Hidden Subsidies

Many governments use price subsidisation (total costs less total revenues from user charges) to meet social protection objectives in lieu of, or in addition to, direct income transfers. Such subsidies may be perceived as influencing behaviour to further other socially desirable policies. For example, the price response induced by lowering the price of schooling will both lower the cost of living for the beneficiaries and also increase the investment in education more than a similar income transfer would achieve. The incidences of benefits from a general price subsidy are proportional to purchases and can be deduced from the pattern of expenditures. Some goods are inappropriate vehicles for redistribution since subsidies on them will not only accrue mainly to the rich they will actually increase inequality in welfare. It is therefore important to ensure that commodities chosen for price subsidisation are largely consumed by the lower income groups. Also, detailed data on such commodities should be made public to make the extent of subsidy easily tractable. In the case of Pakistan, the problem of lack of transparency of federal and provincial budgets is vividly demonstrated by the inability of such budgets to readily highlight the subsidy on the various economic and social services, which are essentially in the nature of ‘private’ goods, provided by such governments. This is not only a reflection of the problem of the nature of budgeting practices whereby, first, revenues and expenditures on different heads are shown separately and no account is made either of depreciation of assets or the costs of capital used to finance the acquisition of assets which yield a stream of services. Second, to the extent that the subsidies largely benefit the upper income groups, political compulsions dictate that such subsidies largely remain hidden.