Spending (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2014). (...) Los gastos militares suelen ser "secretos" o estar ocultos, de manera que se vulnera el derecho 10 Véase www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/fourfreedoms. 11 Véase http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_1994_es_completo_nostats.pdf, pág. 8. 12 Véase http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_1994_es_completo_nostats.pdf, pág. 26. 13 Véase Colin Archer y Annette Willi, Opportunity Costs: Military Spending and the UN’s Development Agenda (Ginebra, International Peace Bureau, 2012). (...) formurl=document/press/pc26.html. 16 Los Alamos National Laboratory, véase www.lanl.gov/index.php; http://energy.gov/articles/top-10- things-you-didnt-know-about-los-alamos-national-laboratory. 17 Véase International Peace Bureau, "Opportunity costs: military spending and the UN’s development agenda" (Ginebra, 2012), definición de gasto militar en la pág. 15.

El informe de 2013 de Government Spending Watch, titulado “Putting progress at risk? MDG spending in developing countries”, pone de relieve determinadas inquietudes que se plantean en el plano nacional.

The sharp increase in government spending in 2008, compared to 2007, reflects the cost of recapitalizing the Central Bank of Iceland and the new, downsized domestic branches of Icelandic banks (see table 1, Economic affairs). By 2013, overall government spending had returned roughly to pre-crisis levels. (...) Funds for rental subsidies and to combat social exclusion were also augmented. Government spending on disability pensions grew, owing to the increase in beneficiaries.

They reflect a traditional welfare rather than an empowerment approach and result in significant social spending on the non- poor (so-called “leakage”). In order to effectively reduce poverty in Saudi Arabia and to prevent wasteful and unjust spending of social welfare funds on the non-poor, newly designed social assistance measures should be directed towards the poorest in Saudi society. (...) According to the authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database, Saudi Arabia spent 13.7 per cent of its GDP on military expenditure in 2015, which equals US$ 2,778 per capita.27 In meetings with government officials, the Special Rapporteur was told that the 2016 social security budget of Saudi Arabia was around SRI 31 billion, which is only 15 per cent of the SRI 205 billion that Saudi Arabia acknowledges spending on the military in 2016.28 Independent observers suggest that the figure is actually much higher, and that social spending is less than 10 per cent of defence spending.29 In a context of vast and relatively reliable oil revenues, lavish military spending might be seen to be less problematic. (...) A/HRC/35/26/Add.3 12 GE.17-06857 equitable, sustainable and community-supported economic and social structures, social spending will need to be accorded much higher priority.

A public campaign was initiated to change the regulations in 2012 to try to ensure that future spending would be focused on building up community-based services to enable community living. 39. (...) The regulations do not, on their face, prohibit the spending of funds on institutions – or on trans-institutionalization. (...) In any event, if European Union additionality is understood to mean genuine innovation (in spending taxpayers’ money) then there can be no value in spending that money to reinforce outdated policy solutions. 46.