development report 2012 - UMAR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

166 Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development State aid 1 After the significant increase in 2009 owing to measures to mitigate the impact of the economic crisis, state aid declined markedly in 2010 but remained higher than in the period before 2009. In 2010 state aid amounted to EUR 460.1 m, which is 1.28% of GDP and 2.8% of total general government expenditure. After expanding by as much as 86.5% in 2009 (by EUR 280.6 m or by over 0.84% of GDP), state aid shrank by 23.9% or EUR 144.6 m in 2010 (0.43% of GDP). Regardless of this substantial decline, in 2010 state aid was still higher than that in 2008 (by 0.48% of GDP or EUR 136 m) or in any other years since Slovenia’s accession to the EU 2 (Thirteenth Survey on State Aid in Slovenia, 2012). The decline of state aid in 2010 arose from the phasing-out of the special temporary scheme called ‘aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy’. Only EUR 37.6 m in state aid was thus allocated under this scheme in 2010 (in contrast to as much as EUR 215.4 m in 2009), with aid for financial institutions being cut substantially. Other forms of horizontal aid used by Slovenia to deal with the effects of the economic crisis rose by EUR 42.1 m in 2010 and were much higher (by EUR 104.6 m) than in 2008. The largest increase was recorded for aid for R&D, which was as much as three and a half times higher than in 2008 and 45% higher than in 2009. Aids for employment and environmental protection soared as well. Certain categories of horizontal aid (aids for small and medium-sized enterprises and training) are dropping gradually on account of an increase in measures allocated under the ‘de minimis’ rule, which are not considered state aid. Aids for regional development and culture are also being reduced, in both absolute and relative terms. In 2010, aid was (for the first time) allocated under a new scheme referred to as the risk-capital measure, but its amount was small. Also without the aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy, the increase of horizontal aids as a share of total state aid (2008: 47.6%; 2010: 64.4%) pursues the development goals defined in Slovenia’s Development Strategy and the Europe 2020 strategy, as well as the goal of increasing the general impact of state aid on the development of individual recipients and, through the spillover effects, on the society as a whole. The amounts of state aid dedicated for special sectors declined somewhat in 2010 relative to 2009; state aid for transport increased while aids for other sectors (in particular agriculture and fisheries and coal mining) declined. State aid (excluding crisis aid and aid for rail transport 3 ) is much higher than the EU average. According to EC data (State Aid Scoreboard, 2011), the average state aid in the EU is nearly one half lower than that in Slovenia (EU: 0.6%; Slovenia: 1.1% of GDP). Only Hungary (2.3%) and Malta (1.4% of GDP) recorded higher aid in relative terms, while Finland was on par with Slovenia. However, the amount of aid earmarked for the financial sector to mitigate the impact of the financial crisis in the 2008–2010 period was well below the EU average (Slovenia: 6.0%; EU: 13.1% of 2010 GDP).(Commission staff working paper, Autumn 2010 update, 2011). State aid in gradually being shifted into aids granted under the ‘de minimis’ 4 rule, which are not considered state aid and are therefore not controlled by the EU. The aids under this rule, having totalled around EUR 10 m in Slovenia in 2006, expanded to a high of EUR 28.6 m in 2008. In 2009 they surged to EUR 84.9 m and accounted for as much as 14% of total state aid. This remarkable increase was partly a consequence of measures adopted in response to the economic crisis, as well as, to a certain extent, the above-mentioned shift from the controlled state aids. In 2010, these aids shrank by 28.5%, but remained high (EUR 60.7 m), accounting for 13.2% of total state aid. They were granted for various purposes, particularly for employment, and small and mediumsized enterprises. 1 State aids arise from the EU's regime and represent all measures of a state in terms of its expenditures (subsidies, capital transfers) and revenues (reduced state revenues) allocated by various instruments (grants, tax exemptions and reliefs, favourable loans, guarantees, etc.) to economic entities that have an impact on the single market of the EU. The impact of the market is defined arbitrarily, by rules adopted by the European Commission, the European Council and the European Court of Justice. 2 A comparison with the pre-accession years, when the total state aid had been taken into account, is not realistic, as since Slovenia's accession to the EU a significant portion of state aid to agriculture, i.e. measures under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), is no longer considered state aid. 3 In its latest survey the European Commission published only data on state aids without crisis aid and the aid for rail transport. 4 The "de minimis" rule (aids of small amount) is an instrument which allows Member States to grant subsidies of limited amount very rapidly, without notification to the Commission and entering into any administrative procedure. The rule is based on the assumption that, in the vast majority of cases, subsidies of a small amount do not have an effect on trade and competition between Member States and therefore do not constitute state aid pursuant to Article 87(1) EC. The ceiling for the aid covered by the "de minimis" rule is EUR 200,000 per recipient over any three fiscal years.
Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development 167 Table: State aids (excluding aid to remedy the effects of the economic crisis and aid for rail transport), as a % of GDP 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 EU-27 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 Austria 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.8 Belgium 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 Bulgaria N/A N/A 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.1 Cyprus N/A 2.6 1.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.7 Czech Republic N/A 2.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 Denmark 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 Estonia N/A 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Finland 2.8 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 France 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 Greece 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8 Ireland 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.0 Italy 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 Latvia N/A 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.2 0.6 0.7 0.9 Lithuania N/A 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 Luxembourg 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 Hungary N/A 1.1 3.2 2.3 1.9 2.4 1.8 2.3 Malta N/A 3.4 3.5 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.4 Germany 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 Netherlands 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 Poland N/A 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 Portugal 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.9 Romania N/A N/A 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.2 Slovakia N/A 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 Slovenia N/A 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.1 Spain 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Sweden 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 United Kingdom 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 Source: State Aid Scoreboard, Autumn 2011, (European Commission), 2011. Note: N/A – not available. Figure: State aids (excluding aid to remedy the effects of the economic recession and aid for rail transport), 2010, as a % of GDP 2.5 2.0 In % of GDP 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Hungary Malta Finland Slovenia Ireland Denmark Latvia Poland Portugal Austria Czech R. France Greece Sweden Cyprus EU-27 Belgium Lithuania Germany Netherlands Slovakia Spain Estonia Italy U. Kingdom Luxembourg Romania Bulgaria Source: State Aid Scoreboard, Autumn 2011, (European Commission), 2011. Note: Legend on the left: as a % of GDP.
Page 1:
development report 2012
Page 5 and 6:
Development Report 2012 Contents 3
Page 7:
Development Report 2012 Contents 5
Page 10 and 11:
8 Development Report 2012 Main find
Page 12 and 13:
10 Development Report 2012 Summary
Page 15:
Part I Development by the prioritie
Page 18 and 19:
16 Development Report 2012 Developm
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 93:
Part II Indicators of Slovenia’s
Page 96 and 97:
94 Development Report 2012 Indicato
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
100 Development Report 2012 Indicat
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119: 116 Development Report 2012 Indicat
Page 133 and 134: THE SECOND PRIORITY Efficient use o
Page 135 and 136: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 157: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 171 and 172: THE FOURTH PRIORITY: A modern welfa
Page 203: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
234 Development Report 2012 Bibliog
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 247 and 248:
Development Report 2012 Appendix 24
Page 249 and 250:
Development Report 2012 Appendix 24
Page 251:
development report 2012
show all

development report 2012 - UMAR

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?