WRITTEN QUESTION No. 330/98 by Ulf HOLM to the Commission. Public sector in Sweden
Date: 1998-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, HOLM
Subjects: Sweden, budget policy, economic consequence, economic disparity, fiscal policy, public economy, public sector, tax system

9. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 310/51

(98/C 310/63)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0330/98

by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission

(10 February 1998)

Subject: Public sector in Sweden

In connection with the public sector cutbacks in Sweden in recent years, it has been argued from several quarters
that the public sector in Sweden is too big compared with other Member States. A large public sector forces up
taxes which in turn is considered to put the country(cid:146)s industry at a disadvantage. However, the Swedish minister
responsible for taxation, Thomas O¤ stros, has claimed that the problem has more to do with other Member States(cid:146)
low levels of tax which create unfair competition. The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is 50.2% in Sweden,
whereas, in France, it is 44.5%.

Does the Commission consider that the large public sector in Sweden is in any respect a cause for concern for the
EU(cid:146)s internal market?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Member  States  have  been  faced  in  the  last  three  decades  with  a  substantial  increase  in  their  government
expenditure as share of the gross domestic product (GDP) as well as in their tax burden (i.e. the sum of indirect
taxes,  direct  taxes  and  social  contributions  in  %  of  GDP).  The  size  of  the  tax  burden  varies  among  Member
States. In this respect, Sweden is in the group with the highest tax burden together with Denmark (53%-54% of
GDP in 1996). Other Member States can roughly be divided into two groups, a middle group (tax burden of
42%-48%  of  GDP  in  1996)  consisting  of  Belgium,  Germany,  France,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,
Austria and Finland, and a group having a lower tax burden (33%-36% of GDP in 1996) with Greece, Spain,
Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

The priority of budgetary policy within the Community in the 1990s has been to improve the public finance
situation in Member States and to make it sustainable in the medium term. The Commission, supported by all
Member  States,  has  outlined,  in  particular  in  the  broad  economic  guidelines,  a  strategy  for  achieving  this
objective. Firstly, prominence should be given to restraining expenditure as opposed to further increases in the
tax burden. Secondly, action to reduce expenditure should be accompanied, to the extent possible and without
threatening the necessary reduction in budget deficits, by a shift in government spending priorities towards more
productive  activities.  Thirdly,  the  desired  reduction  in  the  tax  burden  in  most  Member  States,  especially  on
labour,  should  be  carried  out  so  that  tight  expenditure  control  makes  tax  reductions  consistent  with  the
achievement and maintenance of sound budget balances.

The Commission also believes that, given the inter-relationship between taxation policy on the one hand and the
single market, economic and monetary union (EMU) and the fight against unemployment on the other, Member
States stand to gain from increased co-operation in tax measures. Harmful competition between tax regimes of
the different Member States should thus be avoided.

(98/C 310/64)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0350/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(17 February 1998)

Subject: Environmental taxes

The Commission has issued a communication entitled (cid:145)Environmental Taxes and Charges in the Single Market(cid:146)
(COM(97)0009).

Once the Commission has completed its assessment of the economic and environmental impact, will it draw up
an additional communication clearly spelling out the exact criteria for establishing such taxes?