Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Hereļæ½s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Hey big spenders, upsizing our government only shrinks its value

By Tony Makin - posted Friday, 20 July 2018

The size of government in Australia is 37 per cent of national income, taking into account all spending at federal, state and local government levels. While below that of many European countries, Australia's government spending remains well above that of its Asian trading partners.

At the beginning of the 20th century, public spending in industrialised countries was, believe it or not, on average only about 10 per cent of national income. It subsequently grew quickly because of the two world wars and the Depression. After ratcheting up during each of these major crises, government's share of national income failed to return to earlier, lower levels.

Historically, public spending accelerated fastest in Western economies in the 1960s and 70s with unprecedented expansion of the welfare state and spending on education, health and age pensions. Meanwhile, from the 70s numerous Asian economies - notably Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea - reached advanced economy income levels yet, interestingly, the size of their government sectors remained significantly below those of Western economies.


International Monetary Fund data shows there is now major variation in the size of government among advanced and emerging economies. Contrast, for instance, government size in France at about 57 per cent of national income at the top of the advanced economy league, with China's 32 per cent, and Singapore's 19 per cent.

Why government grows, and how its size affects the broader economy, are important questions that have attracted surprisingly ­little attention as topics for economic research. What, for instance, does economics suggest is the optimal level of public spending as a share of national income?

To answer this, it is necessary to understand that certain forms of government spending are essential for economic growth up to some point, beyond which, in various other forms, such as industry assistance, it detracts from growth.

If government spending is too low, for instance on the legal system that ensures property rights and the rule of law, or on basic ­education and healthcare, essential infrastructure, and income support for the deserving poor, economic growth is less than it could be. This is obviously the case in many developing economies.

Yet, beyond a certain level of public spending, the size of government adversely affects economic growth because of increased inefficiencies and disincentives arising from the higher income taxes needed to pay for it. Higher public spending also crowds out private investment via higher interest rates, and net exports via an overvalued ­exchange rate.

And if higher public spending is debt financed, greater economic uncertainty arising from increasing public debt worsens business and household confidence, thereby further retarding private investment and future economic growth.


In other words, when government expenditure exceeds a certain percentage of GDP, dim­in­ish­ing macro-economic returns set in. This suggests a trade-off between government size and economic growth beyond some optimal level.

In a paper,The Optimal Size of Government in Australia, co-authored with Julian Pearce and Shyama Ratnasiri and presented at the Annual Conference of Economists in Canberra last week, we estimate what level of government spending would deliver the highest growth rate for the economy based on data from recent decades. Our preliminary estimates show it is 31 per cent, close to the average of our Asian trading partners, yet well below the present 37 per cent share in Australia.

Since increased spending on education, health, pensions and social welfare has contributed most to the expansion of public spending in advanced economies in the postwar era, it is often assumed that even higher shares of government would further increase economic wellbeing.

Yet a broad socio-economic indicator, the Human Development Index published by the UN Development Program, suggests the opposite for advanced economies.

The HDI was devised to assess economic wellbeing in a wider sense than national income per capita. To measure the standard of living, it combines a health dimension based on life expectancy, an education dimension based on years of schooling, and national income per head. Several countries ranked in the top 30 on this broad measure, notably Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Ireland, all with significantly lower government spending than Australia, outperform many European countries with higher government spending shares, notably France, Belgium, Finland, Austria, Slovenia, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic and Greece.

Australia enjoys a high HDI ranking, tied at No 2 with Switzerland. Meanwhile, in the World Economic Forum's latest international competitiveness rankings, a measure of overall economic efficiency, quite distinct from the HDI, Switzerland is No 1 while Australia languishes at No 21, just ahead of France. This suggests considerable scope for reducing the size of Australia's government to improve competitiveness and hence future economic growth, without necessarily harming the standard of living.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

This article was first published in The Australian.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Tony Makin is professor of economics at the Gold Coast campus of Griffith University and author of Global Imbalances, Exchange Rates and Stabilization Policy recently published by Palgrave Macmillan. He is also an the academic advisory board of the Australian Institute for Progress.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Tony Makin

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy