... or at least on the podium.

This data was so unexpected that I need to cross-check it several times. But it seems that in terms of numbers of public servants per capita of population, Australia is a world leader.

Here are some of the numbers...

USA - 63 public servants per 1000 people.
Japan - 42 / 1000
France - 85 / 1000
Germany - 77 / 1000
Italy 68 / 1000
UK - 115 / 1000
Canada - 105 / 1000

and ...

Australia - 137 / 1000

yea us!

But we were pipped at the post by Russia at 153 / 1000.

Just some explanations and caveats. This includes public servants from all branches of government in each country. So in Australia, US etc it includes Federal, State and Local government employees. Also some statistics aren't directly compatible due to different definitions. For example Russia has large numbers employed in State Owned Enterprises which significantly inflates their numbers.

But overall, the above figures (based primarily on data from the International Labour Organisation and the IMF/ World Bank) give a reasonably fair assessment of the apparent bloating within the various Australian Governments.

And its getting worse. Federal employees have risen by somewhere between 25 and 35% depending on how you do the numbers and the costs of those employees by more than that.

If something can't go on forever, it won't.

Interesting figures, mhaze.

Do you have a breakdown of what's included in the 137 per 1000? For example, does that count teachers, nurses, police, and local government staff, or only administrative civil servants?

Cross-country comparisons can swing quite a bit depending on whether public healthcare and education staff are included. Without that breakdown it's hard to know whether we're looking at service delivery structure or administrative expansion.

If you've got the functional split, that would make the comparison much clearer.

The ILO definition includes...."Non-market non-profit institutions controlled by government (e.g., many public schools or hospitals if non-market). So public schools and therefore teachers but not private. Public hospitals and their staff but not private.

The issue is, are these applied across all countries and sets of numbers? That appears to be the case. Even if there are errors at the margins, that doesn't change the overall trend of the numbers and could potentially make them worse for Australia's government structures.

Thanks for clarifying the ILO definition, mhaze.

If public schools and hospitals are included, that makes sense of why the numbers are relatively high across most developed countries. It's effectively counting public service delivery, not just administrative civil servants.

The comparability question is still the key one though. Different countries deliver health, education and other services through very different mixes of public, private and quasi-public institutions. Even if the ILO definition is consistent, the underlying structures aren't necessarily comparable.

For example, if one country delivers most healthcare publicly while another relies more heavily on private providers, the first will show higher public employment even if the overall scale of government activity is similar.

So the interesting question isn't just the headline number, but how much of it reflects service delivery versus administrative overhead.

We must differentiate between Public Servants & bureaucrats & it's the latter of which there's an epidemic that requires reducing the numbers via natural attrition ! Also, the salaries are beyond any moral justification in comparison to the actual importance or requirement of those positions. Many aren't actually up to the job when we look back at mismanagement & budget blow-outs etc. Those who should & could weed out the under performers but don't should be charged with dereliction of duties & either demoted or be straight-out dismissed without millions in compensation etc.
Merit must be the nr 1 prerequisite for high end positions in the Public Service bureaucracy ! Labor & LNP have proven not to take merit serious so, ON could possibly achieve some draining of that swamp if voters stop being so stupidly Party orientated !

"why the numbers are relatively high across most developed countries"

I only looked at G20 countries. There's not much point comparing us to Botswana.

As to the nurses, teachers, they make up a a smaller percentage of the total (around 15%) so, as I said, allowing for differences in the definitions doesn't change the actual rankings.

From where I sit, it shows a nation that is has a bloated public sector and not much inclination to fix (indeed it has perverse incentives to worsen it) it even though it is dragging the country down.