Search

The involvement of the state in the market economy through the redistribution of welfare is necessary for moral and economic reasons. The need for a system of social protection is developed in all advanced states to reduce the 'social risks' of the living standards of citizens. Our research aimed to identify the particularities of the governmental social protection policies in the EU states to be able to compare and analyze them correlatively. The main research tools are the cluster method, followed by the visual assessment of cluster tendency (VAT) algorithm for research results validation, and the Hopkins statistic for checking the spatial randomness of the data. The main research variables are public expenditures on social protection and the human development index for the period 2018-2019. The data were collected from Eurostat and Statista. The research results show that the European states are grouped into four clusters. Based on the research analysis results, the European social policies should be better designed and applied with an increased level of public expenditures to raise the population’s standard of living and reduce the gaps among European citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the literature on economic growth, there is a non-linear relationship between government size and economic growth, which is usually similar to an inverted U-shaped curve and is used to determine the optimum share of government expenditure. The present study aims to investigate the non-linear relationship among 14 developed European countries during 1995–2014. Final consumption expenditure to gross domestic product (FCE), current expenditure other than final consumption to gross domestic product (OCE), and government gross fixed capital formation to gross domestic product (GFCF) were considered for measuring government size. The results indicate an asymmetric effect of FCE and GFCF on economic growth when they are above and below the optimal level. The optimum values of FEC and GFCF were estimated to be 16.63 and 2.31%, respectively. However, it is noted that OCE always has a negative effect on economic growth. In terms of policy prescriptions, governments of developed countries should be aware that misallocation of public expenditure can occur given it may likely become unproductive after passing an optimal size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to identify macroeconomic indicators that can be used as predictors of waste management on the European continent. The study was conducted taking in account the intensification of urbanizations, the increase of standard of leaving that fuels to consumerism phenomenon, and imposed challenges for waste management. The research focuses on the interval from 2010 to 2020 for 37 European countries grouped according to EU15/EU28/non-EU and EU/non-EU members. As macroeconomic indicators, human development index (HDI), GDP/capita. GNI/capita, general government expenditure with environment protection, people at risk of poverty or social exclusion, population by educational attainment level, sex, and age (%)-less than primary, primary and lower secondary education (levels 0-2) were used. A multilinear regression model with collinearity diagnosis was applied to find out the direction and intensity of the contribution of independent variables and to hierarchy the predictors of waste management.. For multiple comparison between and inside of each grouping of countries, statistical inference methods were used: one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test multiple comparisons and independent samples Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's post hoc test. The main conclusions of the study are that EU15 countries have the highest average values for most indicators of waste management, comparative with EU28 and with non-EU countries, followed by a group of EU28 countries. For indicators of recycling rate of packaging waste by type of packaging-metallic and recycling rate of e-waste, the non-EU countries have the highest values of mean compared with the EU15 and EU28 groups of countries. This can be explained by the high level of development of the some non-euro area countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein) that have intense concerns about waste recycling and have the necessary financial strength to carry out complex environmental protection programs., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Summary: Using the case of Russia’s regions, this paper extends the literature on public sector efficiency in three directions: an attempt to better understand differences in public sector efficiency through the study of subnational governments in one country; the first examination of public sector efficiency of subnational governments in emerging markets; and the first study of public sector efficiency in Russia. Three types of scores of public sector performance and efficiency indicate substantial differences across regions. An econometric examination suggests that they are largely explained by per capita income, the share of federal transfers in subnational government revenue, quality of governance and democratic control, and the level of spending. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]