Template-Type: ReDIF-Article 1.0
Author-Name: Alberto Turnes Abelenda
Author-Name: Xavier Vence Deza
Title:  Financiación Autonómica y gasto público en el período 2009-2017. ¿Están las CCAA preparadas para hacer frente a la Covid-19?
Abstract: Resumen:
Desde
el año 2010 hasta el año 2014, y como consecuencia de la crisis financiera, las
CCAA han tenido que llevar a cabo una importante contención del gasto público
que ha afectado principalmente a los Servicios Públicos Fundamentales. A partir
del año 2014 se produce una nueva fase de expansión económica; pero en la
actualidad, más de diez años después del comienzo de la crisis financiera, el
gasto público realizado por la mayoría de las CCAA sigue situándose por debajo
del nivel registrado en el año 2009. Este hecho pone de manifiesto que los
diferentes territorios siguen registrando una insuficiencia de recursos,
especialmente para hacer frente a la Covid-19. Además, las diferencias
registradas entre CCAA indican que el modelo de financiación autonómica no ha
solucionado los problemas de equidad y eficiencia que registraban desde su
entrada en vigor.  Abstract:
The process of decentralisation that
began in Spain in the 1980s was carried out in an uneven manner. Articles 151
and 143 of the Constitution marked two different rhythms in the
decentralisation of power.
Article 151 meant access to
decentralisation by the fast track and involved the transfer of common
competences, i.e. the promotion of economic development, public works, economic
regulation, culture, social services and also competences in education and
health. The Autonomous Communities (ACs) that took this route were; Andalusia,
Catalonia, the Canary Islands, the Valencian Community, Galicia, the Basque
Country and Navarre.
On the other hand, Article 143
implied a slower process of decentralisation, in which, in the first instance,
certain Communities assumed the same powers as those indicated in the previous
paragraph, with the exception of health and education. The ACs which used this
route were: Aragon, Asturias, Balearic Islands, Cantabria, Castilla La Mancha,
Castilla y León, Extremadura, La Rioja, Madrid and Murcia.
The financing of these competences
was based on transfers from the central state to the respective ACs, following
agreement on the calculation of expenditure needs.
The financing of health and
education for the Autonomous Regions which were granted access under Article
143 was carried out by INSALUD and IMSERSO, two public bodies responsible for
distributing expenditure among the different territories (De la Fuente, 2012).
The process of fiscal
decentralisation was slower and more complex. From the 1980s onwards, certain
taxes were transferred, such as property, transfers and gambling, and the
transfer of large state taxes began, with 15% of personal income tax being
transferred. 
It was in the second half of the
nineties that a considerable decentralisation of income began. The turning
point came in 1996, when 30% of personal income tax was ceded to the different
territories, which meant that it was given a certain regulatory capacity, as
well as other taxes which significantly increased the Autonomous Regions' own
fiscal resources.
Starting from spending percentages
which stood at 22% in the ACs and 38% in the Central Administration, the
situation changed completely when the autonomous financing model was introduced
in 2001. In 2005, the ACs increased their percentage of expenditure to 37%,
while the central administration decreased its share of expenditure to 22%. At
the same time, 35% of personal income tax and VAT and 40% of excise duties were
transferred.
However, this change was not as
intense on the revenue side as the State continued to manage a greater volume
of resources than the ACs. That is, the ACs, with a higher share of expenditure
than the Central Administration, managed a lower volume of tax resources.
The ACs have now become the main
providers of fundamental public services (health, education and social
services). Thus, expenditure on such services represents 60% of public
expenditure, with the ACs responsible for 38% and Social Security for 52%
(Ivie, 2017).
From 2010 and as the main response
to the crisis, the different regional governments made considerable cuts in
public spending due to the reduction in income from the financing system. In
this regard, for the period 2010-2014, non-financial expenditure by the ACs
contracted by an average of 14%. This reduction has had a significant social
impact, as the main cuts have been made in Basic Public Services. From 2014
onwards, there was a change in the economic cycle and positive growth in GDP
began to be recorded, but in the majority of the ACs the increase in resources
allocated to these items was limited, and furthermore it occurred in a very
unequal manner between the different territories.
Consequently, the resources
allocated to Fundamental Public Services are still considerably lower than the
EU average 19. Thus, according to Eurostat (2020), while expenditure on health,
education and social protection as a percentage of GDP for all public
administrations was 31.1% in the EU19 in 2018, in Spain it was 26.9%. This
would mean that, if we want to carry out a process of convergence with the
EU19, total expenditure on these three functions would have to increase by EUR
51,782.36 million. This figure was hardly different from 2009, when the
difference in expenditure was EUR 53,466.15 million.
The above data shows the gap that
exists between Spain and the EU19 in relation to public expenditure on
Fundamental Public Services. Thus, Spain has a constant deficit/insufficiency
of resources which prevents convergence with the countries which spend most on
these public services.
Therefore, the main aim of this
paper is to analyse the evolution of public expenditure on Fundamental Public
Services in the different ACs from 2009 to 2017, and to highlight the
insufficiency of resources and the disparities between the territories and how
these affect the equity and efficiency of the regional financing model.
Furthermore, in relation to the economic crisis derived from the Covid-19
situation, this analysis will allow us to know the situation of the autonomous
public expenditure level and if it can face the situation derived from the
Covid-19. 
The work carried out provides a
series of results which highlight the public spending constraints faced by the
different ACs. The main results are as follows.
1. Total expenditure by the ACs was
88% of 2009 levels in 2017. Only the Balearic Islands would record a higher
level of expenditure than that recorded in 2009.
2. Focusing on spending on health,
education and social services, only health registered a higher level of
spending than in 2009.
3. In 2017, average expenditure per
inhabitant will be 90% of that recorded in 2009. In 2009, per capita
expenditure was EUR 3,649.27, while in 2017 it was EUR 3,266.8. A difference of
EUR 446.5. Regarding to the average expenditure per inhabitant in Fundamental
Public Services, once again, only health would register a higher level than in
2009
4. When the average expenditure for
the selected period is analysed, the differences between the ACs can be seen in
greater detail. Whereas Extremadura spent an average of EUR 3,699.5, Cantabria
EUR 3,658 and La Rioja EUR 3,511, the average expenditure in Madrid was EUR
2,690.9, in Valencia EUR 2,840.79 and in Andalusia EUR 2,883.30.
5. Finally, with regard to adjusted
per capita expenditure, the results indicate that there are ACs which, starting
from higher than average funding, end up with lower than average adjusted per
capita expenditure. Finally, with regard to adjusted per capita expenditure,
the results indicate that there are ACs which, starting from a higher than
average level of financing, end up with adjusted per capita expenditure which
is lower than the average.
The data indicated above offer two
main conclusions. The first is that in 2017 all the Autonomous Regions, with
the exception of the Balearic Islands, maintained non-financial expenditure
below the level of 2009, which highlights the containment of public expenditure
and the insufficiency of resources in the different territories. The second
conclusion refers to the inequality in the resources associated with
Fundamental Public Services between the ACs. Thus, the differences between
those who spend the most and those who spend the least remain at very
significant levels.
In this way, taking into account
the level of public expenditure over the years studied and the difference in
resources between the different ACs, it is clear that the current model of
regional financing continues to show a problem of insufficient resources and
inequity. Moreover, when account is taken of the inflation recorded over the
period under review, these problems are considerably aggravated.
Finally, it is essential to point out
that the results provided involve assuming the Autonomous Regions' limited
resources to face up to the economic and social situation arising from the
Covid-19 crisis. If the sharp increase in the deficit and public debt is
followed by a new phase of public expenditure containment, the data indicate
that the Autonomous Regions' margin for adjustment is practically zero, which
could lead to the collapse of the Fundamental Public Services.
Classification-JEL: R1
Keywords: Descentralización, Composición del gasto público, Financiación, Financiación de Servicios Públicos, CCAA, Decentralisation, Public expenditure, Autonomous Communities’ Financing Systemf, Public Services, Acs
Pages: 47-73
Volume: 2
Year: 2023
File-URL: http://www.revistaestudiosregionales.com/documentos/articulos/pdf-articulo-2650.pdf
File-Format: Application/pdf
Handle: RePEc:rer:articu:v:2:y:2023:p:47-73