Suchergebnisse

Summary This indicator describes the income generated from the provision of Public Health services by every Local Authority in England since 2013, when it was introduced. Public Health services income is calculated from any sales, fees and charges, as well as other types of income that are associated with delivering such services. Technical description The indicator was compiled from annual revenue outturn estimates of Local Authority (LA) revenue expenditure and financing. The Public Health services income is calculated from the sum of a) sales, fees and charges and b) other types of income generated by these services, and thus does not include central government funding, capital gains or council tax. Income values are expressed in thousands (£) and presented on the basis of financial years, i.e. from April 1st to March 31st. Since some services are provided in Upper Tier and others in Lower Tier LAs, individual income figures from Upper Tier LAs were distributed to Lower Tier LAs based on annual population ratios (indicator FIN_07_40L), and Lower Tier LA income was distributed to Upper Tier LAs by aggregating (indicator FIN_07_40U). Income values from historic LA geography have been referenced to the 2018 LA geography. This includes changes in name/codes, merges, or splits of old LAs to new LAs based on population ratios for that year. The services income generated is expressed as the total amount as well as per capita, for direct comparisons. However, annual figures were not adjusted for inflation.

1. Purpose of the study: This study is intended to examine in depth the public finance situation in Palestine including the West Band and Gaza strip, in order to suggest measures for economic development. To accomplish this purpose, all laws, by-laws, policies and procedures of public finance issues have been investigated and analyzed, structured interviews were conducted with relevant public employees and budget and financial staff, relevant questionnaires were used to collect the needed data wherever it was needed, fiscal data for central and local authorities were gathered to cover all periods of the study, and finally an intensive review of the related literature was considered. 2. Public finance may be defined in a general term "as being concerned with the manner in which public services are provided1". However, this definition is not clear in determining the activities of public finance. This is because there are various criteria that may be used to confine the framework of public finance which lead to different definitions such as; *The source criterion, which means goods and services provided through government budget are public services. *The goods criterion, which means that all non-marketable goods and services are considered as public services such as defense and justice. *The consumption criterion, which means that all collective consumption goods and services are considered as public services. *The price criterion, which means that free or subsidized goods and services are considered public services2. However, the above criteria may be considered together in stating public goods and services. 3. Framework of the study: For the purpose of this study a broad definition of public finance based upon the above mentioned criteria, may be considered as follows "goods and services which are provided by government and quasi budget, non-marketable goods and Public Finance in Palestine Nidal Rashid Sabri 5 services, collectively consumed goods and services, free and subsidized goods and services are considered public goods and services". Accordingly, this paper included authorities which play a role in one way or another in providing public services in Palestine beside the public services offered by Israeli military government as an occupying authority. This will cover various issues of public finance such as legal, administrative and fiscal aspects, in order to evaluate to what extend the present situation fulfill the functions of public finance. The functions of public finance may be classified as follows3: * allocation function (price mechanism) * Stabilization function (economic policy) * Distribution function (social policy) However, the public finance in this study should consider both public services as well as the ways of financing such services and other collected revenues by the government. 4. Explanatory notes: Various explanatory notes should be indicated here as included in this study; a- The term Occupied Palestinian Territories (Palestine) means both Palestine. b- A fiscal year such as 1991 means a calendar year of 1991 and/or a year from 1-4- 1991 to 31-3-1992 and-or 1-7/1991 to 30-6-1992 as UNRWA Budget. c.- All financial data in this study are expressed in US $ in current prices to facilitate comparison and analysis using the exchange rates as stated in a schedule presented in the appendix. d.- The budget financial data for local authorities and UNRWA are the actual data, while the government data are the budgeted data which are very close to the actual and usually implemented as stated.

Britain has made the same mistake twice, first in education, and then in health. In both cases the laudable aim was to give everyone access to a valuable service. In 1870 it was the Elementary Education Act, commonly known as Forster's Education Act, which set the framework for schooling of all children between the ages of 5 and 12 in England and Wales.In 1948 it was the National Health Service Act. Free healthcare at the point of use comes from the core principles at the founding of the National Health Service. The 1942 Beveridge cross-party report established the principles of the NHS which was implemented by the Labour government in 1948.In both cases the problem was perceived as one in which a lack of means deprived the poorer part of the population from access to what were deemed to be essential services: education and health. In both cases the decision was taken that these services were to be produced and run by the state.The result has been that state provision has dominated both health and education. The NHS, admirable in many respects, has grown too big to manage. State education has been producer dominated, with parents allocated school places, some of which are clearly delivering a less than adequate preparation for life's needs or for further education or training.Choice and completion, the two factors that lead the private sector to improve its output in terms of both quality and efficiency, have been largely absent from state provision. In education, this lack has been redressed to some extent by the spread of academies and free schools that give schools more independence from local authorities and enable them to experiment, but the remaining state schools offer parents little choice.A more viable model to achieve free healthcare and schooling would be to combine private or independent provision with state finance. In this model, people would choose between schools or different healthcare providers, and in doing so, direct state funding to the providers they have chosen. The schools would receive their funding, weighted by age group, according to the number of students that parents chose to enroll there. Doctors and hospitals would receive their funding based on the number of procedures they carried out, with patients choosing between them, as happens in Australia, where large numbers of UK-trained doctors are choosing to live and work.In this way, the choice and competition so little found in state provision, would be incorporated while maintaining the important principle that the services would continue to be free at the point of use.In retrospect, this should have been done when state education and state health were first introduced. It was not, and because of that, there have been major problems with both services. A change to make it that the money should follow the parent or patient could vastly improve both services. It could correct the mistakes that made both of them under-perform.