Administration of Government Subsidies Using Contactless Bank Cards

Aleksejs Zacepins, Nikolajs Bumanis, Irina Arhipova


Subsidization of major and minor government branches is common strategy with the aim to optimize government funds, increase residents’ welfare and overall infrastructures’ efficiency, including public transportation system. Within the different countries subsidization is being approached using specific models of calculation and payment. However, most of them use the same subsidy administration approaches – cash transfers or social services. The aim of this paper is to describe proposed improvements of transport subsidy administration approach by implementation of e-cards for payments. It is proposed to improve subsidy payment procedure by promoting that subsidy should be paid directly to subsidy receiver. This will allow managing only real transactions and only subsidy receiver is interested in subsidy utilization. Proposed approach to process the subsidy administration and payments can be realized by using existing banking infrastructure and novel product as electronic cards.


  1. Bergström, G., Karlberg, I. (2007) Decentralized responsibility for costs of outpatient prescription pharmaceuticals in Sweden: Assessment of models for decentralized financing of subsidies from a. Health Policy, Vol. 81(2-3), p. 358-367.
  2. Borck, R., Wrede, M. (2005) Political economy of commuting subsidies. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 57, p. 478-499.
  3. Borck, R., Wrede, M. (2008) Commuting subsidies with two transport modes. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 63, p. 841-848.
  4. Borck, R., Wrede, M. (2009) Subsidies for intracity and intercity commuting. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 66, p. 25-32.
  5. Borger, B. De, Wuyts, B. (2009) Commuting, transport tax reform and the labour market: employer-paid parking and the relative efficiency of revenue recycling instruments. Urban Studies, Vol. 46, p. 213-233.
  6. Brueckner, J. (2005) Transport subsidies, system choice, and urban sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 35, p. 715-733.
  7. Calthrop, E., Leuven, K. (2001) On subsidising auto0commuting! CESifo Working Paper Series 566.
  8. Dender, K. Van (2003) Transport taxes with multiple trip purposes. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 105, p. 295-310.
  9. Drevs, F., Tscheulin, D. (2014) Crowding-in or crowding out: An empirical analysis on the effect of subsidies on individual willingness-to-pay for public transportation. Transportation Research, p. 250-261.
  10. Latvian Ministry Cabinet (2012) Latvian government action plan.
  11. Martin, R. (2001) Spatial mismatch and costly suburban commutes: Can commuting subsidies help? Urban Studies, Vol. 38, p. 1305-1318.
  12. Mohring, H. (1972) Optimization and scale economies in urban bus transportation. The American Economic Review, Vol. 62, p. 591-604.
  13. Palme, J. (2013) Unemployment Benefits in EU Member States. Uppsala University, Department of Economics, Working Paper Series, Center for Labor Studies, (15), p. 25.
  14. Parry, I., Small, K. (2009) Should urban transit subsidies be reduced? The American Economic Review, Vol. 99, p. 700-724.
  15. Richter, W. (2006) Efficiency effects of tax deductions for work-related expenses. International Tax and Public Finance, Vol. 13, p. 685-699.
  16. Sakai, H., Shoji, K. (2010) The effect of governmental subsidies and the contractual model on the publiclyowned bus sector in Japan. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 29(1), p. 60-71.
  17. Su, Q., DeSalvo, J. (2008) The effect of transportation subsidies on urban sprawl. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 48, p. 567-594.
  18. The World Bank (2013) Expenditure and performance benchmarking country level. Scientific research: Latvia: “Who is unemployed, inactive or needy? Assessing post-crisis policy options,” p. 74.
  19. Wrede, M. (2000) Tax deductibility of commuting expenses and leisure: On the tax treatment of timesaving expenditure. FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis, Vol. 57, p. 216-224.
  20. Wrede, M. (2001) Should commuting expenses be tax deductible? A welfare analysis. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 49, p. 80-99.
  21. Wrede, M. (2009) A distortive wage tax and a countervailing commuting subsidy. Journal of Public Economic Theory, Vol. 11, p. 297-310.
  22. Yang, Y., Qi, K., Qian, K., Xu, Q., Yang, L. (2010) Public Transport Subsidies Based on Passenger Volume. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, Vol. 10(3), p. 69-74.
  23. Zenou, Y. (2000) Urban unemployment, agglomeration and transportation policies. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 77, p. 97-133.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Zacepins A., Bumanis N. and Arhipova I. (2014). Administration of Government Subsidies Using Contactless Bank Cards . In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-029-1, pages 128-132. DOI: 10.5220/0004950901280132

in Bibtex Style

author={Aleksejs Zacepins and Nikolajs Bumanis and Irina Arhipova},
title={Administration of Government Subsidies Using Contactless Bank Cards},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - Administration of Government Subsidies Using Contactless Bank Cards
SN - 978-989-758-029-1
AU - Zacepins A.
AU - Bumanis N.
AU - Arhipova I.
PY - 2014
SP - 128
EP - 132
DO - 10.5220/0004950901280132