Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - The ‘Optimal’ Size of Government

  • from Part II - Value for Money
  • Ludger Schuknecht
  • Book:
    Public Spending and the Role of the State
    Published online:
    30 October 2020
    Print publication:
    12 November 2020, pp 132-152

  • Summary

    How ‘big’ should government be? How much lower can public spending be, if countries still want to be amongst the better or even best performers? A pragmatic ‘optimum’ for the size of government, something that is realistic and reachable, is normally not more than 30–35% or perhaps 40% of GDP. This is the spending ratio of top-scoring countries, such as Switzerland and Australia, and they do well on their core tasks. Ireland and Singapore do so with even lower spending. This implies a lot of room for expenditure savings in many countries, given a total average of almost 44% and highest spending above 56% of GDP. ‘Big spenders’ with a poor performance and an uneven income distribution can gain in particular from cutting the size of the state. There is also a group of countries, with high spending and good performance, such as the Nordic countries. For these, the picture for the optimal size of government is nuanced. Experience nonetheless shows that comprehensive reform can make a big difference to performance and efficiency everywhere.