05702oam 22012614 450 991080728190332120240402045412.01-4755-7597-11-4755-2349-1(CKB)2670000000278808(EBL)1606844(SSID)ssj0000939870(PQKBManifestationID)11600600(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000939870(PQKBWorkID)10948415(PQKB)10833007(Au-PeEL)EBL1606844(CaPaEBR)ebr10627029(OCoLC)870245017(IMF)WPIEE2012182(IMF)WPIEA2012182(MiAaPQ)EBC1606844(EXLCZ)99267000000027880820020129d2012 uf 0engur|n|---|||||txtccrQuality of Government and Living Standards : Adjusting for the Efficiency of Public Spending /Francesco Grigoli, Eduardo Ley1st ed.Washington, D.C. :International Monetary Fund,2012.1 online resource (22 p.)IMF Working PapersDescription based upon print version of record.1-4755-1430-1 1-4755-0530-2 Includes bibliographical references.Cover; Abstract; Contents; I. Introduction; II. Measuring Living Standards; III. Corrected GDP; Tables; 1. GDP Losses Associated with Wasted Public Resources; Figures; 1. GDP Loss Due to Health and Education Waste vs. Per Capita GDP; 2. GDP Loss Due to Health Waste vs. Per Capita GDP; 3. Technical Efficiency Scores, per Capita GDP, and Total Loss; 4. Technical Efficiency Scores, WGI's Government Effectiveness, GDP Loss Due to Health Waste, and Per Capita GDP; IV. Concluding Remarks; ReferencesIt is generally acknowledged that the government’s output is difficult to define and its value is hard to measure. The practical solution, adopted by national accounts systems, is to equate output to input costs. However, several studies estimate significant inefficiencies in government activities (i.e., same output could be achieved with less inputs), implying that inputs are not a good approximation for outputs. If taken seriously, the next logical step is to purge from GDP the fraction of government inputs that is wasted. As differences in the quality of the public sector have a direct impact on citizens’ effective consumption of public and private goods and services, we must take them into account when computing a measure of living standards. We illustrate such a correction computing corrected per capita GDPs on the basis of two studies that estimate efficiency scores for several dimensions of government activities. We show that the correction could be significant, and rankings of living standards could be re-ordered as a result.IMF Working Papers; Working Paper ;No. 2012/182Cost and standard of livingEconomic developmentMacroeconomicsimfPublic FinanceimfMeasurement and Data on National Income and Product Accounts and WealthimfEnvironmental AccountsimfPublicly Provided Goods: GeneralimfPublic AdministrationimfPublic Sector Accounting and AuditsimfSocial Security and Public PensionsimfHealth: GeneralimfPublic EnterprisesimfPublic-Private EnterprisesimfEducation: GeneralimfGeneral Aggregative Models: GeneralimfNational Government Expenditures and HealthimfHealth economicsimfCivil service & public sectorimfEducationimfPublic finance & taxationimfHealthimfPublic sectorimfNational accountsimfHealth care spendingimfEconomic sectorsimfExpenditureimfFinance, PublicimfNational incomeimfExpenditures, PublicimfCyprusimfCost and standard of living.Economic development.MacroeconomicsPublic FinanceMeasurement and Data on National Income and Product Accounts and WealthEnvironmental AccountsPublicly Provided Goods: GeneralPublic AdministrationPublic Sector Accounting and AuditsSocial Security and Public PensionsHealth: GeneralPublic EnterprisesPublic-Private EnterprisesEducation: GeneralGeneral Aggregative Models: GeneralNational Government Expenditures and HealthHealth economicsCivil service & public sectorEducationPublic finance & taxationHealthPublic sectorNational accountsHealth care spendingEconomic sectorsExpenditureFinance, PublicNational incomeExpenditures, Public332.1/52Grigoli Francesco1127643Ley Eduardo485587DcWaIMFBOOK9910807281903321Quality of Government and Living Standards4092734UNINA