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.41 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?”

Coverage ························································································· 36-39 12 C. State spending ················································································· 40-42 13 D. (...) In 2008, however, only 4.9 per cent of the total was public spending, the remaining 1.4 per cent being private. (...) The Special Rapporteur was informed that national spending on education in 2010 would total 6.5 per cent of GDP but that only 78.4 per cent of this forecast amount would represent compulsory public spending, with 21.6 per cent coming from private sources; it is estimated that in 2009 the federal contribution accounted for 506,706.9 million pesos of total national public spending on education and that 114,193.9 million pesos were provided by the states and municipalities.47 41 Ibid., p.150. 42 Ibid., p.183. 43 SEMS, op. cit (footnote 30 above), p. 7.

Thorpe, The American Warfare State: The Domestic Politics of Military Spending (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2014). (...) Jusqu’à présent nous pensions que 10 Voir www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/fourfreedoms. 11 Voir http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/255/hdr_1994_en_complete_nostats.pdf, p. 6. 12 Voir http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/255/hdr_1994_en_complete_nostats.pdf, p. 24. 13 Voir Colin Archer et Annette Willi, Opportunity Costs: Military Spending and the UN’s Development Agenda (Genève, Bureau international de la paix, 2012). (...) formurl=document/press/pc26.html. 16 Los Alamos National Laboratory, voir www.lanl.gov/index.php; http://energy.gov/articles/top-10- things-you-didnt-know-about-los-alamos-national-laboratory. 17 Voir Bureau international de la paix, «Opportunity costs military spending and the UN’s development agenda» (Genève, 2012), définition des dépenses militaires, p. 15.

Le rapport de 2013 sur les dépenses des gouvernements (Government Spending Watch report), intitulé « Putting progress at risk? MDG spending in developing countries » (Les progrès en danger?

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.

A toxic combination of cuts in public spending, public sector wages and jobs deepened the recession. (...) This has enabled the Government to significantly increase its social spending, including on education, health and social security. (...) Overall social spending (by the national, provincial and municipal governments) rose to around 27.7 per cent of GDP by 2009.15 22.

Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a annoncé, dans le cadre de sa loi de programmation (Spending Review) et compte tenu de la crise financière mondiale, son intention de s’acheminer vers une plus grande décentralisation de ses activités vers les administrations et collectivités locales et supprimer de nombreux organes publics non départementaux, comme la WNC. (...) Des coupes claires opérées dans les dépenses publiques à la suite de la loi de programmation de l’automne 2010 (Comprehensive Spending Review Autumn 2010) et les nouvelles priorités du Gouvernement de coalition en matière de grands projets de société (Big Society) pourraient avoir des incidences sur l’élaboration de politiques et l’allocation de ressources dans les années à venir. 6.