53774_not-searchable
/en/offentlig-sektor/statistikker/komminnut/aar
53774
Substantial local government deficit
statistikk
2011-02-21T10:00:00.000Z
Public sector
en
komminnut, Local government, revenue and expenditure by type, municipal accounts, municipal economy, municipal finances, net financial investmentsLocal government finances , Public sector
true

Local government, revenue and expenditure by type2010

Content

Published:

Substantial local government deficit

Preliminary figures for local government showed a deficit of NOK 24 billion in 2010. This is the fourth successive year of substantial deficit in local government.

Total revenue is estimated at almost NOK 358.5 billion; a rise of about 6 per cent compared to 2009. Tax income has grown by about 7 per cent, a growth rate which is above the last growth from 2008 to 2009. Current transfers is the second largest income factor, and the growth was about 7.5 per cent, which is substantially lower than the growth in 2009. This stems from the fact that the growth rate in 2009 was significantly affected by current transfers intended to lower the consequences of the financial crisis.

Total expenditure grew by approximately 6 per cent to NOK 363 billion in 2010. Wages and salaries, which represents more than one half of total expenditure, is estimated to NOK 194.5 billion in 2010 - a growth of slightly less than 5 per cent.

As has been the case in recent years, local government fixed capital formation is still growing at a high rate; with growth of more than 18 per cent in 2010. This growth is influenced by an administrative change, as the responsibility for a substantial distance of roads has been transferred from national authorities to county authorities. This has also influenced the consumption of fixed capital, which increased by more than 22 per cent in 2010. Other areas in which there were substantial investment costs in 2010 were in building institutions for the elderly, building sport halls, swimming halls and arenas, and the sewer system.

Local government interest payments declined in both 2009 and 2010. This reduction was despite the deficits of recent years, which have imposed debt on municipalities and counties. Low interest rates have played a role in lowering the interest payments. In 2008 the interest costs were also higher than they would normally be. The reason is that in 2008 there was a significant loss on deposits and shares, and this was consequently included in the interest costs.

Local government. Revenue and expenditure by type. Preliminary figures. 2008-2010. NOK million and per cent
  2008 2009* 2010* Change i per cent.
2008-2009*
Change i per cent.
2009*-2010*
A. Revenue  310 222  337 201  358 500 8.7 6.3
Taxes on income, wealth etc.  121 501  128 004  136 700 5.4 6.8
Taxes on goods and services 8 417 8 554 8 700 1.6 1.5
Property income 14 925 11 985 11 400 -19.7 -4.6
Administrative fees and charges 39 319 41 949 44 000 6.7 4.9
Current transfers  126 059  146 710  157 700 16.4 7.5
B. Expense  322 129  342 159  363 000 6.2 6.1
Wages and salaries  172 288  185 703  194 500 7.8 4.8
Intermediate consumption 62 610 68 063 72 100 8.7 5.9
Consumption of fixed capital 23 693 24 946 30 600 5.3 22.7
Social benefits in kind 16 429 18 886 20 300 15.0 7.6
Property expenditure, interest 15 996 10 482 9 700 -34.5 -7.4
Social benefits in cash 8 442 9 623 9 900 14.0 2.7
Subsidies 10 491 10 961 12 400 4.5 13.0
Current transfers 11 011 12 166 12 600 10.5 3.8
Capital transfers 1 170 1 329  800 13.6 -39.3
C. Change i net worth from transactions (A-B) -11 907 -4 958 -4 400    
D. Net acquisitions of non-financial assets 13 985 17 713 19 500 26.7 10.2
Gross fixed capital formation 38 844 43 377 51 300 11.7 18.4
Consumption of fixed capital (-) -23 693 -24 946 -30 600 5.3 22.7
Net aquisitions of land -1 166 -718 -1 200 -38.4 68.2
E. Total expenditure (B+D)  336 114  359 872  382 500 7.1 6.3
F. Net lending/borrowing (A-E) -25 892 -22 670 -24 000    

Data sources and uncertainty

The statistics are based on preliminary accounts for municipalities and county municipalities. Considerable uncertainty is connected with some of the figures, for instance capital expenditure, property income and property expenditure. According to experiences from previous years, the figures may be revised when final figures are available. The 2010 figures must therefore be used with caution.