While I enjoy a good yarn as much as the next guy, the logic doesn't follow.
GDP per capita is simply total GDP divided by the population. GDP is made up of Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports. A large porportion of any of those factors can increase GDP.
Government Spending should not be seen as a good long-term item to focus on to increase GDP. If their metric of "Productivity" is based largely on Govt. Spending, which it is, then that's not sustainable in the long-term, and will change drastically in the future.
GDP per capita is simply total GDP divided by the population. GDP is made up of Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports. A large porportion of any of those factors can increase GDP.
Government Spending in France, a component of GDP, was 53% in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France#Rise_and_decl...). Without doing a deeper online search, it might even be higher today.
Government Spending should not be seen as a good long-term item to focus on to increase GDP. If their metric of "Productivity" is based largely on Govt. Spending, which it is, then that's not sustainable in the long-term, and will change drastically in the future.