You are at: Home / Publications / Summaries by year / Summaries 2006 / Public services, personal benefits
| Author(s) | Bob Kuhry en Evert Pommer, m.m.v. Jedid-Jah Jonker en John Stevens |
| Publication date | 28 September 2006 |
| Keywords | quartaire sector, productie, overheid, profijt |
| Price | € |
| Number of pages | |
| ISBN/ISSN/other | 9037702317 |
| Series | Publication |
| Number | 2006/17 |
| Research group | Quartaire Sector |
Original title: Publieke productie & persoonlijk profijt.
This report looks in detail at the costs of
public services (such as care, education, public administration and safety)
and the benefits that citizens derive from the government expenditure
involved in delivering those services. In 2003, the costs of these services
accounted for approximately 40% of gross domestic product. Partly due to
population ageing, government spending is set to come under pressure in the
future. This could have an impact on the level of public services. With this
in mind, public spending on care, safety, education, public administration,
defence and housing subsidies is regularly subjected to critical review,
partly in the light of the services delivered. One of the problems
encountered in this exercise is that the prices of these services are found
to increase much more rapidly than the prices of goods produced by the
private sector. This is partly because staff costs in the public sector have
risen more quickly than those in the private sector.
The benefits from the government amount to approximately 10% of GDP.
Individual citizens benefit from government spending as users of childcare
services, home care services and housing benefit, or as visitors to museums
or classical concerts. But who gains most from the government: citizens with
higher or lower incomes? And do those on middle incomes ultimately foot the
bill? It is also uncertain whether those who actually derive benefit are the
intended beneficiaries. With this in mind, the actual distribution of the
benefits of public spending are compared with the distribution that would
have arisen if the government had reached the intended target groups. It
emerges from this that those on lower and middle incomes benefit slightly
less than expected and those on higher incomes slightly more.