Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 321–347 | Cite as

Public sector efficiency: An international comparison

  • António Afonso
  • Ludger Schuknecht
  • Vito Tanzi
Article

Abstract

We compute public sector performance (PSP) and public sector efficiency (PSE) indicators, comprising a composite and seven sub-indicators, for 23 industrialised countries. The first four sub-indicators are “opportunity” indicators that take into account administrative, education and health outcomes and the quality of public infrastructure and that support the rule of law and a level playing-field in a market economy. Three other indicators reflect the standard “Musgravian” tasks for government: allocation, distribution and stabilisation. The input and output efficiency of public sectors across countries is then measured via a non-parametric production frontier technique. The study finds significant differences in PSP and PSE, which suggests a large potential for expenditure savings in many countries.

Keywords

Health Outcome Public Sector Industrialise Country Public Finance Market Economy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Afonso, A., & Aubyn, St. M. (2003). Non-parametric approaches to education and health expenditure efficiency in the OECD (Mimeo), ISEG/UTL-Technical University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
  2. Aubyn, St. M. (2002). Evaluating efficiency in the Portuguese health and education sectors (Mimeo) presented at the conference on Desenvolvimento Económico Português no Espaço Europeu: Determinantes e Políticas organised by Bank of Portugal, 24–25 May 2002.Google Scholar
  3. Bouthevillain, C., Cour-Thimann, P., Van Den Dool, G., Hernandez de Cos, P., Langenus, G., Mohr, M., et al. (2001). Cyclically adjusted budget balances: An alternative approach (ECB Working Paper 77)Google Scholar
  4. Brennan, G. (2000). The political economy of regulation (Mimeo), Australian National University.Google Scholar
  5. Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clements, B. (2002). How efficient is education spending in Europe? European Review of Economics and Finance, 1(1), 3–26.Google Scholar
  7. Deprins, D., Simar, L., & Tulkens, H. (1984). Measuring labor-efficiency in post offices. In M. Marchand, P. Pestieau, & H. Tulkens (Eds.), The performance of public enterprises: Concepts and measurement. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Fakin, B., & de Crombrugghe, A. (1997). Fiscal adjustment in transition economies: Social transfers and the efficiency of public spending: A comparison with OECD countries (Policy Research Working Paper 1803). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  9. Gupta, S., & Verhoeven, M. (2001). The efficiency of government expenditure experiences from Africa. Journal of Policy Modelling, 23, 433–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., Park, W., Wagh, S., Edwards, C., & de Rugy, V. Vancouver, the Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Mueller, D. (Ed.). (1997). Perspectives on public choice: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2001). Political institutions and policy outcomes: What are the stylized facts? (Mimeo)Google Scholar
  13. Rodrik, D. (2000). Institutions for high-quality growth: What they are and how to Acquire them (NBER Working Paper 7540)Google Scholar
  14. Schneider, F. (2002). The size and development of the shadow economies and shadow labor force of 22 transition and 21 OECD countries: What do we really know? (Mimeo), prepared for the Round Table Conference: On the Informal Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, April 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). The grabbing hand: Government pathologies and their cures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Simar, L., & Wilson, P. (2003). Efficiency analysis: The statistical approach (Lecture notes), January.Google Scholar
  17. Strauch, R. & Hagen, J. (2000). Institutions, politics and fiscal policy. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Tanzi, V. (1998). Government role and the efficiency of policy instruments. In P. Sorenson (Ed.), Public finance in a changing world (pp. 51–79). Macmillan Press London.Google Scholar
  19. Tanzi, V., & Schuknecht, L. (1997). Reconsidering the fiscal role of government: The international perspective. American Economic Review, 87(2), 164–168.Google Scholar
  20. Tanzi, V., & Schuknecht, L. (2000). Public spending in the 20th century: A global perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Tulkens, H. (1993). On FDH analysis: Some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts and urban transit. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 4, 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van den Eeckhaut, P., Tulkens, H., & Jamar, M.-A. (1993). Cost-efficiency in Belgian municipalities. In H. Fried, C. Lovell, & S. Schmidt (Eds.), The measurement of productive efficiency: Techniques and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Van den Noord, P. (2000). The size and role of automatic fiscal stabilisers in the 1990s and beyond (OECD Working Paper 230)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • António Afonso
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ludger Schuknecht
    • 1
  • Vito Tanzi
    • 3
  1. 1.European Central BankFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.ISEG/UTL – Technical University of LisbonCISEP- Research Centre on the Portuguese EconomyLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Inter-American Development BankWashingtonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations