Tuesday, August 21, 2012
I found this listing of government expenditure as a % of GDP to be interesting:
Country - Tax burden % GDP - Govt. expend. % GDP
Albania 24.3 32.3
Algeria 8.0 35.4
Angola 6.1 41.6
Argentina 26.1 24.7
Armenia 16.8 21.8
Australia 30.8 34.3
Austria 42.9 49.0
Azerbaijan 17.7 31.1
Bahamas 16.8 20.9
Bahrain 4.8 25.7
Bangladesh 8.8 15.9
Belarus 30.4 49.6
Belgium 46.5 50.0
Bolivia 28.5 34.8
Bosnia and Herzegovina 37.6 50.3
Brazil 34.4 41.0
Bulgaria 33.3 37.3
Burma 3.0 8.0
Canada 32.2 39.7
Central African Republic 7.9 15.5
China 18.0 20.8
Croatia 23.3 40.7
Cuba 41.2 78.1
Cyprus 39.2 42.6
Czech Republic 36.2 42.9
Egypt 15.4 34.0
Estonia 32.3 39.9
Finland 43.2 49.5
France 44.6 52.8
Germany 40.6 43.7
Ghana 20.6 42.4
Greece 35.1 46.8
Hong Kong 13.0 18.6
Hungary 40.5 49.2
Iceland 40.1 57.8
India 18.6 27.2
Indonesia 13.3 19.2
Iran 6.1 28.3
Ireland 30.8 42.0
Japan 28.3 37.1
Kuwait 1.5 31.8
Malaysia 15.3 26.3
Mexico 8.2 23.7
Montenegro 30.0 48.8
Morocco 26.9 29.1
Netherlands 39.8 45.9
New Zealand 34.5 41.1
Nigeria 5.9 30.0
Pakistan 10.2 19.3
Poland 34.9 43.3
Portugal 37.7 46.1
Qatar 4.9 27.0
Romania 28.5 37.6
Russia 34.1 34.1
Saudi Arabia 6.6 29.1
Serbia 36.3 44.0
Singapore 14.2 17.0
South Africa 25.7 27.4
South Korea 26.6 30.0
Spain 33.9 41.1
Sweden 47.9 52.5
Switzerland 29.4 32.0
Taiwan 12.9 18.5
Tanzania 14.8 25.5
Thailand 16.0 17.7
Ukraine 37.7 47.3
United Arab Emirates 1.8 26.4
United Kingdom 38.9 47.3
United States 26.9 38.9
Venezuela 13.6 34.0
Vietnam 23.6 28.8
Yemen 7.3 43.0
Zimbabwe 31.7 97.8
I've edited out most of the smaller & island nations. I assume governments getting money from oil count as owning the oil not getting it in tax & there may well be other countries with significant non-tax sources of income. This explaind how the UAE can manage to raise only 1.8% by taxes and spend 26.4%. Beyond that the correlatio9n between being poor and having low taxes seems closer than that between being competently run and having low expenditure, though bith exist. I guess when everybody is on the breadline government simply cannot walk off with 50% of the country's money but in richer countries we can afford parasitism without starving. Countries with low spanding rates (Burma) are not closely associated with those where government is not opporesive. Everybody (except Russia & I'm not sure i 100% trust their figure) is spending more than they raise in taxes. The well run countries generally have a disparity of under 5%. Here it may be that economic growth, averaging above 5% world wide, allows an expansion of the money supply and that is how they make up the difference. The ones with significantly more than a 10% imbalance & no oil are mainly kletocracies (Montenegro, Zimbabwe) or in crisis (Egypt|). Despite our deficit our disparity is not to great which is probably why we can still borrow. On the other hand as a proportion of GNP our government spends more than everybody but Belguim, Bosnia, Cuba, Finland, France, Iceland, Montenegro, Sweden and of course Zimbabwe. An interesting mixture of basket cases and some of the world's most wealthy. Though the wealthy ones are all slow growing.
Country - Tax burden % GDP - Govt. expend. % GDP
Albania 24.3 32.3
Algeria 8.0 35.4
Angola 6.1 41.6
Argentina 26.1 24.7
Armenia 16.8 21.8
Australia 30.8 34.3
Austria 42.9 49.0
Azerbaijan 17.7 31.1
Bahamas 16.8 20.9
Bahrain 4.8 25.7
Bangladesh 8.8 15.9
Belarus 30.4 49.6
Belgium 46.5 50.0
Bolivia 28.5 34.8
Bosnia and Herzegovina 37.6 50.3
Brazil 34.4 41.0
Bulgaria 33.3 37.3
Burma 3.0 8.0
Canada 32.2 39.7
Central African Republic 7.9 15.5
China 18.0 20.8
Croatia 23.3 40.7
Cuba 41.2 78.1
Cyprus 39.2 42.6
Czech Republic 36.2 42.9
Egypt 15.4 34.0
Estonia 32.3 39.9
Finland 43.2 49.5
France 44.6 52.8
Germany 40.6 43.7
Ghana 20.6 42.4
Greece 35.1 46.8
Hong Kong 13.0 18.6
Hungary 40.5 49.2
Iceland 40.1 57.8
India 18.6 27.2
Indonesia 13.3 19.2
Iran 6.1 28.3
Ireland 30.8 42.0
Japan 28.3 37.1
Kuwait 1.5 31.8
Malaysia 15.3 26.3
Mexico 8.2 23.7
Montenegro 30.0 48.8
Morocco 26.9 29.1
Netherlands 39.8 45.9
New Zealand 34.5 41.1
Nigeria 5.9 30.0
Pakistan 10.2 19.3
Poland 34.9 43.3
Portugal 37.7 46.1
Qatar 4.9 27.0
Romania 28.5 37.6
Russia 34.1 34.1
Saudi Arabia 6.6 29.1
Serbia 36.3 44.0
Singapore 14.2 17.0
South Africa 25.7 27.4
South Korea 26.6 30.0
Spain 33.9 41.1
Sweden 47.9 52.5
Switzerland 29.4 32.0
Taiwan 12.9 18.5
Tanzania 14.8 25.5
Thailand 16.0 17.7
Ukraine 37.7 47.3
United Arab Emirates 1.8 26.4
United Kingdom 38.9 47.3
United States 26.9 38.9
Venezuela 13.6 34.0
Vietnam 23.6 28.8
Yemen 7.3 43.0
Zimbabwe 31.7 97.8
I've edited out most of the smaller & island nations. I assume governments getting money from oil count as owning the oil not getting it in tax & there may well be other countries with significant non-tax sources of income. This explaind how the UAE can manage to raise only 1.8% by taxes and spend 26.4%. Beyond that the correlatio9n between being poor and having low taxes seems closer than that between being competently run and having low expenditure, though bith exist. I guess when everybody is on the breadline government simply cannot walk off with 50% of the country's money but in richer countries we can afford parasitism without starving. Countries with low spanding rates (Burma) are not closely associated with those where government is not opporesive. Everybody (except Russia & I'm not sure i 100% trust their figure) is spending more than they raise in taxes. The well run countries generally have a disparity of under 5%. Here it may be that economic growth, averaging above 5% world wide, allows an expansion of the money supply and that is how they make up the difference. The ones with significantly more than a 10% imbalance & no oil are mainly kletocracies (Montenegro, Zimbabwe) or in crisis (Egypt|). Despite our deficit our disparity is not to great which is probably why we can still borrow. On the other hand as a proportion of GNP our government spends more than everybody but Belguim, Bosnia, Cuba, Finland, France, Iceland, Montenegro, Sweden and of course Zimbabwe. An interesting mixture of basket cases and some of the world's most wealthy. Though the wealthy ones are all slow growing.
Labels: economics, International politics, Social
