Regional spending

October 9th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

spending

 

This table comes from a just released Regional expenditure report by the Government.

What is interesting is that less spending by the Government occurs in Auckland than their share of the population. Wellington gets proportionally more direct Government spend, but apart from that most of the country is pretty proportional.

Tags:

11 Responses to “Regional spending”

  1. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    I don’t think you can say a 1% difference between expenditure and population is disproportionate. I do think you can say that 14% vs 11% is close but even so, it’s margin of error stuff.

    Come on, you’re supposed to be a statistician!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Brian Harmer (687 comments) says:

    I would imagine that the Australian Federal government spends more per capita in Canberra than in Sydney or Melbourne … now if that is so, why would it be? Oh yes, that’s where they have chose to locate the administration, and its not because the citizens of Canberra are especially favoured.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MarkF (102 comments) says:

    The most interesting statistic out of that is that in the expenditure approach side Wellington is 40% ahead of the national average and the next closest (geographically and expenditure) is Manawatu/Wanganui at 13%. A big jump but then we wouldn’t have expected anything different surely!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. cha (4,008 comments) says:

    $19,999 each – way to go Chester and Tari.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    For this to be truly meaningful it’d need another column showing tax revenue generated in each region.

    The Wellington is entirely inline with what you’d expect, most of the core functions of the state are based there, and this is reflected in salary and facility costs in the city.

    @ Brian Harmer “and its not because the citizens of Canberra are especially favoured.” – You don’t think having accesses to a large number of well paid public sector jobs counts as “especially favoured” ? I do. These is no reason why the ministries couldn’t relocate large numbers of jobs out to the regions. They did it in England a couple of years back.

    Auckland as a more vibrant city with a larger private sector mix in it’s economy will always rank lower in these tables, but it should go a long way to justifying why investment in Auckland’s transport infrastructure is so vital

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. alwyn (424 comments) says:

    The numbers for “expenditure” in the Wellington area will include things that have no effect on Wellington and are simply a transfer of money to things outside of Wellington.
    For example I would be pretty sure that they include all the expenses for MPs salaries and expenses, regardless of where they might actually live. There will also be things like insurance that may be paid on Government owned assets and anything else that is spent centrally.
    For many of the expenditure items the area of Wellington gets little benefit, as is shown by the difference between the “expenditure” and the “services” amounts for the Wellington area. They just reflect the fact that it is the seat of Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    >What is interesting is that less spending by the Government occurs in Auckland than their share of the population.

    Presumably this reflects economies of scale delivering government services. It must be cheaper to run a school with 2000 students rather than ten schools with 200 students each. The same must apply to hospitals, transport, and just about every other government service.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    WHAT exactly is this money being spent on?

    Where is the ‘devilish detail’?

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Here’s a thought Penny, why don’t you read the report and post a precis back here when you’re done?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Another interesting aspect to regional spending is that Cunliffe, in his role of regional development spokesman for Labour, is taking a closer at the regions and provinces and his meme has been the Govt has been neglecting the regions.

    Unlike Cunliffe I’m not sure one really could draw those conclusion from the graph above, the regions seem to be maintaining expenditure relative to their share of the population.

    Perhaps then, Cunliffe has an economic prosperity plan for the regions (to gain crucial votes), which is all well and good to say to voters, but unless Cunliffe has a plan to grow the economy to afford paying off debt and provide additional funding for the regions, under his aspirations to cuddle up to the unions and his activist supporters’ wishes and seemingly content to not grow energy exports, I wonder where this funding is going to come from?

    Certainly in the media reports there is nothing concrete as to how he wishes to achieve his regional growth plan ambitions.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/9251688/Provinces-Cunliffes-priority

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    Is there a breakdown into what is Capital and what is Operating ?

    I would expect that economies of scale would reduce the Capital expenditure per head for the main centres, but the Operating would remain fairly close.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote