development report 2012 - UMAR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

180 Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development Social-protection expenditure As a consequence of the economic crisis and demographic changes, social protection expenditure grew strongly in 2009. In 2009, it totalled EUR 8,568 m, 1 up 6.6% in real terms from the previous year (in 2001–2008 around 3% annually in real terms). Its strong growth was mainly attributable to the aboveaverage increase in expenditure on pensions (by a real 7.2%), which represent the largest share of social protection funds. In view of growing unemployment, fewer wage earners and more recipients of social transfers, expenditure on unemployment benefits surged in real terms (by 32%), as did expenditure on family/children (by 14.1%) and social exclusion not elsewhere classified, particularly on financial social assistance (13%). Social protection expenditure as a share of gross domestic product expanded by nearly 3 percentage points in 2009. It accounted for 24.2% of GDP (in 2008: 21.5%). The increase in social protection expenditure as a share of GDP was, besides to the real growth of this expenditure, also due to a sizeable contraction of GDP (by 8.0%), as was also typical for other countries in the EU. Compared with the EU average, Slovenia thus retained roughly the same level of social protection expenditure in terms of purchasing power standards per capita (PPS) as in the previous year. The structure of social protection expenditure by function remained more or less unchanged in 2009. Expenditure on old age, which together with expenditure on sickness and health care makes up the largest share of social protection expenditure, rose somewhat further in 2009 (to 39%), while expenditure on sickness and health care dropped slightly (to 32.8%). The shares of funds for family, unemployment and social exclusion not classified elsewhere also increased, while the shares of disability and survivors functions declined. The EU also dedicates the largest shares of total social protection expenditure to old age (39%), and sickness and health care (29.5%). A comparison of expenditures on individual categories of social protection in purchasing power standards per capita shows that total expenditure in Slovenia was lower than in the EU mainly due a lower level of funds allocated for old age, sickness and health care, and unemployment. The sources of social protection receipts changed significantly in 2009. Social protection receipts increased by a total of 5.8% in real terms, of which the receipts from budgetary sources rose by a solid fifth (21.6%), while social contributions dropped somewhat as a result of a decline in the wage bill. Social contributions, representing 65.2% of all social protection receipts, nevertheless remained the most important source of financing social protection schemes: within that, employers’ contributions accounted for 26.4% (in 2008: 27.5%) and contributions by protected persons for 38.9% (in 2008: 41.5%). Government contributions made up 33.2% of all receipts in 2009 (in 2008: 29.1%). The increase in the government share was partly due to the economic crisis, given that unemployment benefits, financial social assistance and child benefits (the volume of which has increased substantially during the crisis) are financed from budgetary sources. Budgetary spending on pensions increased even more, as a result of lower contributions for pension and disability insurance amid a concurrent increase in expenditure on pensions. The sources of financing social protection in the EU did not change as much as in Slovenia in 2009. Looking at the structure of social protection receipts in the EU, government contributions also increased most notably in 2009 (although only by 1.5 p.p.), while social contributions by employers and protected persons declined slightly (by 0.8 p.p. and 0.2 p.p., respectively). The share of social contributions in Slovenia nevertheless remains more than 8 p.p. higher than the EU average (the share of employers’ social contributions is even almost twice as high as in the EU), while the government share is nearly 6 p.p. lower than in the EU. In Slovenia, social protection receipts thus mostly stem from the contributions by protected persons (38.8%), in contrast to the EU, where the largest share comes from budgetary sources (39.1%). The share of funds spent on administrative costs of the implementation of services and distribution of social protection receipts has been declining in Slovenia since 2006. In 2009, it accounted for 1.83% of total expenditure (in 2008: 1.96%), which is nearly two thirds less than the EU average (2.96%). The highest shares of administrative costs are recorded in the Netherlands (4.62%), France (3.85%) and Germany (3.76%), the lowest in Romania (1.11%), Estonia (1.13%) and Cyprus (1.30%). These data show that Slovenia exhibits a fairly high level of cost effectiveness in the distribution of social protection funds. 1 The most recent data on social protection expenditure; (source: Expenditure and receipts of social protection schemes, Slovenia, 2009 – final data, November 29, 2011).
Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development 181 Table: Social protection expenditure in Slovenia and in the EU, as a % of GDP and in PPS per capita In % of GDP Per capita PPS, EU=100 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 EU 26.4 27 26.6 25.7(p) 26.7(p) 29.5(p) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Austria 28.3 28.7 28.2 27.7 28.4 30.7 141 133 133 133 133 131 Belgium 25.4 27.3 27 26.7 28.1 30.4 125 131 137 120 119 119 Bulgaria 10.2 15.1 14.2 14.1 15.4 17.2 11 20 20 22 25 26 Cyprus 14.8 18.3 18.5 18.1 18.5 20.9 50 62 62 66 68 71 Czech Rep. 18.8 18.3 17.9 18.0 18.0 20.4 50 42 54 58 57 59 Denmark 28.8 30.2 29.2 28.7 29.6 33.4 144 138 136 135 138 138 Estonia 13.8 12.5 12.1 12.1 14.8 19.1 24 29 30 33 39 42 Finland 25 26.7 26.4 25.3 26.1 30.2 111 113 113 116 117 118 France 29.5 31.5 30.8 30.6 31 33(p) 129 128 125 128 121 119 Greece 23.5 24.8 24.7 24.8 26.2 27.9 75 83 85 88 91 89 Ireland 13.7 17.9 18.2 18.7 22 27.8 69 96 100 108 108 118 Italy 24.7 26.3 26.6 26.7 27.8(p) 29.8(p) 109 102 104 107 107 104 Latvia 15.6 12.8 12.6 11.2 12.7 16.8(p) 21 23 24 24 27 30 Lithuania 15.7 13.2 13.3 14.4 16 21.2(p) 24 26 28 33 37 40 Luxembourg 19.5 21.7 20.4 19.3 20.2 23.1 182 203 207 206 215 213 Hungary 19.9 21.9 22.4 22.6 22.8 23.4 41 51 53 54 56 51 Malta 16.5 18.4 18.3 18 18.4 20 55 53 52 54 55 56 Germany 29.6 30 28.9 27.7 27.9 31.3(p) 131 128 125 124 121 122 Netherlands 26.3 27.8 28.8 28.3 28.4 31.6(p) 134 134 141 146 140 136 Poland 19.6 19.7 19.3 18.1 18.5 19.7 36 37 38 38 40 41 Portugal 20.9 24.5 24.6 23.8 24.3 26.9 64 72 72 73 70 72 Romania 13 13.4 12.8 13.5 14.2 17 13 17 18 22 25 27 Slovakia 19.3 16.5 16.3 16 16 18.8(p) 37 37 39 42 43 47 Slovenia 24.1 23 22.7 21.3 21.3 24.2(p) 73 74 74 73 74 73 Spain 19.9 20.5 20.5 20.6 22.1 25(p) 75 79 81 86 87 89 Sweden 29.8 31.1 30.6 29.2 29.5 32.1(p) 145 140 139 141 139 132 UK 26.4 26.2 26 23.2 26.2 29.1(p) 119 118 117 106 112 111 Source: Eurostat Portal Page – Social Protection – Expenditure on social protection, % of GDP, and Social benefits per head of population by function, PPS; 2012; calculations by IMAD. Notes: PPS – purchasing power standards; p – preliminary data; data for Slovenia for 2000 exclude housing data. Figure: Social protection – Social benefits per head of population by function, 2009, in PPS 3000 2500 2000 Slovenia EU-27 In PPS 1500 1000 500 0 Sickness and heath care Disability Old age Survivors Family/children Unemployment Housing Social exclusion not elsewhere classified Source: Eurostat Portal Page – Social Protection – Social benefits per head of population by function, PPS, 2012.
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:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
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 160 and 161: 158 Development Report 2012 Indicat
Page 171 and 172: THE FOURTH PRIORITY: A modern welfa
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?