Tanzi, V. and Schuknecht, L. (1997). “Reconsidering the Fiscal Role of Government: The International
Perspective,” American Economic Review, 87 (2), 164-168.
Tanzi, V. and Schuknecht, L. (2000). Public Spending in the 20th Century: A Global Perspective,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thanassoulis, E. (2001). Introduction to the Theory and Application of Data Envelopment Analysis,
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tulkens, H. (1993). “On FDH analysis: some methodological issues and applications to retail banking,
courts and urban transit,” Journal of Productivity Analysis 4, 183– 210.
Van den Eeckhaut, P., Tulkens, H., and Jamar, M.-A. (1993). “Cost-efficiency in Belgian
municipalities,” in Fried, H.; Lovell, C. and Schmidt, S. (eds.), The Measurement of Productive
Efficiency: Techniques and Applications. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Annex: Data and sources
Table A – Primary data for performance sub-indicators1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9/ 10/ 11/ 12/ 13/ 14/
Brazil 4.6 2.8 3.9 4.6 3.3 68.3 31.0 60.7 1.41 220.9 2.6 7.6 7360 71.3
Bulgaria 5.5 2.5 2.7 5.2 5.0 71. 7 14.0 26.4 0.14 139.0 0.7 14.6 6890 87.6
Chile 6.3 3.1 4.6 2.4 3.6 75.8 10.0 56.7 1.43 5.5 4.6 7.9 9190 74.5
Cyprus 78.0 5.0 2.31 3.0 4.0 3.2 21190 88.3
Czech
Republic 5.2 2.7 4.2 2.6 5.5 74.9 4.0 25.4 0.97 6.0 2.1 7.0 14720 87.1
Estonia 5.9 4.2 5.3 2.1 5.5 70. 6 11.0 37.6 1.26 13.7 4.3 10.6 10170 82.8
Greece 4.8 2.4 4.7 3.5 4.6 78.0 5 .0 32.7 3.91 5.4 3.3 10.3 17440 87.4
Hungary 5.8 2.7 4.9 2.3 5.7 71. 5 8.0 24.4 2.64 14.2 3.5 7.8 12340 87.2
Ireland 6.0 3.4 5.2 2.3 5.3 76. 6 6.0 35.9 2.53 3.1 7.9 7.8 32410 85.8
Korea 5.3 3.2 4.1 2.8 4.7 73.6 5.0 31.6 1.08 4.1 5.4 3.7 15090 90.9
Latvia 4.9 3.7 4.2 3.6 4.8 70. 4 17.0 32.4 1.66 10.4 4.7 12.9 7730 74.4
Lithuania 5.5 2.8 3.3 2.4 5.2 72.7 8.0 32.4 0.63 15.4 3.4 8.4 8470 88.6
Malta 6.1 2.9 5.3 3.0 4.9 78. 2 5.0 1.47 2.7 3.8 5.2 13160 79.2
Mauritius 4.6 2.2 4.4 3.3 4.2 72.1 17.0 3.26 6.3 4.8 7.3 9860 64.2
Mexico 5.0 2.3 3.3 5.0 3.1 73. 4 24.0 53.1 0.70 15.5 2.7 3.1 8430 59.7
Poland 4.8 2.8 3.9 3.7 4.7 73. 5 8.0 31.6 2.10 13.2 4.3 13.7 9450 90.9
Portugal 5.8 2.8 5.7 3.0 3.2 75. 8 5.0 38.5 1.53 3.3 2.6 5.7 18150 85.2
Romania 3.6 2.0 2.4 5.5 5.9 69. 9 19.0 31.1 0.46 58.5 2.1 9.3 5830 79.6
Singapor
e 6.7 5.1 5.2 1.4 6.5 78.4 3.0 42.5 1.06 1.1 5.1 3.2 22680 74.3
Slovak
Republic 5.2 2.2 3.2 1.6 5.6 73.2 8.0 19.5 2.58 8.4 4.2 15.7 11960 74.9
Slovenia 5.8 2.8 4.3 2.0 5.3 75. 6 4.0 28.4 3.61 9.7 4.1 7.3 17130 88.6
South
Africa 4.9 2.9 5.6 4.5 2.8 47.1 56.0 59.3 2.90 7.3 2.8 25.3 11290 57.2
Thailand 5.1 3.2 4.8 3.7 4.5 69. 0 24.0 41.4 0.58 3.6 3.4 3.0 6400 79.8
Turkey 4.1 2.5 3.7 5.7 4.0 69. 8 36.0 41.5 0.46 69.8 2.8 7.2 5890 51.3
Average 5.3 2.9 4.3 3.3 4.7 72. 4 13.9 37.3 1.7 26.7 3.7 8.7 12635 78.81/ Corruption index (1 to 7).
2/ Red tape (burden of regulation) index (1 to 7, good).
3/ Quality of judiciary index (1 to 7, good).
4/ Shadow economy index (1 to 9, bad). We used the following transformation 9-I, where I is the shadow economy index.
5/ Quality of math and science education index.
6/ Life expectancy at birth, years, 2001.
7/ Infant mortality rate (IMR), 2001. We used the infant survival rate, ISR=(1000-IMR)/1000.
8/ Gini coefficient, 2003 or latest year. We used the construction 100-Gini.
9/ Coefficient of variation (inverse) of average real GDP growth for 1994-2003.