31.01.2018 Views

Social Impact Investing

Social Impact Investing

Social Impact Investing

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

SOCIAL IMPACT INVESTMENT: BUILDING THE EVIDENCE BASE<br />

pre-crisis only to pick-up again with increasing demand for low-income cash benefits following 2009. In<br />

contrast, service spending has been steadily increasing.<br />

5.35 Not all countries follow the OECD trend however. Australia, Canada and Germany (the latter<br />

being a traditionally high cash spender) have all seen rates of cash spending fall over the period, whereas<br />

Italy and Japan have seen marked increases in cash spending. In regards to services, all countries with the<br />

exception of France and Germany have seen increases in expenditure of at least 1-2% of GDP or more.<br />

Service spending has increased by close to one-third in Australia and the United States, and almost doubled<br />

in total in Japan.<br />

5.36 Although there is not much difference in service expenditure across the countries, three broad<br />

expenditure groupings are clearly shown here. The European countries of France, Germany and Italy are<br />

high spending countries, favouring cash expenditures. The Anglophones are lower-spenders but are more<br />

balanced by type, to the point where in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, expenditure<br />

levels are now favouring services. Finally, Japan is reporting stable upward trends across both spending<br />

types.<br />

Figure 5.7 Expenditure trends show services are taking up more of the social protection budget, in some case<br />

exceeding cash spending<br />

Note: Data report aggregate public social protection spending by type and do not include private social expenditure or education<br />

expenditure (public or private), but do include housing and health spending. Data for 2011 are provisional. Service spending reflects<br />

running costs of public services, cash spending reflects the value of cash transfers without administrative costs. OECD average is for<br />

34 countries.<br />

Source: OECD <strong>Social</strong> Expenditure Database, 2014a.<br />

5.37 A limitation with Figure 5.7 is that it does not break down the social expenditure by sector, which<br />

is an important task for the SII discussion because of the different sector-specific challenges to this type of<br />

social entrepreneurship. For instance, one driver of the shift to greater service delivery overall is likely to<br />

be demographic change. In the area of social protection there are generally high rates of service<br />

intervention for the preschool years and end of life care, compared to higher rates of cash intervention<br />

© OECD 2015 69

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!