commission on fiscal imbalance 合集

These figures are based on the number of employees in

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 00 Zo u g 150 118 Bale -Vi lle 58 57 Zu r i c h 30 Ge n e v e 24 Ni d w ald 20 Bale -Cam p ag n e 6 Sc h af f o u se Ar g o v ie 0 Sc h w y z -4 Vau d -5 -1 3 Tu r g o v i e So le u r e -1 3 Sai n t -Gall -1 8 -2 2 Glar i s Te ssi n -2 2 -2 5 Gr i so n s -2 8 Lu c e r n e -3 3 Ur i Be r n e -3 4 -4 0 A p p e n z e ll RI -4 1 A p p e n z e ll RE -4 2 Ne u c h at e l -4 8 Fr i b o u r g -6 0 Ob w ald Ju r a Valai s -6 9 -7 0 Financial capacity reflects, by and large, a canton’s tax revenues. The tax revenues of Jura canton are less than half those of Zug canton. While these differences are somewhat mitigated by the cost of living, which is lower in underprivileged regions, they are considerable. Equalization is intended to remedy this situation (see also Dafflon 2001a, 2001b). One-third of direct federal tax, i.e. income tax levied by the Confederation, is redistributed among the cantons according to their financial capacity. However, federal government investment and jobs tend to overwhelm the effect of equalization by favouring the economically strong cantons (Grosclaude and Schwab 1991). The same may be said of conditional transfers, which are common in Switzerland and which, by subsidizing expenditures, essentially favour those cantons that are able to allocate substantial own-source revenues. For this reason, equalization is under review, primarily with a view to eliminating the subsidization of expenses to achieve genuine equalization of revenues (see also Bullinger 2001). Moreover, there are significant structural (and by extension, political) disparities between the cantons: the share of the primary sector ranges from 16% (Geneva) to 48% (Glarus) and the share of services between 46% (Glarus, Appenzell Inner-Rhodes) and 75% (Geneva).4 While an urban centre dominates a number of cantons (Geneva, Basel-City and Zurich), others are mainly rural (Appenzell and Grisons). These structural differences also reflect the historic 3 4 For more details on the calculation of this index, see Dafflon (2001a, 2001b). These figures are based on the number of employees in the production and service sectors and are drawn from the 1991 federal business census. 103 Commission on Fiscal Imbalance development of the cantons and are expressed through politics and political parties. Indeed, each canton is a full-fledged mini political system with its own political and partisan elite. Numerous political parties are organized solely at the cantonal level. The cantonal and communal sections of national political parties have their own history and pursue their own agendas. However, compared with the Canadian political system, the Swiss partisan system is more homogeneous. The four governmental parties mentioned earlier are established in all of the cantons and contribute to national cohesiveness. Important differences are also apparent from an administrative viewpoint. Administrative structures vary even more strikingly than political institutions (Germann 1986: 356). Those of the big cantons are characterized by a high degree of professionalization and differenciation (Urio 1986). The small rural cantons...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online