Dear Mohamed

No !

Public service is a set of activities and services related to state administration through its agents and representatives , but also exercised by other entities , even individuals, aiming to promote well -being to the population .

Public services tend to be regarded as essential to modern life that their universal provisions need to be guaranteed for moral reasons , and some are even associated with basic human rights such as universal access to water.

The interest of the community to be able to allow the interruption of essential public service - constitutionally guaranteed - can only by some kind of fraud practiced by the user and , therefore , may cause some injury to the collectivity. The suspension of service provision only after a court order , is shown in the made ​​to the defaulting consumer can pay the bill - that is, taking economic and financial conditions for this, do not do it . Only with judicial authorization service could be interrupted .

Dear Nelson, I could not agree more, the problem is that some European governments have done just that, and repetitively with every economic crisis. Furthermore, the essential public services are not constitutionally guaranteed. In fact, some government have privatised some government services. Citizens now pay for their birth certificates, they also pay for the application form ofr their first passport...etc

There is an ongoing debate about what is the government sector supposed to cover. Health and education are in the middle, as both are huge employment area and both have a important impact on the economy.

During crisis times, the governments are expected to push the economy forward. What they do is subsidize troublesome sectors. However, in order to maintain some degree of financial balance they are also expected to cut costs.

So, the consequence is that governments will cut health and education budget and boost subsidies with the purpose of supporting capital owners.

Is a debatable practice, with even more debatable results. Basically by cutting wages they cut consumption thus reducing companies turnover. As consumption is low, investments have low benefits, and reduced cash income. So basically they will need more and more subsidies, while education and healthcare degrade more and more. It's a degrading self-sustaining cycle.

These are my assumptions, when i say, it is wrong to cut services to population, as it just encourage crisis to get deeper.

Dear Mohamed

I think there should be more concern of the government in the lives of those less fortunate. If basic public services are cut (and most frequently because unemployment) , the country will have a greater number of skimpy with consequent increase in violence, prostitution and social inequalities. This situation is difficult to resolve but whenever possible, should be used common sense to ensure these people a more decent life

A clear and decided no!

Thats the task of the state and the government to take care for the poor people, who innocently fell down into poverty.

No. This is the time to retrain and enhance the services of people who have direct contact with your customers--the bread-and-butter of your business. Cutting these people means customers will leave in mass due to poor quality interactions with your business. Government is no different because even for government it too has customers.

I think that  frontline public services are essential for every human and should not be cut under any circumestance. 

Using both technology and a growing access to knowledge of the ‘market place’, citizens are now savvier and demand a more personalised service. Public servants have to adapt to be more customer focused’, using tools and techniques from the best in class across both the public and private sector. Using and incorporating some of these market techniques into the public sector can be challenging and difficult.

http://omnyapp.com/shows/abc-the-world-today/public-service-union-says-budget-cuts-are-already

http://www.ripainternational.co.uk/International-Programmes/Service-Delivery-and-Modernisation/Courses-in-2014/Improving-Public-Service-Delivery

In case of recession, some governments cut down on public frontline services thus making it even harder for the population segment that needs those services. This is one way to solve their problem, in spite of its negative social effects.

Even as welfare stste is in crisis world over, it is not proper on the part of the state to cut down such front line services for the less fortunate memebers of society as a corrective measure of its debt and other problems. There must be a prohibition for  the government to do so. It should be asked to search for other solutions to cope with the problem..  

Absolutely no.

But unfortunately in the name of reducing the fiscal deficit the governments are trying to reduce these particularly at the time it is most needed. As these are not guaranteed by any charter the governments more interested in the political gains resort to these cuts.

I would like to draw your attention to periods of economic abundance as a means to avoid social cuts in periods of economic crises. If public expenditures vary in relation to public income I suggest to adjust public expenditures to an inflation-adjusted medium range as calculated over a period of 10 years and more. So intensity of public service would not float as much with the time. But this means discipline as a virtue of our politicians to spend in good years no more than is expected to be needed in bad years and to profit from savings of the good years in bad years. Unfortunately brimming pockets produce an inevitable desire to live out of all proportions. I wonder how we can motivate polititians for a self control of expenses with retroactive personal effect . The best way would be to find some mechanism with long term effect extending into the time after the 4 year election period to feel the sqeeze personally not to spend money carelessly. The pension of polititians in Germany is much higher per month of work as a member of parliament than a normal payer would receive per month of non parliamentary work with the same income. What do you think about reducing the pension of politicians to a level which a „normal payer“ would receive if the discrepancy between good years` savings and bad years` social cost reduction differs more than 10 percent within the following next 4 year period or 20 percent with the following 8 year period, inflation-adjusted of course. In case the account balance develops positively the politician would be lucky to vice versa get an increment of his pension in the same relation. Another idea would be to prolong the legislative period so the politicians would experience what they have eroded themselves. But how many years do you want to bear their actions? Do you have other ideas for a long-term effect to achieve a stable social cost level even in intricate economic times? Which exactly are other influence factors on the social costs which can be foreseen or calculated but are not underlying to the influence of politicians?

"to cut front line public services in times of economic crisis" is an unwarranted and highly unethical 'escape' Management practice...the analogy is "cutting a body part for a head ache"

Cutting public sector jobs will increase unemployment.  This would mean increased costs for government in benefit payments and lost tax revenue.  If people's incomes are taken away or cut through pay freezes they will spend less.  Less consumer spending means cuts in the private sector, and lower VAT revenues.

Internal analysis by HM Treasury proves this to be the case.  Leaked documents estimated that over the next six years 600,000 public sector jobs would be cut, and 700,000 private sector jobs would also be lost- based on the current government's policies.

Job cuts are therefore counterproductive.  Mass  job cuts would worsen the economic situation by reducing demand in the economy, and providing less tax revenue.

The government claims it can make cuts of between 25% and 40%, and still "Protect front line public services".  This is impossible -not just because "front line services' are being cut, but because services rely on 'back office' support staff.  For example, cutting support staff like NHS cleaners has meant an increase in healthcare acquired infections, costing the NHS one billion.  All public services require tax revenues to fund them, yet HM Revenue & Customs has cut 25,000 staff in recent years, which has led to uncollected tax at record levels and a growing tax gap. 

I hope you can infer you answer from this narration.  Good luck.