This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: elf-Financed
Expenditure (LASFE). If the Scottish Parliament were to levy the tartan tax, the expenditure funded in this way would be
scored as AME.
Although there is greater transparency post-devolution about the system, largely thanks to the block rules guidance
having been published (Treasury, 1999a, 2000a), there is not transparency about the numbers. In consequence, it is not
possible to place values in each cell of Figures 4, 5 and 6. An indication of the predominance of Barnett formuladetermined DEL is that, for 1999-2000 plans, this accounted for 79% (Scotland), 87% (Wales) and 84% (Northern
In the absence of better and more relevant data, interterritorial comparisons fall back on the figures for ‘Identifiable
General Government Expenditure’ (GGE) published annually by the Treasury in a document now known as ‘Public 13 14 268 The 1998 CSR saw the introduction of a new public expenditure control system, focusing upon Total Managed Expenditure (TME), itself composed of
Departmental Expenditure Limits (DELs) and Annually Managed Expenditure. From 2001-02, government accounting has switched from a cash basis
to an accruals basis, under the project known as Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) (Treasury, 2001a).
The calculation for Northern Ireland excludes social security benefits. Commission on Fiscal Imbalance Expenditure Statistical Analyses’ (PESA).15 Taking data primarily from the 2000 issue (Treasury, 2000b), Figure 7 shows
public expenditure relatives for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, relative to England = 100 (rather than the
published indexes with UK = 100). For each of these three territories, there is a line representing Identifiable GGE (solid
line) and another representing Identifiable GGE excluding Social Security (dashed line). Although these are very
imperfect proxies for devolved expenditure (data for which are unavailable), the striking point is that the relative
(England = 100), when social security expenditure is excluded, is much higher for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not
There have been longstanding complaints about the poor quality of expenditure data for the English regions, notably a
large amount of expenditure identified to England but not to individual regions. There are better data in the 2001 issue of
PESA for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the latter of which are tabulated in Figure 8. When interpreting the relatives on
individual programmes, attention should be paid to the UK weight, indicating the percentage of total expenditure
accounted for by this programme. The entries for Totals in each column are weighted averages. These figures show
marked variations in levels and compositions among territories and regions. Certain figures should be interpreted with
great caution, as, for example, the figures for ‘Housing’ in some prosperous regions are clearly affected by the proceeds
from council house sales being netted off. Much greater expenditure disaggregation is a precondition for analytical work
on these differe...
View Full Document