The Welfare Effects of Public Expenditure Programs Reconsidered
In: IMF Working Paper, S. 1-30
6248 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: IMF Working Paper, S. 1-30
SSRN
In: IMF Working Paper No. 04/220
SSRN
In: IMF Working Paper, S. 1-31
SSRN
In: IIM Bangalore Research Paper No. 161
SSRN
Working paper
In: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754076270820
Item 1038-A, 1038-B (microfiche). ; "April 1981." ; At head of title: 97th Congress, 1st session. Committee print. CP 97-4. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.
BASE
Cover -- CONTENTS -- I. INTRODUCTION -- II. DATA AND STYLIZED FACTS -- III. EMPIRICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND MAIN FINDINGS -- IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS -- FIGURES -- 1. Countries with IMF Programs and Expenditure Conditionality -- 2. Countries with Expenditure Conditionality in IMF Programs by Income Group -- 3. Average Number of Program Conditionality by Type -- 4. Success Rate of Implementing Expenditure Conditions by Category -- TABLES -- 1. Impact of IMF Expenditure Conditionality on Health and Education Spending -- 2. Impact of IMF Expenditure Conditionality on Health and Education Spending in EMs and LIDCs -- 3. Impact of IMF Expenditure Conditionality on Wage Bill -- 4. Impact of IMF Expenditure Conditionality on Public Investment -- 5. Impact of IMF Expenditure Conditionality on Government Spending -- 6. Short-Run Impact of Direct Expenditure Conditionality (CS-ARDL) -- APPENDICES -- A. Data -- B. Frequency and Trends in the Application and Conformity to Expenditure Conditionality -- REFERENCES
In: IMF Working Paper No. 18/255
SSRN
Working paper
In: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/coo.31924000499644
At head of title: The Legislature--State of New York. ; Cover title. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.
BASE
Title varies: June-July 1940, National Defense Program: Contracts and Awards; July 12,1941, National Defense Program: Contract Award Listing ; "Compiled by Office of Government Reports"; Oct.1940-June 1941"In collaboration with National Defense Advisory Commission" ; Issued successively by: U.S.Office of Government Reports; U.S.Office of Production Management. Bureau of Research and Statistics ; Mode of access: Internet.
BASE
In: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015031500153
Cover title. ; At head of title: The Legislature - State of New York. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.
BASE
In: Public administration review: PAR, Band 48, Heft 4, S. 756
ISSN: 1540-6210
In: Public administration review: PAR, Band 48, Heft Jul/Aug 88
ISSN: 0033-3352
Public expenditure on household-based social assistance (SA) in Indonesia has increased significantly since 2005. From a low base in the early 2000s, Indonesia's aggregate national public expenditures on SA permanently increased from 2005 after the central government allocated a portion of the savings from fuel subsidy reforms to a number of SA initiatives. In 2010, national expenditures on SA are estimated at Rp 29,709 billion (US$ 3.3 billion), equivalent to 2.6 percent of total national expenditures and 0.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Indonesia's strong fiscal position leaves Indonesia well placed to further increase SA expenditures. Declining debt payments and subsidy reductions have opened up fiscal space over the past decade and supported a general increase in social sector and SA spending. With debt-to-GDP of just 25 percent in 2010, Indonesia could further increase expenditure on both items without raising debt levels. Nonetheless, current expenditures on SA are dwarfed by spending on regressive energy subsidies which in some years consume over 20 percent of total national expenditures. The increase in spending after 2005 primarily reflects greater central government investment in programs to protect poor households from fuel and food shocks as well as large health and education expenses. The central government is the dominant player in the SA sector, accounting for almost 90 percent of total expenditures. In years when the government has increased regulated fuel prices (2005-06 and 2008-09), the largest compensatory SA response has been an unconditional cash transfer program (BLT) to vulnerable households to help cushion them from the inflationary shock.
BASE