16.01.2015 Views

Garnaut Fitzgerald Review of Commonwealth-State Funding

Garnaut Fitzgerald Review of Commonwealth-State Funding

Garnaut Fitzgerald Review of Commonwealth-State Funding

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

CHAPTER 10: Efficiency and Economic Growth<br />

While the CoPS model provides important insights on the efficiency impact <strong>of</strong> fiscal<br />

equalisation, it does not provide a fully comprehensive analysis. Some significant<br />

limitations in the analysis are identified below.<br />

• The analysis assumes that the <strong>State</strong>s’ current economic circumstances reflect a<br />

long-run equilibrium – i.e. the distribution <strong>of</strong> capital and labour across <strong>State</strong>s is<br />

presently optimised for the current grant distribution arrangements. It is far from<br />

clear that this is the case (see below). This issue goes back to the debate between<br />

Buchanan and Scott about the efficiency <strong>of</strong> grant subsidies (see Section 10.1).<br />

• The labour–capital composite CoPS used implies a closer link between labour and<br />

capital than is actually the case. In practice, <strong>of</strong>ten the owner <strong>of</strong> capital does not<br />

reside in the same <strong>State</strong> (or even the same country) as the owner <strong>of</strong> labour.<br />

However, the household and <strong>State</strong> Government welfare maximising strategies in the<br />

CoPS model are based on capital within the <strong>State</strong> being owned by households<br />

within the <strong>State</strong>.<br />

• The CoPS model pays little attention to the production side <strong>of</strong> the economy. There is<br />

a fixed constant relationship between production and the labour-capital composite in<br />

each <strong>State</strong> (apart from a scarcity factor for minerals). There are no scale economies,<br />

no export sector and no role for Governments to influence production functions.<br />

• The CoPS model’s treatment <strong>of</strong> expenditure externalities is inevitably provisional<br />

and approximate. This treatment is necessitated by the fact that populations in the<br />

CoPS model are undifferentiated, and the benefits <strong>of</strong> many publicly provided goods<br />

are not easy to capture. CoPS assumed that 12 per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>State</strong> Government<br />

expenditures were unavoidable. This is intended to reflect the cross-subsidy<br />

between taxpayers who pay more tax than they receive in expenditure benefits, and<br />

taxpayers who receive more in expenditure benefits than they pay in tax. All other<br />

expenditures can, in principle, be paid from benefit taxes. If this were increased to<br />

24 per cent, the welfare gain from equal per capita funding would be halved. More<br />

likely, however, the 12 per cent figure is about right, but its distribution between the<br />

<strong>State</strong>s is not as assumed by CoPS.<br />

FINAL REPORT [144]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!