This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Canton with the highest NIC was Zurich, with a total 67 114 millions SFr., that is 21 per cent of the national NIC
for 17 per cent of the population. The variation in per capita NIC is rather large: from 68 320 SFr. in Zoug to 31 012 SFr. in
Jura, that is a ratio of 2.2 between the two Cantons with the highest and the lowest per capita NIC (or a range from 154
points to 70 points, for an average 100 points = 44 500 SFr. per capita). There are also:
♦ Marked differences in the growth of per capita NIC between 1980 and 1997 (in real values): in 13 of the 26 Cantons, the
rate of growth has been higher than the average 15 per cent (an average 0.9 per cent annual for the 17-years period), with
a maximum at 36 per cent and a minimun at 1 per cent (Table 1, column 8). ♦ Graph 1 also presents the comparative position of the Cantons in comparing their NIC per capita for 1997 in nominal values
(national average: 44'500 Sfr.) and the growth of per capita NIC between 1980 and 1997 in real value (Table 1, columns 7 5
6 66 Available by the author.
Tables are given at the end of the text. Commission on Fiscal Imbalance and 8). The graph shows that, despite some thirty years of national fiscal equalisation policy and as many years of regional
development policies, the eight richest Cantons (top right hand box) are also ahead in term of growth. The canton of
Geneva is the only exception, being a canton with higher-than-average NIC per capita, but a lower-than-average rate of
growth (down right hand box).
♦ On the opposite side, eleven Cantons have remained in a bad position (down left hand box) with at the same time a NIC
per capita and a rate of growth below national average. Only five Cantons (Appenzell Rh. Int., Uri, Lucerne, Fribourg,
Tessin and Vaud) registered a slight improvement, with still lower-than-average NIC per capita but higher-than-average
rates of growth. ♦ From this performance, one cannot say that both equalisation and regional development policies have been very
successful. Though it must also be remembered that the federal equalisation policy has not a total "gap-filling" objective in
setting revenue sharing formulas or equalising grants (see section 6 below). ♦ The indices of fiscal burden in the cantons and communes: from 57 points in Zoug to 132 in Jura, for an average 100 points
(Table 9). ♦ The financial capacities of the Cantons, represented in the official indicators (Table 10) vary from 30 point in Jura to 206
point in Zoug, for an average of 100. 3.2. Size and growth of the public sector
Differences in the public expenditures of the Cantons and the size of the cantonal public sector expressed in proportion
of NIC are important: it runs from 11 per cent in Schwyz and Zoug to 28 per cent in Bâle-Ville and 29 in Geneva and to a
record 35 per cent in the canton of Jura (Table 1 column 12). Yet, this comparison must be interpreted with caution.
♦ Another image is given if one considers per capita public expenditures in the Cantons (Table 1 column 13). For example, in
View Full Document