Government spending

Public finance
show Policies Agricultural Economic Energy Industrial Investment Social Trade Fiscal Monetary Policy mix
show Fiscal policy Budget policy Debt internal Deficit / surplus Finance ministry Fiscal union Revenue Spending deficit Tax
show Monetary policy Bank reserves requirements Discount window Gold reserves Interest rate Monetary authority central bank currency board Monetary base Monetary (currency) union Money supply
show Trade policy Balance of trade Free trade Gains from trade Non-tariff barrier Protectionism Tariff Trade bloc Trade creation Trade diversion Trade / commerce ministry
show Revenue Spending Non-tax revenue Tax revenue Discretionary spending Mandatory spending
show Optimum Balanced budget Economic growth Price stability
show Reform Fiscal adjustment Monetary reform
Portal
v t

Government spending or expenditure includes all government consumption, investment, and transfer payments.^[1][2] In national income accounting, the acquisition by governments of goods and services for current use, to directly satisfy the individual or collective needs of the community, is classed as government final consumption expenditure. Government acquisition of goods and services intended to create future benefits, such as infrastructure investment or research spending, is classed as government investment (government gross capital formation). These two types of government spending, on final consumption and on gross capital formation, together constitute one of the major components of gross domestic product.

Government spending can be financed by government borrowing, taxes, custom duties, the sale or lease of natural resources, and various fees like national park entry fees or licensing fees.^[3] When Governments choose to borrow money, they have to pay interest on the money borrowed which can lead to government debt.^[4] Changes in government spending is a major component of fiscal policy used to stabilize the macroeconomic business cycle.

Macroeconomic fiscal policy[]

The Market for Capital (the Loanable Funds Market) and the Crowding Out Effect. An increase in government deficit spending "crowds out" private investment by increasing interest rates and lowering the quantity of capital available to the private sector.

Government spending can be a useful economic policy tool for governments. Fiscal policy can be defined as the use of government spending and/or taxation as a mechanism to influence an economy.^[5][6] There are two types of fiscal policy: expansionary fiscal policy, and contractionary fiscal policy. Expansionary fiscal policy is an increase in government spending or a decrease in taxation, while contractionary fiscal policy is a decrease in government spending or an increase in taxes. Expansionary fiscal policy can be used by governments to stimulate the economy during a recession. For example, an increase in government spending directly increases demand for goods and services, which can help increase output and employment. On the other hand, contractionary fiscal policy can be used by governments to cool down the economy during an economic boom. A decrease in government spending can help keep inflation in check.^[5] During economic downturns, in the short run, government spending can be changed either via automatic stabilization or discretionary stabilization. Automatic stabilization is when existing policies automatically change government spending or taxes in response to economic changes, without the additional passage of laws.^[7][5] A primary example of an automatic stabilizer is unemployment insurance, which provides financial assistance to unemployed workers. Discretionary stabilization is when a government takes actions to change government spending or taxes in direct response to changes in the economy. For instance, a government may decide to increase government spending as a result of a recession.^[7] With discretionary stabilization, the government must pass a new law to make changes in government spending.^[5]

John Maynard Keynes was one of the first economists to advocate for government deficit spending as part of the fiscal policy response to an economic contraction. According to Keynesian economics, increased government spending raises aggregate demand and increases consumption, which leads to increased production and faster recovery from recessions. Classical economists, on the other hand, believe that increased government spending exacerbates an economic contraction by shifting resources from the private sector, which they consider productive, to the public sector, which they consider unproductive.^[8]

In economics, the potential "shifting" in resources from the private sector to the public sector as a result of an increase in government deficit spending is called crowding out.^[5] The figure to the right depicts the market for capital, otherwise known as the market for loanable funds. The downward sloping demand curve D1 represents demand for private capital by firms and investors, and the upward sloping supply curve S1 represents savings by private individuals. The initial equilibrium in this market is represented by point A, where the equilibrium quantity of capital is K1 and the equilibrium interest rate is R1. If the government increases deficit spending, it will borrow money from the private capital market and reduce the supply of savings to S2. The new equilibrium is at point B, where the interest rate has increased to R2 and the quantity of capital available to the private sector has decreased to K2. The government has essentially made borrowing more expensive and has taken away savings from the market, which "crowds out" some private investment. The crowding out of private investment could limit the economic growth from the initial increase government spending.^[7][6]

Heterodox Economics disagrees[]

The above explanation of the impacts of government spending comes from conventional, orthodox economics, a set of models that did not predict the largest economic event of the last 80 years—the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), or sub-prime mortgage derivatives meltdown. Although economics provokes controversy, empirical evidence that orthodox economics is valid in explaining current conditions is at least questionable. See Steve Keen's Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor Dethroned for a complete account of its failings. Keen himself won the Revere Prize in economics for correctly predicting the GFC.

, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, says the point of orthodox economics "is to create a language and methodology for governing that hides political assumptions from the public"^[9] Calling it a "science" in the conventional sense of that word is at least open to question.

Among the questionable concepts orthodox economics promotes is Crowding Out, which presumes the economy is a zero-sum game. If that were true, then the assumption is that resources are 100% utilized, and when government employs additional resources, it must do so at the expense of the private sector. But the U.S. economy, as of this writing, is at only 77% of its current capacity (never mind adding capacity), and as the COVID-19 epidemic proceeds, that figure 77% is likely to go lower. A more realistic economics would conclude that government spending would employ idle resources, not "crowd out" private use of those resources.

History demonstrates this conclusion is realistic, too. Historical GDP growth rates increase dramatically when the U.S. government spent for the New Deal and for big public works projects like World War II. One could conclude the additional GDP grown was a result of bringing resources un- or under-employed during the Great Depression back into production.

Orthodox economists contend that government 'borrowing' competes for savings, too. The orthodox model says: "If government tries to borrow more by issuing and selling more bonds, then the competition for finance would push up interest rates [emphasis added]. Some private firms would decide not to borrow at the higher rates and hence investment would be lower. Also, durable consumption expenditure by households will decline because some of it is financed by borrowing.

"However, that model is incorrect. Government fiscal deficits generate non-government surpluses (flows) that accumulate to the non-government sector's net acquisition of financial assets (a stock)... Since there are more savings (as a result of higher income levels arising from the deficits) and greater financial wealth, it is not true that government is competing with private sector borrowers for a limited supply of savings (a flow) to place government bonds into wealth portfolios that are fixed in size. Both savings and portfolios expand as government deficits grow."^[10] And contrariwise, as government practices austerity, savings shrink and economic instability grows. Historically, whenever government has succumbed to the siren song of this "fiscal responsibility" and significantly reduced deficits, the economy goes into a tailspin...100% of the time.^[11]

Perhaps the clearest evidence of its failings is orthodox economics' prediction for the consequences for larger government 'debt.'

Note: Government 'debt' is nothing like household debt, it's like bank debt. If you have a bank account, that is your asset, but to the bank, it's a liability, a 'debt.' Reducing the bank's 'debt' reduces the size of depositors' accounts. As the above paragraph indicates, what follows reducing people's savings is an economic downturn, replete with waves of asset forfeitures and foreclosures when people are unable to pay their obligations out of (reduced) savings.

Because it discouraged government 'debt,' orthodox economics blessed the Clinton federal budget surplus, deregulated markets, reduced government spending, and encouraged Wall Street's derivatives that led to the GFC in 2007–8. An estimated 8,000,000 people lost their homes in that debacle.

Despite these events, according to orthodox economics, there's a threshold for government debt, beyond which the economy suffers, and bond markets will demand higher interest rates, or they cannot sell government debt. People often point to Greece, which has to pay high interest rates to borrow, as an example. But, unlike the U.S, Greece no longer makes its own currency, so it isn't comparable to a monetary sovereign who can "print" the means to repay such 'debt.' There is no credit risk when monetary sovereigns with floating exchange rates can "print" the means to repay their 'debt,' just as there would be no credit risk banks would be unable to pay depositors if they could print banknotes.

Orthodox economists Reinhart and Rogoff even wrote a study concluding that government 'debt' larger than 90% of GDP impaired economic performance. However, others examined their work found they cherry-picked their examples, and even had a mistake in the spreadsheet formulas they used to calculate this result.^[12]

What is comparable to the monetary sovereign U.S.' situation is Japan's. Japan makes its own fiat currency (Yen) and has a floating exchange rate. Its current 'debt'-to-GDP ratio is roughly 240%--far above Reinhart and Rogoff's 90% threshold. The orthodox economics school would conclude that the Japanese have borrowed too much, and they have impaired their ability to repay government 'debt.' Therefore, the orthodox economics prediction is that bond markets would charge a risk premium (higher interest rates) before Japan's central bank could sell Yen-denominated bonds. The truth is that the National debt of Japan sells at near a zero interest rate.

These conclusions stir controversy because they contradict the narrative so widely disseminated by the press and orthodox economic journals. Heterodox economists have had to found their own journals, had to deal with difficulty getting tenure and employment as a result of their conclusions. Nevertheless, the events cited above, the Federal Reserve's response to the GFC (extending $16 - $29 trillion in credit to the financial sector^[13]) and the current multi-trillion-dollar response to the COVID-19 pandemic appear to validate the conclusions of the heterodox economists, particularly Modern Money Theory.

Current use: final consumption[]

Government acquisition of goods and services for current use to directly satisfy individual or collective needs of the members of the community is called government final consumption expenditure (GFCE.) It is a purchase from the national accounts "use of income account" for goods and services directly satisfying of individual needs (individual consumption) or collective needs of members of the community (collective consumption). GFCE consists of the value of the goods and services produced by the government itself other than own-account capital formation and sales and of purchases by the government of goods and services produced by market producers that are supplied to households—without any transformation—as "social transfers" in kind.^[14]

Government spending or government expenditure can be divided into three primary groups, government consumption, transfer payments, and interest payments.^[15]

1. Government consumption are government purchases of goods and services. Examples include road and infrastructure repairs, national defence, schools, healthcare, and government workers’ salaries.
2. Transfer payments are government payments to individuals. Such payments are made without the exchange of good or services, for example Old Age Security payments, Employment Insurance benefits, veteran and civil service pensions, foreign aid, and social assistance payments. Subsidies to businesses are also included in this category.
3. Interest payments are the interest paid to the holders of government bonds, such as Saving Bonds and Treasury bills.

National defense spending[]

The United States spends vastly more than other countries on national defense. For example, In 2019 the United States approved a budget of 686.1 billion in discretionary military spending,^[16]China was second with an estimated 261 billion dollars in military spending.^[17]The table below shows the top 10 countries with the largest military expenditures as of 2015, the most recent year with publicly available data. As the table suggests, the United States spent nearly 3 times as much on the military as China, the country with the next largest military spending. The U.S. military budget dwarfed spending by all other countries in the top 10, with 8 out of countries spending less than $100 billion in 2016.

List by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 2017 Fact Sheet (for 2016)[18] SIPRI Military Expenditure Database[19] Rank Country Spending (US$ Bn.) % of GDP World total 1,686 2.2 01 United States 611.2 3.3 02 China, P.R.[20] 215.7 1.9 03 Russia 69.2 5.3 04 Saudi Arabia[20][21] 63.7 10 05 India 55.9 2.5 06 France 55.7 2.3 07 United Kingdom 48.3 1.8 08 Japan 46.1 1.0 09 Germany 41.1 1.2 10 South Korea 36.8 2.7

Healthcare and medical research[]

Research Australia^[22] found 91% of Australians think 'improving hospitals and the health system' should be the Australian Government's first spending priority.

Crowding 'in' also^[23] happens in university life science research Subsidies, funding and government business or projects like this are often justified on the basis of their positive return on investment. Life science crowding in contrasts with crowding out in public funding of research more widely:^[24] "10% increase in government R&D funding reduced private R&D expenditure by 3%...In Australia, the average cost of public funds is estimated to be $1.20 and $1.30 for each dollar raised (Robson, 2005). The marginal cost is probably higher, but estimates differ widely depending on the tax that is increased".

In the US the total investment in medical and health research and development (R&D) in the US had grown by 27% over the five years from 2013 to 2017, and it is led by industry and the federal government. However, the industry accounted for 67% of total spending in 2017, followed by the federal government at 22%. According to the National Institute of Health (NIH) accounted for the lion's share of federal spending in medical and health research in 2017 was $32.4 billion or 82.1%.^[25]

Also, academic and research institutions, this includes colleges, and universities, independent research (IRIs), and independent hospital medical research centres also increased spending, dedicating more than $14.2 billion of their own funds (endowment, donations etc.) to medical and health R&D in 2017. Although other funding sources - foundations, state and local government, voluntary health associations and professional societies - accounted for 3.7% of total medical and health R&D expenditure.

On the other hand, global health spending continues to increase and rise rapidly – to US$7.8 trillion in 2017 or about 10% of GDP and $1.80 per capita – up from US£7.6 trillion in 2016. In addition, about 605 of this spending was public and 40% private, with donor funding representing less than 0.2% of the total although the health spending in real terms has risen by 3.79% in a year while global GDP had grown by 3.0%.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the increase in health spending in low-income countries, and it rose by 7.8% a year between 2000 and 2017 while their economy grew by 6.4%, it is explained in the figure. However, the middle-income economies health spending grew more than 6%, and average annual growth in high-income countries was 3.5%, which is about twice as fast as economic growth. In contrast, health spending by the high-income countries continues to represent to be the largest share of global spending, which is about 81%, despite it covers only 16% of world's population; although it down from 87% in 2000. The primary driver of this change in global spending on healthcare is India and China, which they moved to higher-income groups. Furthermore, just over 40% of the world population lived in low-income countries, which is now they dropped to 10%. Moreover, significant spending increment was in upper-middle-income economies population share has more than  doubled over the period of, and share of global health spending nearly also doubled due to China and India's vast population joining that group. Unfortunately, all other spending share income groups had declined.^[26]

From the continent view, North America, Western Europe, and Oceanic countries have the highest levels of spending, and West Central Asia, and East Africa the lowest, which is followed closely by South Asia, it is explained in the figure.

It is also true that fast economic growth is associated with increased health spending and sustained rapid economic growth between 2000 and 2017. Even more, fast economic growth which is generally associated with the higher government revenues and health spending is mostly located in Asia such as China, India and Indonesia followed by the Middle East and Latin America. In these countries, the real health spending per capita grew by 2.2 times and increased by 0.6 percentage point as per a share of GDP from 2000 to 2017.

Infrastructure and investment: gross fixed capital formation[]

Government acquisition intended to create future benefits, such as infrastructure investment or research spending, is called gross fixed capital formation, or government investment, which usually is the largest part of the government.^[27] Acquisition of goods and services is made through production by the government (using the government's labour force, fixed assets and purchased goods and services for intermediate consumption) or through purchases of goods and services from market producers. In economic theory or in macroeconomics, investment is the amount purchased of goods which are not consumed but are to be used for future production (i.e. capital). Examples include railroad or factory construction.

Infrastructure spending is considered government investment because it will usually save money in the long run, and thereby reduce the net present value of government liabilities.

Spending on physical infrastructure in the U.S. returns an average of about $1.92 for each $1.00 spent on nonresidential construction because it is almost always less expensive to maintain than repair or replace once it has become unusable.^[28]

Likewise, government spending on social infrastructure, such as preventative health care, can save several hundreds of billions of dollars per year in the U.S., because for example cancer patients are more likely to be diagnosed at Stage I where curative treatment is typically a few outpatient visits, instead of at Stage III or later in an emergency room where treatment can involve years of hospitalization and is often terminal.^[29]

Infrastructure and investment: gross fixed capital formation

Government acquisition intended to create future benefits, such as infrastructure investment or research spending, is called gross fixed capital formation, or government investment, which usually is the largest part of the government.^[27] Acquisition of goods and services is made through production by the government (using the government's labour force, fixed assets and purchased goods and services for intermediate consumption) or through purchases of goods and services from market producers. In economic theory or in macroeconomics, investment is the amount purchased per unit of time of goods which are not consumed but are to be used for future production (i.e. capital). Examples include railroad or factory construction.

Infrastructure spending is considered government investment because it will usually save money in the long run, and thereby reduce the net present value of government liabilities.

Per capita spending[]

In 2010 national governments spent an average of $2,376 per person, while the average for the world's 20 largest economies (in terms of GDP) was $16,110 per person. Norway and Sweden expended the most at $40,908 and $26,760 per capita respectively. The federal government of the United States spent $11,041 per person. Other large economy country spending figures include South Korea ($4,557), Brazil ($2,813), Russia ($2,458), China ($1,010), and India ($226).^[30] The figures below of 42% of GDP spending and a GDP per capita of $54,629 for the U.S. indicate a total per person spending including national, state, and local governments was $22,726 in the U.S.

As a percentage of GDP[]

Tax Burden as a Percentage of GDP (2014 Index of Economic Freedom).^[31]

Public spending / GDP in Europe:
  >55%   50–55%   45–50%   40–45%   35–40%   30–35%

This is a list of countries by government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) for the listed countries, according to the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom^[31] by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. Tax revenue is included for comparison. These statistics utilize the United Nations' System of National Accounts (SNA), which measures the government sector differently than the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The SNA counts as government spending the gross cost of public services such as state universities and public hospitals. For example, the SNA counts the entire cost of running the public-university system, not just what legislators appropriate to supplement students' tuition payments. Those adjustments push up the SNA's measure of spending by roughly 4 percent of GDP compared with the standard measure tallied by the BEA.^[32]

List of Countries as a % of GDP.

Country	Tax burden % GDP	Govt. expend. % GDP
Afghanistan	9	23
Albania	23	28
Algeria	10	40
Angola	6	39
Argentina	35	41
Armenia	17	25
Australia	26	35
Austria	42	51
Azerbaijan	13	34
Bahamas	16	23
Bahrain	3	31
Bangladesh	10	16
Barbados	27	41
Belarus	25	36
Belgium	44	53
Belize	23	29
Benin	16	22
Bhutan	14	38
Bolivia	22	35
Bosnia and Herzegovina	39	49
Botswana	28	32
Brazil	35	39
Bulgaria	26	34
Burkina Faso	14	24
Burma	4	19
Burundi	14	40
Cambodia	11	20
Cameroon	11	22
Canada	31	42
Cape Verde	20	32
Central African Republic	9	16
Chad	5	26
Chile	19	23
China	19	24
Colombia	15	29
Comoros	12	22
DR Congo	24	29
Congo	8	26
Costa Rica	22	18
Ivory Coast	13	26
Croatia	33	43
Cuba	24	67
Cyprus	27	46
Czech Republic	35	43
Denmark	48	58
Djibouti	20	35
Dominica	24	36
Dominican Republic	13	16
Ecuador	18	44
Egypt	14	32
El Salvador	15	22
Equatorial Guinea	2	35
Eritrea	50	34
Estonia	33	38
Ethiopia	11	18
Fiji	23	28
Finland	43	55
France	44	56
Gabon	10	25
Gambia	13	26
Georgia	25	32
Germany	37	45
Ghana	15	24
Greece	31	52
Guatemala	11	15
Guinea	16	22
Guinea-Bissau	9	21
Guyana	21	31
Haiti	13	34
Honduras	16	26
Hong Kong	14	19
Hungary	36	49
Iceland	36	47
India	19.262	29.245[33]
Indonesia	12	19
Iran	9	22
Iraq	2	45
Ireland	28	48
Israel	33	45
Italy	43	50
Jamaica	23	32
Japan	28	42
Jordan	14	33
Kazakhstan	15	22
Kenya	20	29
Kiribati	20	92
North Korea	N/A	N/A
South Korea	26	30
Kuwait	1	39
Kyrgyzstan	19	36
Laos	14	21
Latvia	27	39
Lebanon	17	30
Lesotho	38	63
Liberia	20	31
Libya	1	67
Liechtenstein	N/A	N/A
Lithuania	16	38
Luxembourg	37	42
Macau	35	17
Madagascar	11	16
Malawi	20	35
Malaysia	15	29
Maldives	16	43
Mali	14	25
Malta	34	42
Mauritania	18	28
Mauritius	18	25
Mexico	11	27
Micronesia	12	65
Moldova	31	39
Mongolia	33	45
Montenegro	24	44
Morocco	23	35
Mozambique	20	34
Namibia	28	37
Nepal	13	19
Netherlands	39	50
New Zealand	32	48
Nicaragua	18	26
Niger	14	20
Nigeria	5	29
North Macedonia	26	31
Norway	43	44
Oman	2	38
Pakistan	9	20
Panama	18	27
Papua New Guinea	26	29
Paraguay	13	19
Peru	17	19
Philippines	12	16
Poland	32	44
Portugal	31	49
Qatar	3	31
Romania	28	37
Russia	30	36
Rwanda	13	27
Saint Lucia	25	35
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	22	30
Samoa	23	44
São Tomé and Príncipe	17	49
Saudi Arabia	4	35
Senegal	19	29
Serbia	35	45
Seychelles	32	36
Sierra Leone	12	22
Singapore	14	17
Slovakia	29	38
Slovenia	37	51
Solomon Islands	37	51
South Africa	27	32
Spain	32	45
Sri Lanka	12	21
Sudan	7	18
Suriname	19	27
Swaziland	23	31
Sweden	45	51
Switzerland	29	34
Syria	10	N/A
Taiwan	9	23
Tajikistan	20	27
Tanzania	15	27
Thailand	16	23
East Timor	61.5	51.2
Togo	17	24
Tonga	18	29
Trinidad and Tobago	17	35
Tunisia	21	35
Turkey	25	35
Turkmenistan	18	15
Uganda	17	21
Ukraine	38	46
United Arab Emirates	6	24
United Kingdom	36	49
United States	25.1	41.6
Uruguay	27	33
Uzbekistan	20	31
Vanuatu	16	25
Venezuela	13	40
Vietnam	21	31
Yemen	5	29
Zambia	19	24
Zimbabwe	30	35
Somalia	N/A	N/A
Brunei	24	34

Public social spending by country[]

Government Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP (2014 Index of Economic Freedom).^[31]

Public social spending comprises cash benefits, direct in-kind provision of goods and services, and tax breaks with social purposes provided by general government (that is central, state, and local governments, including social security funds).^[34]

2015 Public social spending, OECD^[34]

Country	Public social spending % of GDP
France	31.7
Finland	30.6
Belgium	29.2
Italy	28.9
Denmark	28.8
Austria	28.0
Sweden	26.7
Greece	26.4
Spain	25.4
Germany	25.0
Portugal	24.1
Norway	23.9
Slovenia	22.4
Netherlands	22.3
Luxembourg	22.2
Great Britain	21.5
OECD	21.0
Hungary	20.7
New Zealand	19.7
Switzerland	19.6
Czech Republic	19.5
Poland	19.4
Slovakia	19.4
United States	19.0
Australia	18.8
Canada	17.2
Estonia	17.0
Ireland	17.0
Israel	16.0
Iceland	15.7
Latvia	14.4
Chile	11.2
South Korea	10.1

See also[]

• Rahn curve
• Open government
• Government operations
• Public expenditure
• Public finance
• Government budget
• Government waste
• Fiscal policy
• Fiscal council
• Sovereign wealth fund
• Tax
• Mandatory spending
• Taxpayers unions
• Eurostat
• Government spending in the United Kingdom
• Government spending in the United States
• List of countries by government spending as percentage of GDP

References[]

External links[]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Government Spending.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Public expenditure.

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Government spending

• OECD Government spending statistics
• Canadian Governments Compared
• Eurostat's government spending per sector