PCP
Identify four roles before calculating
The owner, authority defining the mandate, provider and funder may differ. A publicly owned business can charge users; another operator can deliver a publicly commissioned service. Public or private labels do not explain financing.
The PCP first asks for the task and population: access, territory and quality. A cost-recovery percentage alone cannot establish adequate provision. Finance should answer an explicit need rather than merely preserve an organisation.
Charges connect use and payment
A charge can contribute to costs and organise use. The same price nevertheless represents different effort across incomes and may exclude the intended users. Levels, concessions, effects and the connection with taxation need joint examination.
The PCP supports essential access and usable reductions. Complex applications can exclude eligible households; uncoordinated exceptions can create opacity and administration. Simplicity and distributive fairness must be considered together.
What shifting the payer changes
Imagine a fictional service costing one million francs annually, funded by 200,000 in charges and 800,000 in taxes. Raising charge revenue to 400,000 reduces tax funding to 600,000 only if costs and attendance remain unchanged. These figures are arithmetic illustrations, not an institution’s budget or behavioural forecast.
Higher charges may change use or require social measures. Lower demand does not immediately remove premises, opening hours or continuity staffing. A changed payer is not automatically greater productivity. It may transfer costs to households who then give up the service.
Rail needs separate funding objects
For regional passenger transport, Confederation and cantons commission provision. Operators submit planned line costs and fare revenue; commissioners compensate planned uncovered costs under the applicable framework. This is not indiscriminate reimbursement of every subsequent commercial loss.
Infrastructure operation and preservation use other instruments, including performance agreements financed through the railway infrastructure fund. Mixing them can double-count needs or imply maintenance already finances the full passenger offer. The PCP wants each decision linked to commissioned journeys, preserved assets or expanded capacity.
Earmarked funds are not unlimited
A fund may make programmes predictable and connect revenue to a mandate. Receipts, obligations and spending choices remain finite. Not every desired project can be funded immediately; priorities and rules must remain visible.
The PCP supports multi-year continuity with a service plan. Investment without operating and maintenance resources creates an asset whose use still needs financing. Reserved money is not yet an available service.
Borrowing does not remove the burden
Debt changes the timing of resources and repayment, not the need for labour, materials and maintenance. Lasting usefulness, risk and affordable obligations need assessment. Long asset life justifies a different discussion from spending without later benefits, but not an automatic borrowing entitlement.
The federal debt brake targets structural balance with cyclical correction; it does not prohibit every annual deficit. Cantonal regimes may differ. The PCP supports necessary investment and debate about restrictive rules, separating its political proposal from existing authorisations.
Dividends have public opportunity costs
Public business income can support its owner’s budget. It comes from activity and must be assessed alongside charges, costs and investment. Larger distributions reduce retained resources unless matched by improvement or other funding.
The PCP wants service, renewal and financial return discussed together. Accounting profit, cash and legal distribution capacity differ. Exceptional income financing recurring tasks needs a plan for later years. A one-off receipt cannot secure permanent continuity alone.
A distribution is therefore not an isolated financial target. When more money goes to the owner, the assessment must show how operating obligations will still be met. A higher user charge, deferred replacement and a genuine organisational improvement have different consequences. Public debate needs to identify which route generates the additional return, so that a benefit to the owner’s budget can be assessed together with the effect on the people using the service.
Expose transfers and reporting boundaries
A federal grant becomes cantonal or institutional income and then local provision. Adding all levels without correcting transfers may inflate totals. Looking only at the federal budget may conceal municipal burdens.
The FFA distinguishes the federal account from consolidated accounts including businesses and social insurance. Their results are not directly comparable. The PCP wants boundaries identified: one budget, a group or all affected households and authorities.
Subsidies need a verifiable collective purpose
The financed service, legal basis and commitments must be known. Scrutiny concerns use and results, not invoices alone. Unrealistic conditions obstruct delivery; vague conditions obstruct accountability.
The PCP supports suitable commitments on access, quality, training and work within the relevant instrument. Unfunded duties can burden staff or displace other services. Overcompensation deprives other needs. Cost scrutiny must work in both directions without accepting every request or calling all expenditure waste.
Return to the service actually delivered
Cost needs volume, quality and continuity. Cheaper administration may mean simplification or unpaid paperwork now done by families. Closure may save a provider while imposing longer journeys. These effects belong in the social assessment.
The PCP wants understandable finance, decisions at the competent level and scrutiny of execution. Which needs are met, who carries the burden and what capacity remains tomorrow? Public finance should make that answer sustainable.
Social insurance uses other channels
Contributions and mandatory premiums differ from a charge when using a service. Risks are shared under the relevant scheme. FOPH describes basic health insurance financed through premiums, patient contributions and publicly financed premium reductions. Premiums are not income-related, making compensation important.
Public finance does not turn the entire system into one public enterprise. Insurers, providers, insured people and authorities remain distinct. The PCP wants all household payment channels examined. Lower premiums can coexist with high other costs; greater public spending can directly reduce private burdens.