In the conditions of the world and Kazakhstan economic crisis The National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan is becoming one of the key structural elements of socio-economic stability and progressive development of the country in long term. And the issue of preserving its funds and their effective use is becoming extremely relevant - this was confirmed by the words of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan yesterday (October 19): "I forbid using money from the National Fund for the construction of new facilities, as well as support, subsidizing poorly performing enterprises."
On October 20, a round table of the analytical group "Cyprus" and the Soros Foundation-Kazakhstan was held in Almaty "Efficiency of using the funds of the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan: ways to increase» . In Kazakhstan, it is necessary to institutionalize the activities of the National Fund, adopt a separate law “On National Fund RK" and ensure full and transparent control over the use of its funds - such a proposal based on his research "Targeted transfers from the National Fund of Kazakhstan: short-term concessions to the detriment of long-term development?" voiced Director of the National Bureau economic research economist Kasymkhan Kapparov.
Video recording of the round table:
The creation in Kazakhstan in 2000 of the National Fund followed two main goals - to save (financial resources coming from the commodity sector) and to stabilize (reduce dependence on republican budget on the situation in the world commodity markets). The experience of the Norwegian Oil Fund was taken as a basis. The Kazakh fund is also intended to finance development projects aimed at restructuring the economy in order to be less dependent on the commodity sector.
From 2001 to 2013, the total revenues to the National Fund amounted to $142.7 billion, and the used amount was $53.3 billion, or 37.3% of the total revenues. Over 13 years, the Fund's funds have grown from an initial $660 million (3% of GDP) to $70 billion (30.5% of GDP). As of January 1, 2015, the assets of the National Fund amounted to $71.75 billion, and as of August - $68.77 billion (according to the National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan).
Today, the Fund's resources are used through three channels - these are guaranteed transfers, expenses for the maintenance of the Fund and targeted transfers. The latter, according to domestic economists, are at the greatest risk of misuse, as they are sent to solve urgent current problems, and there are no clear criteria for their use.
At the system level, the use of the Fund's resources reduces long-term effectiveness economic policy governments through the emergence of "the habit of breaking the piggy bank" to address various current issues. The problem is relevant not only for the state, but also for commercial banks and enterprises, which, in turn, can rely on state subsidies instead of improving efficiency. The same applies to the population, which believes that they have the right to rely on state support - at the expense of the Fund - in the event of a particular crisis. Moreover, this has already taken place: examples with equity holders or sellers of the burnt pavilion of the Trade House "Adem" - when proposals were made to compensate for damage from the funds of the National Fund - confirm this.
Among the causes of the problem:
- limited executive experience in managing the Fund;
- policy on the use of funds is still in the process of formation;
- initially unclear conditions for the use of funds in the form of targeted transfers led to the absence of specific criteria for the purposes for which these funds can be allocated;
- the desire of the government to be able to borrow urgently from the Fund in case of crisis situations without the need to agree with parliament and amend the current legislation.
This implies important potential risks and negative consequences:
- the rapid pace of use of the Fund's resources: by 2020, instead of $180 billion, the Fund's assets are estimated to be from $86 billion to $133 billion (provided that funds in the form of targeted transfers are not allocated from the Fund in 2018-2019);
- allocation of the Fund's funds to solve problems caused by the low efficiency of the ongoing financial and economic policy. Over the history of the National Fund, two targeted transfers have been allocated: $10 billion in 2009 due to a slowdown in economic growth caused by a decrease in oil prices and the closure of world capital markets, and $5.5 billion in 2014 due to a sharp increase in imports (caused by entry into the Customs union) and low foreign investment. At that time, the state failed to meet the challenge of problem loans in 2010-2013, despite favorable conditions (high world commodity prices and economic growth);
- the use of the Fund's resources in the long term reduces the effectiveness of the government's economic policy due to the emergence of a permanent financial source for solving various current problems. There is a risk that the government, in the event of a crisis, will assume that it will always be able to use the funds of the Fund;
- increased opportunities for corruption and misuse, as well as inflationary pressure on the economy due to the use of the Fund's resources.
In my study economist Kasymkhan Kapparov offers several solutions to improve the efficiency of the use of the National Fund, including in the form of targeted transfers.
First, a clearer definition of the purposes for which targeted transfers from the Fund can be allocated is needed.
Secondly, in order for this norm to be sufficiently effective, it is necessary to enshrine the basic principles of the formation, use and control of the Fund's activities in a separate Law “On the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan”. This law should include a complete and exhaustive list of purposes for which targeted transfers from the Fund can be allocated. Based on the provisions of this Law, each case of allocation of funds from the Fund in the form of targeted transfers must be adopted in the form of a separate law.
The third solution to improve the quality and transparency of the Fund's work could be the institutionalization of its activities and the creation of a separate legal entity. At the same time, the practice of a mandatory annual public report and discussion in Parliament of the Fund's income, expenditure and investment profitability, as well as an annual independent external audit and publication of its results, should be introduced.
Research by Kazakh economist Kasymkhan Kapparov.
In conditions of significant differentiation of the level budget security characteristic of different regions of the republic, the provision of financial assistance by the republican budget to the regions is a necessary measure. However, the emerging trend towards an increase in the volume of transfers allocated to equalize budgetary security cannot contribute to the creation of incentives for the development of the economic and tax potential of the regions.
4.1. Analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of transfers of the republican budget by local executive bodies
Every year, significant funds are allocated from the republican budget in the form of transfers to local budgets, the budgets of the cities of Astana and Almaty (Annex 8) . Thus, in the structure of the republican budget in 2007, the amount of funds allocated to local budgets in the form of transfers (subventions, targeted current transfers and transfers for development) amounted to 33.2%, while the volume of budgetary withdrawals from local budgets to the republican budget was only 7.3%. percent.
Diagram 4. Dynamics of indicators of interbudgetary financial flows,billion tenge
An analysis of the execution of local budgets over the past five years shows that their own revenues increase annually by an average of 20-25%, and the growth rate of transfers allocated from the republican budget - by an average of 50-55%.
Own revenues of local budgets for the reporting year amounted to 824.8 billion tenge, transfers in the amount of 494.7 billion tenge, subventions - 192.8 billion tenge were allocated from the republican budget. In 2007, 2/3 of the regions of the republic were subvention, with the exception of Aktobe, Atyrau and Mangystau regions, the cities of Almaty and Astana.
|
|
Diagram 5. ChangeWith the structure of the revenue side of local budgets since 2003, %
At the same time, the dynamics of changes in the planned and actual indicators of the implementation of local budget revenues over the past two years indicates an annual overfulfillment of the plan for revenues received by local budgets by 20-25% (by 110 billion tenge in 2006 and 172.6 billion . tenge in 2007). This fact indicates that the regions have certain reserves to increase the revenue base of local budgets, which is confirmed by the results of the control measures of the Accounts Committee.
In particular, when conducting control in the Aktobe region, a discrepancy between the data on the number of individuals engaged in entrepreneurial activities on the basis of one-time coupons and the data of the Tax Committee for 2005 was found by 891 people, for 2006 - by 623 people.
There was no categorization of markets located in the region. The market administrations determined the areas of the markets arbitrarily, as a result, the technical passports of the markets did not reflect their real size. The rates of one-time fees were set by city and district maslikhats without taking into account the category of markets, their specifics, and determining the area of the trading place.
An inspection at the Aliya market in the city of Aktobe showed that the sale was carried out mainly by employees, while no employment contracts were presented, documents confirming the payment of income and social tax by tenants for employees.
The Tax Committee of the city of Astana did not reconcile registered and deregistered taxpayers, it was allowed that several TINs were assigned to one taxpayer. There was no interaction between departments of cameral control and audit. Discrepancies were allowed for the turnover of corporate income tax and VAT.
According to the Accounts Committee, the steady increase in transfers allocated to the regions contributed to the increase in their share in local budgets from 25% in 2003 to 46% in 2007. In particular, as of January 1, 2008, in South Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, North Kazakhstan, Kyzylorda, Akmola regions and the city of Astana, the share of transfers in the total volume of their budgets exceeded 60 percent.
At the same time, per 1 person, transfers amounted to 8.3 million tenge in 2003, in 2007 - 44.7 million tenge, or increased by more than 5 times, and own income, respectively, 23.9 million tenge and 53.6 million tenge, or increased by 2.2 times. In terms of regions as of January 1, 2008, transfers per capita ranged from 20.0 million tenge to 126.0 million tenge, own income - from 25.0 million tenge to 240.0 million tenge. At the same time, in accordance with the Budget Code, general transfers are allocated in order to equalize the level of budgetary provision of local budgets. However, the analysis of income security shows that there are disproportions in the distribution of income per person. Thus, as of January 1, 2008, in the Zhambyl region, the total income per person amounted to 52.9 million tenge, including transfers - 36.4 million tenge, own income - 16.6 million tenge, while in Atyrau region these figures amounted to 326.8 million tenge, 83.1 million tenge and 243.7 million tenge, respectively.
The above facts indicate that the current interbudgetary mechanism does not contribute to equalizing the budgetary provision of the regions. The allocation of transfers to regions with high profitability, on the one hand, exacerbates the disproportions in budgetary security, on the other hand, increases the dependence of local budgets on the execution of the republican budget.
In 2007, targeted transfers totaling 494.7 billion tenge were allocated from the republican budget to local budgets, including current - 219.5 billion tenge and development - 275.2 billion tenge. At the same time, targeted transfers were allocated for 76 republican budget programs, which is more than 14 percent of the total number of budget programs.
Structural analysis of targeted current transfers shows that they were mainly allocated to the “Other” functional group, including the payment of wages to civil servants, employees of state institutions who are not civil servants, and employees of state-owned enterprises - 40.8%, as well as groups "Health" (18.4%), "Education" (11.6%), "Agriculture" (10.0%) (Appendix 9) .
Targeted current transfers were allocated under 54 republican budget programs to 12 administrators for a total of 219.5 billion tenge, of which 1.9 billion tenge was not used by local executive bodies. In particular, the South Kazakhstan region has not mastered 763.1 million tenge, of which for: highways regional and district significance - 353.8 million tenge; implementation of preventive medical examinations of certain categories of citizens - 91.8 million tenge; staffing primary health care organizations with medical personnel - 111.1 million tenge, material and technical equipment of medical healthcare organizations at the local level - 130.2 million tenge. Wherein, comparative analysis network indicators for health care in the South Kazakhstan region for 2007 and 2006 showed that, despite an increase of 3870 thousand in the number of medical visits by residents of this region, there is a decrease in beds by 540 units and the number of treated patients by 71.9 thousand people.
From the republican budget in 2007, under 22 budget programs, 13 administrators in order to implement strategic tasks to provide regions with social facilities, improve housing and communal conditions, strengthen agriculture, water management, environmental protection, improve transport infrastructure, as well as to implement cluster initiatives in 275.2 billion tenge were allocated in the form of transfers for development, of which 10.5 billion tenge were not used by the administrators of local budget programs.
By East Kazakhstan region 3.5 billion tenge has not been disbursed, including 271.9 million tenge out of 692.3 million tenge allocated for the construction of a district hospital for 75 beds with a polyclinic for 100 visits in the village of Aksuat, 126.2 million tenge from 259.7 million tenge - for the construction of a tuberculosis hospital for 50 beds in the village of Akzhar, Tarbagatai district. Due to the lack of design estimates for individual facilities and failed public procurement tenders, funds intended for the modernization of existing capacities of boiler houses and CHPPs, the reconstruction of heating networks in the city of Semipalatinsk in the amount of 614.4 million tenge, as well as the construction of a new CHPP-3 the city of Semipalatinsk - in the amount of 1.9 billion tenge.
By Kyzylorda areas 2.2 billion tenge has not been disbursed, of which, due to the lack of design and estimate documentation and untimely public procurement tenders, the funds allocated for the construction of 6 secondary schools (each for 1200 places) for a total of 1.7 billion tenge have not been disbursed; delays from the schedule, funds provided for the construction of the Zhanakorgan central district hospital for 190 beds in the amount of 74.4 million tenge, anti-tuberculosis hospitals for 100 beds in the city of Aralsk - for 191.4 million tenge and for 100 beds in the Kazaly district - by 44.7 million tenge.
By Akmola areas 1.3 billion tenge was not disbursed, of which construction and installation work on the construction of a secondary school for 1200 places in the village of Shortandy in the amount of 416.9 million tenge was not completed, a secondary school for 1200 places in the city of Kokshetau - by 291.2 million tenge; due to the insolvency of contractors, contracts for the construction of a secondary school for 520 places in the city of Esil in the amount of 260.5 million tenge and a maternity hospital building in the city of Kokshetau - for 120.0 million tenge were terminated.
By South Kazakhstan region 1.0 billion tenge was not disbursed, of which, due to the lack of funds in the cash control account of the city of Shymkent, 0.6 billion tenge was not disbursed for the construction of a secondary school for 550 places in the Azat microdistrict and for the development and arrangement of engineering and communication infrastructure cities.
A detailed analysis of the reasons for the non-disbursement of allocated transfers for development showed that serious shortcomings are allowed at all stages of the implementation of relevant projects: from planning to use budget funds.
Target transfers for development from the republican budget were allocated mainly for the development of transport infrastructure, strengthening of the heat and power system, housing and communal services, including the development and improvement of engineering and communication infrastructure, water supply systems, improvement of cities and towns ( see Diagram 6).
Diagram 6.
One of the main criteria by which one can judge the effectiveness of the policy in the field of interbudgetary relations is the convergence of the level of socio-economic development and the level of basic social services provided by the state to its citizens throughout the country.
The current situation, despite the influence of the transfer system, is characterized by the presence of significant inter-regional budgetary inequality, which manifests itself in various levels of budget revenues and expenditures. Directly for the population, the main manifestation of such inequality is a significant differentiation of socio-economic indicators, which include spending on health care, education, social security and social assistance, the level of implementation of which varies significantly among the regions of the republic.
In this regard, the relevance of the policy of interbudgetary equalization, and in a broader sense - the policy of interregional equalization, remains, the most important goal of providing financial assistance it remains for the lower budgets to equalize the budgetary provision of the regions.
However, it is not possible to determine to what extent the level of budgetary security has been equalized or achieved in the current situation, when there are no quantitative interpretations of this indicator. In turn, this makes it difficult to conduct an analysis to identify the levels of budgetary security in the regions. These statements can be clearly demonstrated in the graphs below.
Since there is no legally regulated level of minimum budgetary security, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the use of general transfers.
In this regard, it seems appropriate to conduct an analysis in order to identify the socio-economic effect of transfers. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of transfers as an instrument of interbudgetary regulation will be based on the results of econometric modeling of the impact of transfers on the socio-economic development of regions. The analysis will consider transfers of a general nature, namely budget subventions; accordingly, the calculation excludes donor regions from the budgets of which budgetary withdrawals were made in the period from 2003 to 2009.
The indicators of nine subvention regions (Akmola, Almaty, East Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, Karaganda, Kostanay, Kyzylorda, North Kazakhstan, South Kazakhstan) characterizing the socio-economic development of the regions in the period from 2003 to 2009 were used as a basis for developing the model. . A description of the factors is given in Table 6 below (initial data and econometric modeling calculations are presented in a separate appendix to this study).
Table 6. Factors for building econometric models.
|
designation |
||
|
general transfers (budget subventions) |
||
|
general transfers (budget subventions) per capita |
||
|
spending on social assistance and social security of regional budgets per capita |
||
|
spending on public services of a general nature of the regional budgets per capita |
||
|
consumer price index |
||
|
permanent population |
||
|
migration population growth; |
||
|
total number of unemployed |
||
|
average per capita income of the population per month (average monthly nominal wages of employees) |
||
|
number of hospital organizations |
||
|
provision of the population with hospital organizations |
||
|
number of doctors of all specialties |
||
|
number of day schools |
||
|
availability of places for children in permanent preschool organizations |
||
|
GRP per capita |
||
|
volume of completed construction works |
||
|
agricultural output |
||
|
degree of depreciation of fixed assets |
||
|
length of hard-surfaced public roads |
||
|
Emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources per capita |
||
|
commissioning total area residential buildings |
||
|
volume of general transfers per capita for the previous period |
Starting the econometric evaluation of dependencies, first of all, it is necessary to choose the correct specification of the estimated regression equations.
The determining factor in the choice of econometric models for the set of variables considered was the relatively short evaluation period from 2003 to 2009, which limited the study to 63 observations.
The main method applicable in such a situation, when the number of subjects of the study is comparable to the number of observations on them, and the indicators are presented time series- panel data method. The main focus of such methods, which assume a small number of observations, is to obtain the most efficient estimates of the coefficients for explanatory variables.
Relatively short time series will not allow obtaining statistically significant dependencies when constructing econometric models for each region separately. Therefore, researchers have used two types of econometric models for a full-fledged analysis of panel data: general model panel data of the regions of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which has the following form:
as well as a model for fixed effects panel data (FEM "fixedeffectsmodel"), which looks like:
where is a fixed effect for the i-th region, reflecting its specific characteristics not taken into account in the model.
There are several ways to conduct this econometric study, which will be carried out sequentially:
I direction - assessment of the impact of transfers on the socio-economic development of regions. This analysis will allow assessing the degree of influence of transfers on the socio-economic indicators of the regions, taking into account the fact that the dynamics of the allocation of budget subventions will be an explanatory variable.
Direction II - assessment of the impact of individual indicators on the receipt of transfers to the region. The second line of analysis, in which budget subventions act as an explanatory variable, will make it possible to determine what factors determine the flow of transfers to the region, as well as to compile general characteristics region-recipient of financial assistance from the republican budget.
Conducting an econometric analysis within the framework of the first direction will, first of all, make it possible to objectively assess the socio-economic effect of transfers incoming to the region and determine which indicators are most affected by them. In this regard, the totality of factors used in the analysis can be represented as socio-demographic and economic blocks. The first block is represented by indicators characterizing the population size, the dynamics of natural increase, the number of the unemployed population, the average monthly income of the population, access to educational and medical services. The indicators of the economic block include the volume of industrial, agricultural, construction industry, the degree of depreciation of fixed assets, the volume of investments in fixed capital, the indicator of per capita GRP. ( table 6)
In connection with the presence in the model of factors of regional budget expenditures per capita (TOEC), it is appropriate to test the following hypotheses.
Evaluation of econometric models will make it possible to determine the degree of dependence of regional budget expenditures on the receipt of transfers to the regions. In the absence of statistically significant correlation indicators, it may be argued that transfers only compensate for the budget deficit, and do not determine the level of budget spending, respectively, the expenditures of the regional budgets are formed under the influence of the objective expenditure needs of the regions.
An alternative to the hypotheses put forward will be the assumption of identifying the direction of spending general transfers. Thus, within the framework of this survey, per capita expenditures of regional budgets for education (EDEC), health care (HEEC), social assistance and social security (SOEC), public services of a general nature (GEEC) will be presented as explained variables. The relevance of such an analysis increases due to the fact that budget subventions do not have a targeted spending, as a result, it is difficult to track their movement in practice.
Evaluation of econometric models containing indicators of own revenues (ORWC) and tax revenues (TXRC) of regional budgets, given per capita, will make it possible to accept or refute the hypothesis about the presence of a stimulating effect of transfers, which manifests itself in increasing the tax potential of regional authorities in response to transfers to the region , and in the case of a negative correlation, to assume that transfers have negative fiscal incentives.
In view of the increasing dynamics of the receipt of transfers to the regions, it is advisable to study transfers for the presence of negative inflationary incentives.
Conducting an econometric study within the framework of the second direction will make it possible, first of all, to identify the objective factors influencing the determination of the size of transfers received by the regions and compare them with the parameters of the official calculation methodology.
Such an analysis provides an opportunity to assess the extent to which factors such as tax revenues of regional budgets, expenditures of regional budgets, consumer price index (CPI), and population index (POP) affect the determination of the size of general transfers. In addition, the identification of statistically significant relationships between such socio-economic indicators as the proportion of the population with incomes is below the value living wage(POV), emissions of air pollutants (PLUT), the total number of unemployed (UEM), the commissioning of the total area of residential buildings (HOUS), etc., and the amount of funding from the republican budget, will confirm or refute the hypothesis of the presence of relevant problems in the territories.
There is also an assumption that the level of transfers to the regions, in addition to objective factors that describe the socio-economic situation in the regions, is influenced by the volume of transfers from previous periods. That is, a hypothesis is put forward that the volumes of allocated transfers directly affect the level of allocation and distribution of transfers in several subsequent periods. To take into account the above, the model includes the variable TPC(-1) - the volume of general transfers per capita for the previous period. The first stage of econometric analysis is the correlation of the volumes of allocated transfers with the set of socio-economic indicators determined by the model in order to establish correlations between them.
Annex 3 contains an extended table of correlation coefficients between general transfers (budget subventions) per capita and indicators of socio-economic development of the regions of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Table 7 below lists the variables for which the correlation coefficients are high and/or statistically significant for all nine regions.
Table 7. Sample of variables with statistically significant correlation coefficients
|
High correlation coefficient |
The correlation coefficient is statistically significant [-0.98; -0.65] |
||||
|
regional budget expenditures per capita |
own revenues of regional budgets |
||||
|
spending on education of regional budgets per capita |
own revenues of regional budgets per capita |
||||
|
expenditures on health care of regional budgets per capita |
tax revenues of regional budgets |
||||
|
GRP per capita |
tax revenues of regional budgets per capita |
||||
|
volume of agricultural production |
industrial output |
||||
|
volume of investment in fixed assets |
expenditures of regional budgets for social assistance and social security |
||||
|
population dynamics due to natural increase |
number of registered legal entities |
||||
|
per capita monthly income |
total number of unemployed |
||||
|
share of the population with incomes used for consumption below the subsistence level |
|||||
|
volume of construction works |
The analysis of correlation dependencies revealed the presence of a fairly close relationship between the amount of transfers and indicators of expenditures of regional budgets, while for variables characterizing the revenue base of regional budgets, the correlation coefficient, despite the fact that it remains statistically significant, is not so high (for certain regions does not exceed 0.70).
Also, the presence of correlation dependencies was revealed for indicators of the dynamics of production potential, such as the volume of per capita GRP, the volume of industrial, construction and agricultural production, investments in fixed capital. While, according to the indicators characterizing the access of the population to educational and medical services (NHE, NSC, EDUH, HELC, NILL), the analysis showed the absence of a statistically significant correlation.
At the same time, it should be noted that the correlation of the amount of aid with such indicators as cash income of the population, the level of the population with incomes below the subsistence level, the unemployment rate, the number of business entities, may indicate the presence of objective problems in the territories.
In order to more fully identify the links between the volume of financing from the republican budget and socio-economic indicators, we will conduct a regression analysis.
When proceeding directly to the regression analysis, it is necessary to clarify that the time series used in the analysis are not stationary. Although their first differences may be stationary, the small number of observations for each variable in each region precludes unit root tests. Accordingly, the calculations will be carried out for the first differences of the logarithms of these variables. Such a method allows one to exclude the trend component from the time series and obtain higher quality levels of the series, excluding the presence of "false correlation" in them.
When testing the hypothesis about the presence of a "stimulating" effect of transfers, we evaluate the regression equations for the variables ORWC/D(LOG(ORWC)) and TXRC/D(LOG(TXRC)), which characterize the presence of its own revenue base in the region (Tables 8, 9).
Table 8. Estimated parameters of regression models using ORWC/D(LOG(ORWC)) as dependent variable.
|
Dependent Variable - OWRC |
||
|
constant |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(OWRC)) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
Table 9. Estimated parameters of regression models when using TXRC/D(LOG(TXRC)) as a dependent variable
 Dependent Variable-TXRC |
||
|
TRC coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(TXRC)) |
||
|
D(LOG (TRC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
Satisfactory estimates for t-statistics and the Durbin-Watsan test were obtained for the parameters of the regression equations of logarithmic variables OWRC (according to the fixed effects model) and TXRC (according to the panel model and the fixed effects model). However, a statistically insignificant coefficient of determination, designed to assess the overall quality of the regression equation by establishing the proportion of the explained variance of the dependent variable, indicates the presence of an insignificant causal relationship between the considered values. Accordingly, the hypothesis is rejected.
Consider the significance of the hypothesis about the direction of spending transfers. In this regard, we determine the significance of the following econometric models (Table 10):
Table 10. Evaluation of parameters of regression models when using EDEC/D(LOG(EDEC)), HEEC/ D(LOG(HEEC)), SOEC/ D(LOG(SOEC)) as dependent variables
|
Dependent Variable - EDEC |
||
|
TRC coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(EDEC)) |
||
|
D(LOG (TRC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - HEEC |
||
|
TRC coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(HEEC)) |
||
|
D(LOG (TRC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - SOEC |
||
|
TRC coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(SOEC)) |
||
|
D(LOG (TRC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - GEEC |
||
|
TRC coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(GEEC)) |
||
|
D(LOG (TRC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
Statistically significant regression equations were obtained for the following variables: EDEC, HEEC, SOEC.
According to statistical tests, estimates of equations calculated using a panel data model with fixed effects for the variable EDEC - per capita spending on education of regional budgets can be considered satisfactory. The model explains 86% of the variance of the dependent variable (EDEC), therefore, it accurately reflects the statistical relationship between the receipts of transfers to the regions and their spending on education.
Checking the parameters of the regression equation on panel data with fixed effects of the HEEC variable confirmed the satisfactory nature of their significance. The coefficient of determination is quite high (77%), which together confirms the significance of the entire model that describes the relationship between health care spending and the receipt of transfers to the regions.
For the panel data model with fixed effects of the SOEC variable, satisfactory statistical estimates of the parameters of the regression equation were obtained, which, together with a high coefficient of determination (78%), allows us to state the existence of a close relationship between general transfers and expenditures on social assistance and social security.
At the same time, the statistically insignificant coefficient of determination (31%, 45%) of the regression equation for both panel data models of the GEEC variable does not reflect the statistical relationship between the receipts of transfers to the regions and their spending on public services of a general nature.
Statistically significant parameters of the regression equations were also obtained for the first differences of the logarithms of the variables EDEC, HEEC, SOEC. However, in general, the quality of these models is not recognized as satisfactory, due to the presence of a statistically insignificant coefficient of determination.
In general, the hypothesis about the direction of spending general transfers is accepted.
Unsatisfactory in terms of t-statistics and the Durbin-Watsan test, estimates were obtained for the regression equation on panel data of the CPI variable. Accordingly, the hypothesis about the presence of inflationary prerequisites for transfers is rejected (Appendix 4, tables 4-5).
Testing the hypothesis about the socio-economic effect of transfers revealed its failure. According to statistical tests, only the parameters of the regression equation on panel data with fixed effects of the first differences of the logarithms of the variable UEM (total number of unemployed) turned out to be satisfactory. However, the statistically insignificant assessment of the equation as a whole, due to the low value of the coefficient of determination, which explains only 32% of the variation in the dependent variable, does not allow us to accept the assumption that there is a positive effect of transfers, which manifests itself in a decrease in the total number of unemployed (Table 11).
Table 11. Estimated parameters of regression models when used as dependent variables UEM/D(LOG(UEM)
|
Dependent Variable - UEM |
||
|
TRC coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(UEM)) |
||
|
D(LOG (TRC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
It is necessary to clarify once again that the quality of econometric models directly depends on the magnitude of the observations being made; accordingly, the use of a relatively short evaluation period in the study to a certain extent affects the objectivity of the results of the correlation-regression analysis.
However, in aggregate, at the same time, statistically significant correlation coefficients, regression equations on the panel data of the levels of variables and regression equations on the panel data of the first differences of the logarithms of variables, allows us to state that general transfers had a statistically significant impact, at least on education and health care expenditures. , spending on social assistance and social security.
As part of the second direction of econometric research, we estimate the regression equations for the parameters TXRC/D(LOG(TXRC)) TOEC/ D(LOG(TOEC)), EDEC/ D(LOG(EDEC)), HEEC/ D(LOG(HEEC)) and POP /D(LOG(POP)) (Table 12).
Table 12. Estimation of parameters of regression models when using TXRC/D(LOG(TXRC)) TOEC/ D(LOG(TOEC)), EDEC/ D(LOG(EDEC)), HEEC/ D(LOG(HEEC)) as explanatory variables ), POP/ D(LOG(POP)), СPI/ D(LOG(CPI)).
|
DependentVariable - TRC |
||
|
Coefficient at TXRC (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Coefficient at D(LOG(TXRC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - TRC |
||
|
TOEC coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(TRC)) |
||
|
D(LOG(TOEC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - TRC |
||
|
EDEC coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(TRC)) |
||
|
D(LOG(EDEC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - TRC |
||
|
HEEC coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(TRC)) |
||
|
Coefficient at D(LOG(HEEC)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - TRC |
||
|
POP coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(TRC)) |
||
|
Coefficient at D(LOG(POP)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - TRC |
||
|
Coefficient of CPI (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(TRC)) |
||
|
Coefficient at D(LOG(CPI)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
A non-significant panel data regression equation was generated for the POP (total population) variable. It should be clarified that the official methodology for calculating general transfers defines this factor as the dominant factor in determining expenditure requirements when calculating transfers.
Satisfactory estimates in terms of t-statistics and the Durbin-Watsan test were obtained for the parameters of the regression equation of the first differences of the logarithms of the TXRC variable (according to the panel data model). However, the statistically insignificant coefficient of determination, which assesses the quality of the econometric model as a whole, indicates the presence of an insignificant causal relationship between the indicator of tax revenues of regional budgets and the value of general transfers.
A similar situation develops for the first differences of the logarithmic variable CPI (consumer price index) (Table 12).
Statistically significant regression equations were obtained for the following variables: EDEC, HEEC, TOEC.
According to statistical tests, estimates of equations calculated using a panel data model with fixed effects for the variable TOEX - regional budget expenditures per capita can be considered satisfactory. The model explains 88% of the variance of the dependent variable (TRC), therefore, it quite accurately establishes a causal relationship between the volume of transfers and the size of per capita regional budgets, which does not contradict the approved methods for calculating general transfers.
Checking the parameters of the regression equations on panel data with fixed effects of the EDEC and HEEC variables confirmed the satisfactory nature of their significance. The high coefficients of determination for both models (87% and 79%, respectively) make it possible to state that the volume of general transfers depends on the amount of expenditures on education and health care.
Among the set of socioeconomic and demographic indicators, only the parameters of the regression equation on panel data with fixed effects for the WAG and POV variables turned out to be satisfactory according to statistical tests. The first model explains 83% of the variance of a performance indicator (TRC) of its total variance as a result of the influence of the independent variable (average monthly income of the population). The coefficient of determination of the second econometric model - the model of the dependence of transfers on the level of the population with incomes below the subsistence level, is not so high, but remains within the limits of statistical significance (0.66) (Table 13).
Table 13. Estimation of parameters of regression models when using WAG/ D(LOG(WAG)), POV/ D(LOG(POV)) as explanatory variables.
|
Dependent Variable - TRC |
||
|
WAG coefficient (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
Constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(TRC)) |
||
|
Coefficient at D(LOG(WAG)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
Constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - TRC |
||
|
Coefficient of POV (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
Constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(TRC)) |
||
|
Coefficient at D(LOG(POV)) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
Constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
Consequently, the characteristic of the region-recipient of the transfer is a region with a low level of income of the population.
Let us evaluate the significance of the hypothesis that there is a close relationship between the values of budget subventions of the current and immediately preceding years (TRC(-1)) (Table 14).
Table 14. Estimated parameters of regression models when using TRC(-1)/ D(LOG(TRC(-1)) as explanatory variables.
|
Dependent Variable - TRC |
||
|
Coefficient of TRC(-1) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
||
|
Dependent Variable - D(LOG(TRC)) |
||
|
Coefficient at D(LOG(TRC(-1))) (coefficient of regression) |
||
|
constant |
||
|
R-square (coefficient of determination) |
||
|
Durbin-Watson statistic |
According to statistical tests, estimates of equations calculated using two panel data models can be considered satisfactory for the explanatory variable TRC(-1) - the volume of general transfers per capita for the previous period. For both models, the coefficient of determination has identical, not so high, but statistically significant indicators (R 2 = 0.76). The statistically significant value of the coefficient of determination, despite the fact that it allows us to state that the calculated regression models explain 76% of the variance of the resultant attribute (volume of general transfers per capita), is only one of many estimates of the quality of the regression equations. In this regard, in order to accept the statement about the significant impact of the volumes of transfers of previous periods on the current level of their allocation, it is possible to conduct an additional study by modeling the time series of the TRC variable.
It should be clarified that each level of the time series is formed under the influence of a large number of factors, which are conditionally subdivided in econometric analysis into: factors that form the trend of the series, its cyclical (seasonal) fluctuations, and a random component. If there are trends and cyclic fluctuations in the time series, the value of each subsequent series depends on the previous ones. The indicated correlation dependence between successive levels of the time series is usually called autocorrelation of the levels of the series.
A quantitative interpretation of this indicator will make it possible to accept or refute the above assumption about the close dependence of the volume of general transfers allocated on the level of transfers of previous periods.
Quantitatively, the autocorrelation of the levels of a time series can be measured using a linear correlation coefficient between the levels of the original time series and the levels of this series, shifted by several steps in time.
In addition to the nine subvention regions (Akmola, Almaty, East Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, Karaganda, Kostanay, Kyzylorda, North Kazakhstan, South Kazakhstan), the analysis also includes donor regions (Atyrau and Mangystau regions and the city of Almaty).
The selection of regions was carried out depending on the continuity of indicators of budget subventions and withdrawals, and in cases of interruption of the sequence of indicators, based on the sufficiency of time series (number of observations > 8).
In this regard, four regions are not included in the analysis: Pavlodar, West Kazakhstan, Aktobe regions and Astana, due to the discreteness of the time series, as well as due to the insufficiency of its levels in the part that does not contain interruptions.
For each region included in the analysis, the time series was evaluated separately. The results of the analysis of the autocorrelation of time series are presented in Table 15 (the calculation of the coefficients is presented in Appendix 4).
Table 15. Results of the analysis of the autocorrelation of time series constructed for a set of regions based on indicators of the volume of transfers of a general nature ( y t).
|
region name |
region characteristics |
study period |
number of observations (n) |
autocorrelation coefficient first order |
|
|
Akmola |
subvention |
||||
|
Almaty |
subvention |
||||
|
East Kazakhstan |
subvention |
||||
|
Zhambyl |
subvention |
||||
|
Karaganda |
subvention |
||||
|
Kostanay |
subvention |
||||
|
Kyzylorda |
subvention |
||||
|
North Kazakhstan |
subvention |
||||
|
South Kazakhstan |
subvention |
||||
|
Atyrau |
donor region |
||||
|
Mangistau |
donor region |
||||
|
Almaty city |
donor region |
The obtained values indicate the presence of a close relationship between the values of budget subventions of the current and immediately preceding years, and, consequently, the presence of a strong linear trend in the time series of transfers of a general nature. Autocorrelation indicators are statistically significant for all nine subvention oblasts and exceed 93%, with the exception of Karaganda oblast. The not so high value of the autocorrelation coefficient for the Karaganda region (r 1 \u003d 0.85) can be explained by the small number of observations (n \u003d 8) compared to other regions, where the number of observations varies from 9 to 12.
It should be noted that the results of time series modeling for budgetary withdrawals do not provide unambiguous estimates. So, for the two regions of Atyrau and Mangystau regions, statistically insignificant coefficients were obtained, which may be due to the lack of a relationship between the indicators of budgetary withdrawals of the current and previous periods or the presence of other unaccounted for factors that have a direct impact on the formation of series levels. At the same time, the first-order autocorrelation coefficient for the time series of budget withdrawals in Almaty was 85%, however specified value coefficient is not so high compared to similar indicators for budget subventions in most regions included in the analysis.
According to the results of the second direction of the study, it can be argued that at least two indicators for which statistically significant correlation and regression coefficients were obtained simultaneously on panel data for variables and the first differences of the logarithms of these variables, namely, expenditures on education of regional budgets per capita and expenditures on health care of regional budgets per capita had a significant impact on the flow of transfers to the regions.
Summing up the results of an empirical study of the impact of republican transfers on the level of socio-economic development of individual regions of the republic in the period 2002-2009, we can state the following.
Estimates obtained on various econometric models showed that throughout the entire study period, the expenditures of regional authorities, including expenditures on education, health care, social assistance and social security, were highly dependent on the receipt of transfers (budget subventions).
In addition, in this econometric study, attempts were made to analyze the maximum number of factors that depend on the size of the transfer, that is, to assess the effect of the transformation of transfers into improving living standards, reducing social tension, and increasing the production potential of the region. However, for a number of socio-economic indicators used in the analysis, the hypothesis of a positive effect of transfers turned out to be untenable.
The hypotheses of the presence of "stimulating" and inflationary effects of transfers of a general nature also turned out to be insignificant.
Based on the results of the second direction of the econometric analysis of the impact of individual indicators on the receipt of transfers to the region, the following results were obtained.
A priori, the opinion was established that the main contenders for financial assistance from the republican budget are regions with a low own revenue base. However, the regression analysis did not reveal the existence of a significant causal relationship between the indicators of regional budget revenues and the volumes of general transfers received by the regions.
The main objective of this section of the study was not so much to determine all the factors that determine the inflow of transfers to the regions, but to establish the relationship between various indicators, such as transfers of the current and past periods, tax revenues and expenditures of regional budgets, taking into account the fact that the amount of transfers is determined by the budget deficit, that is, the forecast values of budget revenues and expenditures.
Based on the results of the econometric survey, it can be stated that the level of costs, as well as the size of transfers from previous periods, have a stronger effect on the distribution of financial assistance than other more objective indicators.
CHAPTER 1 FORMATION OF THE BUDGET SYSTEM OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
1.1 Features of the budget system of the Russian Federation.
1.2 The Russian model of fiscal federalism.
1.3 Evolution of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation
CHAPTER 2 FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS.
2.1 Country features of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations.
2.2 Transformation of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations between the federal center and regions in the Russian Federation.
2.3 Features of the provision of transfers from regional budgets in the Russian Federation.
CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPING A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MODEL
INTERBUDGET TRANSFERS.
3.1 Fundamentals of building a model for evaluating the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers.
3.2 Evaluation of the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers based on the matrix model.
3.3 Features of the application of the matrix model at the sub-federal level (on the example of the municipalities of the Republic of Khakassia).
Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Finance, money circulation and credit", 08.00.10 VAK code
The mechanism for ensuring the balance of territorial budgets in the Russian Federation in the context of financial instability 2010, Candidate of Economic Sciences Seregin, Maxim Viktorovich
Improving the mechanism for regulating the system of interbudgetary relations 2010, Candidate of Economic Sciences Betkaraev, Safar Borisovich
The mechanism of vertical budget equalization in the Russian Federation in the context of the financial crisis 2009, candidate of economic sciences Salagaeva, Elizaveta Albertovna
The Impact of Federal Transfers on the Fiscal Behavior of Regional Authorities in the Russian Federation 2011, Candidate of Economic Sciences Volkov, Alexander Vyacheslavovich
Regulation of interbudgetary relations in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation 2003, Candidate of Economic Sciences Pshunetlev, Adam Askarbievich
Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers"
For any state in modern conditions development, the problem of interbudgetary relations remains important, which is traditionally expressed in the search for answers to three main questions: how revenue sources should be distributed between the levels of the budget system, what is a fair delimitation of expenditure obligations, what forms of financial assistance are the most effective.
The reform of the budget system of the Russian Federation, which began in the 90s of the 20th century and continues now, has already shown positive results.
From 2000 to 2008, the federal budget ran with a surplus. In order to ensure the predictability and continuity of draft budgets at all levels of the budget system, a transition was made to a medium-term budget planning. Result-oriented budgeting mechanisms have been introduced. Tax legislation has been amended. In order to increase the efficiency of budget expenditures and improve the social and economic development of the country, decisions were implemented aimed at developing and financial support infrastructure projects, the implementation of priority national projects has begun. The amendments to the Budget Code, adopted in 2007, have completed the long-term consolidation of revenues for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities. Approaches to the provision of financial assistance from higher budgets to lower ones have been changed.
However, despite the results achieved, there are still no mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the use of funds received in the form of interbudgetary transfers at the level of regions and municipalities.
The need to assess the effectiveness of interbudgetary relations at the federal and subfederal levels predetermined the choice of topic, setting the goal and objectives of the dissertation research.
The aim of the study is to develop a scientific and methodological approach to assessing the effectiveness of intergovernmental transfers at the sub-federal and local levels.
To achieve this goal, the following tasks are solved in the work:
The features of the structure of the budget system of the Russian Federation are revealed;
The transformation of the Russian model of budgetary federalism through the evolution of interbudgetary relations is analyzed;
Country features of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations are revealed;
The transformation of interbudgetary transfers provided from the federal, regional and local budgets is studied;
A methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers is being developed;
A universal model for assessing the level of socio-economic development of regions and municipalities is being developed;
The developed model is being tested at the level of subjects of the Russian Federation and municipalities.
The object of the dissertation research are the subjects of the Russian Federation and local governments of the Republic of Khakassia.
The subject of the study is intergovernmental transfers both at the regional and local levels.
The theoretical and methodological basis of the study are the scientific works of domestic and foreign scientists - economists and political scientists, devoted to the problems of the formation and use of interbudgetary transfers allocated from both the federal and regional budgets.
The scientific research is based on a systematic approach as a general scientific methodology using the methods of comparative, economic-statistical, index, graphical analysis, and logical generalization.
Information base dissertation research were: federal laws on the execution of the budget of the Russian Federation, laws of the Republic of Khakassia on the execution of the republican budget; official statistics of Rosstat and Khakasstat; data of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Khakassia, materials of periodical economic press.
The scientific novelty of the study lies in the development of a model for evaluating the effectiveness of instruments of interbudgetary relations through assessing the effectiveness of the use of interbudgetary transfers.
Scientific novelty is confirmed by the following scientific results of the study:
The directions of transformation of the Russian model of budgetary federalism are substantiated;
Country features of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations are revealed;
A classification of the principles of building the budget system is proposed, which makes it possible to assess the impact of economic, organizational and legal factors on the functioning and development of the budget system;
A universal model has been developed (that is, applicable both at the level of the Russian Federation - the subject of the Russian Federation, and at the level of the subject of the Russian Federation - the local budget) for assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers, based on the construction of the matrix "share of interbudgetary transfers - level of socio-economic development";
A model has been developed for assessing the level of socio-economic development of a region or municipality based on the calculation of an integral indicator;
A generalizing indicator for evaluating the effectiveness of the system of interbudgetary transfers at the level of subjects of the federation and municipalities is proposed.
The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that the conclusions and proposals formulated in the work can be used to assess the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers, both at the regional and local levels.
The results of the dissertation research can also be applied in the educational process when studying such disciplines as "Finance", "Budget system of the Russian Federation", "State and municipal finance”, “Regional Finance”.
The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and appendices. The total volume of the work is 161 pages of typewritten text, the work contains 24 tables, 13 figures, bibliography (247 sources).
Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Finance, monetary circulation and credit", Vinitsyna, Veronika Viktorovna
CONCLUSION
The implementation of political and economic transformations in Russia required the formation of a qualitatively new budget system, adequate to the federal structure of the state, the development of a fundamentally different model of interbudgetary relations.
The budget structure of the Russian Federation is characterized by at least three important characteristics.
The first characteristic describes the composition and structure of the country's budget system, which depends on its state structure.
The Russian Federation is a federal state, the budget system of which consists of the following levels: federal, regional and local, and, since 2003, the country has had a two-level model of local self-government: settlements and municipal districts (urban districts).
Thus, the budget system of the Russian Federation is based on economic relations and the federal structure of the Russian Federation, a set of budgets of four levels.
The next characteristic of the budget system is the principles of its construction, which it is advisable to divide into three groups: organizational, economic (financial) and political (legal).
Organizational principles influence the organization and functioning of the budget system and regulate the relationship between the levels of the budget system. This group of principles includes: the principle of unity, the principle of delimitation of income, expenses and sources of financing deficits, the principle of independence, the principle of unity of cash, the principle of completeness of the reflection of income, expenses and sources of financing budget deficits.
Economic principles include the principles that determine the process of formation and use of budgetary funds. The author attributed to this group: the principle of budget balance, the principle of efficiency and effectiveness of the use of budget funds, the principle of total coverage of budget expenditures, the principle of budget reliability.
Political (legal) principles that take into account and reflect the influence of the state structure of the country on its budgetary system. This group of principles includes: the principle of transparency, the principle of targeting and targeted nature of budget funds, the principle of subordination of expenditures, the principle of equality budgetary rights.
The third characteristic of the budget structure is connected with the system of relationships between the budgets of different levels, which in federal states are manifested through the system of budgetary federalism.
In the framework of the presented work, budgetary federalism should be understood as the concept of organization and functioning of the budget system of federal states, which determines the principles of its construction and organization of effective interaction, allowing to optimize the relationship between levels of government, based on independent management of the financial resources of the subjects of the federation, a balanced consideration of the interests of the federation and its subjects.
In the course of the study, the author examined approaches to the classification of types of budgetary federalism that have developed in foreign and domestic literature. The classification of models of budgetary federalism was carried out according to the following criteria: according to the degree of independence of the authorities; according to the method of interaction between authorities of different levels; according to the method of distribution of income between levels; on the optimal combination of advantages and disadvantages of the centralization of power; according to the procedure for establishing the rules of the game for the subjects that are part of the federation; by type of intergovernmental relations.
A feature of the formation of the Russian model of budgetary federalism is its transformation from a decentralized model to a centralized one.
Over the 15 years of the formation of the system of interbudgetary relations, the model of Russian budgetary federalism has undergone significant changes. Thus, in the period from 1991 to 1994, a process of spontaneous decentralization was observed, in which revenues were collected from each level of government based on the territory of their spending, and the directions of spending funds were based on the decision of regional authorities on their expediency.
However, since 1994, the country has been undergoing a process of transition from a decentralized model of budgetary federalism to a centralized one, in which there has been a process of transferring a number of powers to the federal center, with a simultaneous decrease in the independence of the subjects of the federation, primarily in the field of tax law.
In the paper, the author proposes his own version of the periodization of the process of development of interbudgetary relations, which is based on the following criteria: legislative regulation of interbudgetary relations, the problems of forming these relations at each stage, ways to solve these problems and the degree of their resolution, special attention was paid to the continuity of each stage, which found place in the successive concepts of improving interbudgetary relations, as well as in the annual budget messages of the President.
One of the key issues in the functioning of the budget system is the question of the relationship between its levels, that is, we are talking about interbudgetary relations.
As part of the presented dissertation research, the author proposed an interpretation of interbudgetary relations, according to at least, from three positions:
From the political point of view, the interpretation of interbudgetary relations is associated with the viability of each level of the budget system, which, among other things, is determined by the presence at each level of income and fixed expenditure obligations, the composition of which may change with changes in the goals and priorities of state policy, including budgetary, hence the questions concerning the redistribution of income and expenditure obligations, constitute the sphere of interbudgetary relations;
From the legal point of view, interbudgetary relations are associated with the implementation and implementation at each level of the budgetary system of the budgetary process associated with the preparation, consideration, approval and execution of the budget;
With financial (economic), these are relations about the formation and use of funds Money in order to ensure high socio-economic development of each level of the budget system.
One of the main elements in the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations is financial assistance from the higher budget to the lower one. At the same time, the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations is understood as a system of managing interbudgetary relations regulated by the norms of budgetary law through interbudgetary transfers using the methods of horizontal and vertical equalization.
In accordance with the current budgetary legislation in the Russian Federation, the following forms of interbudgetary transfers are provided: subsidies to equalize the level of budgetary security; subsidies, grants. As part of the dissertation research, the conditions and features of the provision of interbudgetary transfers from federal budget, budgets of subjects, budgets of municipal districts and city districts.
Within the framework of the presented work, the possibility of assessing the effectiveness of the use of interbudgetary transfers is considered by examining the relationship between the share of financial assistance and the level of socio-economic development of a constituent entity of a federation or a municipality.
In order to assess how the level of development of the territory was affected by the volume of interbudgetary transfers from higher budgets, the author proposes to use the technique of constructing a matrix of development of the territory.
The X-axis should reflect the level of socio-economic development of the territory, determined using the calculated integral indicator of the level of socio-economic development. The Y-axis should reflect the share of interbudgetary transfers from higher budgets falling on the respective territory. All territories (subjects of the federation and local budgets) can conditionally be divided into several groups, depending on the number of objects under study. A positive trend will be the movement by groups from left to right, which indicates that as a result of the provision of interbudgetary transfers, the level of development of territories increases, which reduces the need for interbudgetary transfers.
The key point in the application of the proposed matrix is the definition of an integral indicator that reflects the level of socio-economic development of the territory.
To calculate the integral indicator of the level of socio-economic development of territories, the following stages were implemented: a list of indicators was determined that comprehensively characterizes the socio-economic development of the territory; a qualitative assessment of the selected criteria was carried out; normalization of indicators was carried out for the calculation of the integral indicator; an integral indicator of the socio-economic development of the territory was calculated.
The proposed integral indicator of the level of socio-economic development included four groups of criteria: demographic, social, economic, financial.
The final step in building a territory development matrix is to determine the share of interbudgetary transfers per each territory. This indicator is determined on the basis of federal laws on the federal budget for the corresponding financial year (for constituent entities of the Russian Federation) or regional laws on the budget of the corresponding region (for local budgets).
The methodology (matrix model) proposed in the paper for evaluating the effectiveness of the use of interbudgetary transfers has its advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages include:
1. Simplicity of calculation of all data required to build a matrix.
2. Profitability, the calculation of indicators necessary to build a matrix of socio-economic development of the territory is based on the data of statistical bodies and regulatory legal acts, access to which is provided through legal reference systems. Thus, the use of the presented model does not require additional costs for collecting information.
3. Visualization, graphical interpretation of the results of comparing the level of socio-economic development of the territory and the level of interbudgetary transfers, allows the matrix to present the dynamics of changes occurring over time.
4. Universality, since the proposed model can be used both at the regional and municipal levels.
Among the shortcomings of the above model is the delay in the preparation statistical reporting. (Introduction computer technology and the introduction of a system for submitting statistical reports in electronic form on-line will speed up the process of collecting the information necessary for statistical bodies and make data collection more efficient).
To calculate a generalizing indicator of the effectiveness of the system of interbudgetary transfers, it is proposed to compare the total increase in the levels of socio-economic development of territories with the total increase in financial assistance provided, that is, to compare the effect obtained with the funds spent to achieve it.
The work considered practical use of the proposed methodology on the example of assessing the effectiveness of the use of interbudgetary transfers at the level of the Federation - region (on the example of the subjects of the Russian Federation), and at the level of the subject of the federation - municipality (on the example of the municipalities of the Republic of Khakassia.)
Comparative characteristics principles of the budget system
Principles Budget code 1999 Budget Code 2009
The principle of unity (art. 29) meant the unity of the legal framework, monetary system, forms of budget documentation, principles of the budget process in the Russian Federation, sanctions for violations of the budget legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as a unified procedure for financing expenditures of budgets of all levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation, accounting for federal budget funds, budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets. means the unity of the budget legislation of the Russian Federation, the principles of organization and functioning of the budget system of the Russian Federation, forms of budget documentation and budget reporting, budget classification budgetary system of the Russian Federation, sanctions for violation of the budgetary legislation of the Russian Federation, a unified procedure for establishing and fulfilling spending obligations, generating income and spending budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, maintaining budget accounting and compiling budgetary reporting of the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation and budgetary institutions, the unity of the procedure for the execution of judicial acts on foreclosure on funds from the budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation
The principle of delimitation of income and expenditure between the levels of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation (Article 30) meant the consolidation of the relevant types of income (in whole or in part) and the authority to make expenditures for the state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments. means fixing, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, incomes, expenses and sources of financing budget deficits for the budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation, as well as determining the powers of state authorities (local governments) and management bodies of state extra-budgetary funds to form budget revenues, sources of financing budget deficits and establish and fulfillment of spending obligations of public legal entities. State authorities (local self-government bodies) and management bodies of state non-budgetary funds are not entitled to impose legal and individuals not provided by law RF financial and other obligations to ensure the fulfillment of its powers.
The principle of saving - the right of legislative (represented - - the right and duty of state bodies of independence of budgets (Article 31) ) state authorities and local governments at each level of the budget system of the Russian Federation to independently carry out the budget process;
Availability of own sources of income for the budgets of each level of the budget system of the Russian Federation, determined in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation;
Legislative consolidation of regulatory revenues of budgets, powers to form revenues of the relevant budgets in accordance with the budget and tax legislation RF;
The right of public authorities and local self-government bodies to independently determine the directions of spending the funds of the relevant budgets;
The right of public authorities and local self-government bodies to independently determine the sources of financing the deficits of the respective budgets;
Inadmissibility of withdrawal of revenues additionally received in the course of implementation of laws (decisions) on the budget, amounts of excess revenues over budget expenditures and savings on budget expenditures;
Inadmissibility of compensation at the expense of the budgets of other levels of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation for losses in income and additional expenses incurred in the course of the implementation of laws (decisions) on the budget, except in cases related to changes in legislation. military authorities and local self-government bodies independently ensure the balance of the relevant budgets and the efficient use of budgetary funds;
The right and obligation of public authorities and local self-government bodies to independently carry out the budget process, with the exception of cases provided for by budget legislation;
The right of public authorities and local self-government bodies to establish, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees, taxes and fees, the income from which is subject to transfer to the relevant budgets of the budget system;
The right of public authorities and local self-government bodies to independently determine the forms and directions of spending budget funds (with the exception of expenses financed by inter-budget subsidies and subventions from other budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation);
It is inadmissible to establish expenditure obligations to be fulfilled at the expense of revenues and sources of financing deficits of other budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation, as well as expenditure obligations to be fulfilled simultaneously at the expense of two or more budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation, at the expense of consolidated budgets or without determining the budget, at the expense of which the fulfillment of the corresponding expenditure obligations should be carried out;
The right of state authorities and local self-government bodies to provide funds from the budget for the fulfillment of spending obligations established by other state authorities and local self-government bodies, exclusively in the form of interbudgetary transfers;
Inadmissibility of entry into force during the current fiscal year state authorities and local governments of changes in the budget legislation of the Russian Federation and legislation on taxes and fees, legislation on other obligatory payments, leading to an increase in expenses and a decrease in income of other budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation without amending the laws (decisions) on the relevant budgets that provide for compensation increase in expenses, decrease in income; - the inadmissibility of the withdrawal of additional income, savings on budget expenditures received as a result of the effective execution of budgets
The principle of equality of budgetary rights of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities (Article 31.1) In the old version of the BC, this principle was considered in Chapter 16. “ Interbudgetary relations", Art. 129 among the principles underlying interbudgetary relations: At the same time, Art. 132 the principle of equality of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in relations with the federal budget involved the establishment of uniform standards for all deductions from federal taxes and fees to the budgets of the subjects and a unified procedure for the payment of federal taxes and fees. Regulations financial costs for the provision of public services, the minimum budgetary security standards, which are the basis for calculating financial assistance to the subjects of the federation from the federal budget, are determined on the basis of a single methodology, taking into account the socio-economic, geographical, climatic and other characteristics of the subjects when adopting a budget law for the next financial year. Agreements between the Russian Federation and a constituent entity of the Russian Federation containing norms that violate the uniform procedure for the relationship between the federal budget and the budgets of the constituent entities and other provisions. means the definition of the budgetary powers of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments, the establishment and implementation of spending obligations, the formation of tax and non-tax revenues budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets, determining the volume, forms and procedure for providing interbudgetary transfers in accordance with uniform principles and requirements established by budget legislation. Treaties and agreements between state authorities of the Russian Federation and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, state authorities and local governments that do not comply with budget legislation are invalid
The principle of completeness of reflection of income and expenditures of budgets, budgets of state non-budgetary funds (Article 32) (was) laws on state extra-budgetary funds are subject to reflection in the budgets, budgets of state extra-budgetary funds without fail and in full. All state and municipal expenses are to be financed from budgetary funds, state non-budgetary funds accumulated in the budgetary system. means that all revenues, expenditures and sources of financing budget deficits are mandatory and fully reflected in the relevant budgets. expenses and sources of financing budget deficits (Article 32) (became) Tax credits, deferrals and installment plans for the payment of taxes and other obligatory payments are fully accounted for separately for budget revenues, budgets of state extra-budgetary funds and for expenditures of budgets, budgets of state extra-budgetary funds, with the exception of deferrals and installments for the payment of taxes and other obligatory payments provided within the current financial year.
The principle of a balanced budget (Article 33) meant that the volume of budgeted expenditures had to correspond to the total volume of budget revenues and receipts from sources of financing its deficit. When drawing up, approving and executing the budget, the authorized bodies had to proceed from the need to minimize the size of the budget deficit. means that the volume of budgeted expenditures must correspond to the total volume of budget revenues and revenues from sources of financing its deficit, reduced by the amount of payments from the budget related to sources of financing the budget deficit and changes in balances on accounts for recording budget funds. When drawing up, approving and executing the budget, the authorized bodies should proceed from the need to minimize the size of the budget deficit.
The principle of efficiency and economy in the use of budgetary funds (Article 34) (was) results using the least amount of funds or achieving the best result using the amount of funds determined by the budget means that when drawing up and executing budgets, participants in the budget process, within the framework of their budgetary authority, must proceed from the need to achieve the specified results using the least amount of funds or achieve the best result with using the amount of funds determined by the budget.
The principle of general (cumulative) coverage of expenses (Article 35) meant that all budget expenditures should be covered by the total amount of budget revenues and receipts from sources of financing its deficit. Budget revenues and revenues from sources of financing its deficit could not be linked to certain budget expenditures, with the exception of income from target budget funds, and in the case of centralization of funds from budgets of other levels of the budget system, it means that budget expenditures cannot be linked to certain budget revenues and sources of financing the budget deficit, unless otherwise provided by the law (decision) on the budget in the part relating to: subventions and subsidies received from other budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation; funds of targeted foreign loans (borrowings); voluntary contributions, donation
RF vany, means of self-taxation of citizens; budget expenditures carried out in accordance with international treaties (agreements) with the participation of the Russian Federation; budget expenditures carried out outside the territory of the Russian Federation; certain types of non-tax revenues proposed for introduction (reflection in the budget) starting from the next financial year.
The principle of publicity (Article 36) (was) The principle of transparency (openness) (Article 36) (became) means: - mandatory publication in the media of approved budgets and reports on their execution, completeness of information on the progress of budget execution, as well as the availability of other information about budgets by decision of the legislative (representative) bodies of state power, representative bodies of municipalities; - mandatory openness to society and the media of draft budgets submitted to the legislative (representative) bodies of state power (representative bodies of municipalities), procedures for consideration and decision-making on draft budgets, including on issues that cause controversy or within the legislative (representative) ) a public authority (representative body of a municipal formation), or between a legislative (representative) body of state power (representative body of a municipal formation) and an executive body of state power (local administration); - stability and (or) continuity of the budget classification of the Russian Federation, as well as ensuring comparability of budget indicators of the reporting, current and next financial year (next financial year and planning period). Secret articles can only be approved as part of the federal budget.
Principle of budget credibility (art. 37) The principle of budget credibility means the reliability of indicators for forecasting the socio-economic development of the relevant territory and the realistic calculation of budget revenues and expenditures.
The principle of targeting and targeted nature of budget funds (Article 38) The principle of targeting and targeted nature of budget funds means that budget funds are allocated to specific recipients of budget funds with an indication of their direction to finance specific goals. Any actions that lead to a violation of the targeting of funds provided for by the budget or to their direction for purposes not indicated in the budget when allocating specific amounts of funds are a violation of the budget legislation of the Russian Federation. The principle of targeting and targeted nature of budgetary funds means that budgetary appropriations and limits of budgetary obligations are communicated to specific recipients of budgetary funds, indicating the purpose of their use.
The principle of subordination of budget expenditures (Article 38.1) means that recipients of budgetary funds have the right to receive budgetary appropriations and limits of budgetary obligations only from the main manager (manager) of budgetary funds in whose jurisdiction they are.
The principle of the unity of the cash desk (Article 38.2) was reflected in Chapter 24 "Fundamentals of Budget Execution", Art. 216. and provided for the transfer of all incoming revenues and receipts from sources of financing the budget deficit to a single budget account and the implementation of all envisaged expenditures from a single budget account. The budgets of all levels of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation are executed on the basis of the principle of cash unity. means the crediting of all cash receipts and the implementation of all cash payments from a single budget account, with the exception of budget execution operations carried out in accordance with the regulatory legal acts of state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipal legal acts of local governments outside the territory, respectively of the Russian Federation, a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, a municipality, as well as transactions carried out in accordance with the currency legislation of the Russian Federation.
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
Interbudgetary relations
methodological aspect
assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers
d. y. zavyalov,
PhD in Law, Deputy Chairman - Head of the Department of Interbudgetary Relations of the Committee for Budgetary and Financial Policy and Treasury
Administrations Volgograd region
Interbudgetary transfers make up a significant amount of expenditures of the state budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation: federal and regional levels. Thus, according to the results of 2007, the share of interbudgetary transfers in federal budget expenditures amounted to about 32%, regional budgets- about 26% of budget expenditures, such high figures were formed in 2004, 2005 and 2006. one
Providing lower levels of the budget system with broad opportunities for the independent execution of their own spending powers (issues local importance) makes it possible to consider interbudgetary transfers as one of the main directions for increasing the efficiency of the use of budgetary funds. To solve this problem, appropriate tools are needed: a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of calculating and providing interbudgetary transfers and a special methodology for evaluating this form of budget expenditures.
The need to develop a special methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers is evidenced by the significant differences between interbudgetary transfers and other forms of spending budgetary funds, differences both in economic and legal terms.
In economic terms, the provision of interbudgetary transfers is not an expense.
1 Calculations were made according to the data posted on the official website of the Federal Treasury of the Russian Federation www. roskazna. ru.
I eat in the traditional sense, i.e., it is not the final waste of money. The provision of an interbudgetary transfer from the federal budget to the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and further downward does not lead to a decrease in the volume of centralized finance, which occurs as a result of financing for other forms of spending budget funds (when settling with suppliers of goods and services for state and municipal needs or providing social benefits certain categories citizens).
In legal terms, the peculiarity of interbudgetary transfers is manifested in the way they are regulated. Thus, the provision of interbudgetary transfers is regulated by public law norms, while the implementation of other forms of budget expenditures is regulated by civil law norms.
The features of interbudgetary transfers are so significant that they lead to the use of special methods for their planning, financing, and performance evaluation.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the provision of interbudgetary transfers undeservedly receives little attention. If the performance becomes the subject of attention quite often, as evidenced by the speeches of the first persons of the country, the requirements set by the Federation for the programs of reforming regional and municipal finances, normative legal acts, regulation
providing subsidies to the budgets of public legal entities, then the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers is not considered or at all - the effectiveness of budget expenditures is identified with the effectiveness of their provision. In part, this identification is facilitated directly by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, which, in our opinion, is not justified.
so, in accordance with Art. 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by the Federal Law of April 26, 2007 No. 64-FZ), the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of budget funds is understood as spending budget funds that meets one of the following conditions: achieving the desired results using the smallest amount of funds or achieving the best result with using the amount of funds determined by the budget. from this it follows that the concepts of "effectiveness" and "efficiency" are not distinguished by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. on the one hand, this is justified, for example, social effect and social result are almost identical concepts. At the same time, efficiency, in contrast to effectiveness, involves taking into account the costs incurred to achieve the result.
In the Budget Code of the Russian Federation for interbudgetary transfers, however, certain results are described, the achievement of which should be focused on the provision of one form or another of an interbudgetary transfer. Provision in accordance with Art. 131, 137, 138 and 142.1. The BK RF of subsidies from financial support funds implies the achievement of such a result as the financial support of the own spending powers of the budgets of public legal entities of the recipients of the subsidy. the name of the subsidy - “for equalizing the level of budgetary security” or “for equalizing the level of budgetary security” characterizes more the method of calculating the subsidy than the social or economic result. At the same time, unfortunately, the federal legislator provides an opportunity to freely interpret that there is an equalization of budgetary security or the level of budgetary security. It should be noted that within the framework of Federal Law No. 131-FZ of October 6, 2003 “On the General Principles of Organizing Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation”, equalization of the level of budgetary security was understood as equalization financial opportunities local self-government bodies to address issues of local importance. After the next amendments, this provision was excluded from the text of the law. based on the definition
of the level of budgetary security (budgetary security) given in Art. 131, 138 and 142.1 of the Bq rf, equalization of the level of budgetary security is the equalization of per capita income, taking into account objective factors that cause differences in cost budgetary services, but this is a description of the technology for calculating the subsidy, rather than the socio-economic effect (result).
A similar situation arises with regard to other grants, such as grants to ensure the balance of the budget. If ensuring a balanced budget (again, what should be understood as achieving a balance - achieving a balance of income and expenditure obligations?) is a socio-economic effect (result) of providing this subsidy, does this mean that the subsidy is not aimed at equalizing the level of budgetary security? to achieve a balance in the budget of public law education.
the social effect (result) of granting a subsidy is assumed, as it were, but is nevertheless replaced by a description of the procedures (methodology) for calculating subsidies.
another form of interbudgetary transfers is a subsidy provided for in Art. 132, 139, 142.2, 142.3 of the RF BC, is aimed at co-financing their own spending obligations of public law entities - recipients of subsidies, as well as equalizing the provision of public law entities in order to implement their own spending obligations. In the first case, again, the technical goal is indicated - the participation of a public legal entity in financing the costs of a public legal entity of a different level. In the second case, the purpose of the subsidy is similar to the purpose of subsidies. Description of the social effect (result) is missing in both cases.
subventions - a form of interbudgetary transfers, provided for in Art. 133 and 140 of the BK RF, provided for the financial support of expenditure obligations transferred to public law education, but in this case, the purpose of their provision is reduced to a technical component, the social and economic result is not defined.
The Budget Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 132.1, 139.1 and 142.4) provides for the possibility of providing "other" interbudgetary transfers, the socio-economic effect (result) of which is not defined at all. intergovernmental transfers can also include the provision of
finance and credit
budget loans to the budgets of public legal entities, the purpose of which should be determined by the lender independently, which also does not allow formulating, based on the norms of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the socio-economic effect of providing this form of interbudgetary transfer.
thus, the existing norms of the current budgetary legislation are not enough to determine the economic and (or) social effect (result) of the calculation and provision of interbudgetary transfers.
In our opinion, it is necessary to distinguish between the provision of an interbudgetary transfer and the spending of funds received in the form of interbudgetary transfers. If the spending of funds received by the budget of a lower-level public law entity from the budget of a higher level is linked to the provision of final public or municipal service, then the provision of an interbudgetary transfer in itself is not the provision of a budgetary service or a social payment. The provision of a budget transfer cannot be considered as the provision of a final budgetary service, and therefore it is difficult to formulate the result that the provision of an interbudget transfer is aimed at.
A paradoxical situation is emerging - up to one third of state budget expenditures (how much interbudgetary transfers are in the federal and on average in regional budgets) do not have a clearly formulated result (effect) to achieve which they should be oriented. At the same time, the intended purpose of the interbudgetary transfer is an indication of its further use by the recipient budget and cannot be considered as a socio-economic result or effect.
However, despite the fact that the provision of an interbudgetary transfer is not the provision of a final budgetary service, an assessment of its effectiveness (efficiency) is still possible. Moreover, the methods for evaluating the effectiveness of an interbudgetary transfer, depending on the form of its provision, should differ.
Let's systematize the existing forms of interbudgetary transfers based on their qualifying features.
Interbudgetary transfers can be divided into two groups: the first - gratuitous and irrevocable (subsidies, subventions and subsidies),
the second - provided on the terms of repayment and payment (budget loans to the budgets of public legal entities).
The qualifying features of the grant are as follows:
They do not have the intended use;
Subventions are the opposite of subsidies.
the qualifying features of which can be formulated as follows:
They are intended for further use;
Used by the recipient to execute the delegated authority.
Currently, the Budget Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of providing subventions from the budget of the municipal district to the budget of the settlement, and vice versa. However, the existence of subventions is expressly provided for in federal law No. 131-F3, which is a way of financial support for the delegated powers to resolve issues of local importance. In accordance with Art. 142 of the RF BC, financial support for the transferred powers to resolve issues of local importance is provided through such a form as “other interbudgetary transfers”, which, by its economic and legal nature, corresponds to a subvention.
A subsidy as a form of interbudgetary transfer combines features of both subsidies and subventions:
Provided both from the higher level of the budget to the lower budget, and vice versa;
They have the intended purpose of use;
Used by the recipient to fulfill his own spending authority.
As one of the signs of subsidies, one can single out such a property as “co-financing” of the recipient’s budget expenditures by a different level of the budget system. However, in our opinion, this feature is optional. Thus, the provision of far from all subsidies is associated with the allocation of funds from the budget of the recipient of subsidies for similar expenses. for example, listing "negative transfer" - subsidies
from the budget of the municipality to the budget of the subject of the Russian Federation provides for the subsequent distribution of the "negative transfer" through the relevant regional fund for financial support of the subject or the compensation fund. At the same time, the formation of a financial support fund at the expense of the region's own funds is not at all obligatory. The provision of subsidies to the budget can also be considered as “co-financing” by a higher level of the budget system of its own expenditure obligations of the recipient budget, but without specifying a specific expenditure obligation. The above circumstances allow us to conclude that the sign "co-financing" is optional.
"Other" forms of interbudgetary transfers, depending on the composition of the participants and the conditions for their calculation and provision, can, in their economic essence, be classified as subsidies, subventions or subsidies. “Other intergovernmental transfers” should be viewed not as a form, but as a way of reporting an intergovernmental transfer.
Reimbursable and repayable interbudgetary transfers - budget loans have the following features:
Provided from a higher level to a lower budget level;
May or may not have a designated purpose of use;
Used by the recipient to fulfill his own spending authority.
Of all the forms of gratuitous and irrevocable transfers, budget loans to the budgets of public legal entities have more in common with subsidies.
Based on the analysis of the listed qualifications, for each form of interbudgetary transfer, it is possible to formulate a list of socio-economic effects (results), which are aimed at achieving the provision of an interbudgetary transfer.
Socio-economic effects (results), in turn, can be analyzed both for effectiveness - whether the desired is achieved or not, and for efficiency - whether the costs of achieving the desired are justified. Interbudgetary transfers are one of the forms of budgetary expenditures, and if the efficiency, i.e., the ratio of results to costs, is low, then, perhaps, in terms of priority, the provision of this interbudgetary transfer will be inferior to another form of interbudgetary transfers or even to another form of budgetary
expenses of a public legal entity that provides an interbudgetary transfer.
For subsidies, in our opinion, the socio-economic effect (result) is the onset of the following consequences:
Providing state authorities (local self-government bodies) with the opportunity to provide residents with additional budgetary services or budgetary services of a higher quality, the priority of which in the relevant public legal entity is the highest;
Stimulation of public authorities and local governments to make decisions aimed at mobilizing the territory's own revenue potential, increasing the efficiency of using budget funds. the calculation and provision of subsidies will be effective only if, as a result, the level of consumer satisfaction as a whole from the complex of budgetary services provided to him increases: raising additional funds through optimization own expenses.
Calculation and provision of subsidies should be recognized as effective when the increase in consumer satisfaction with a set of budgetary services is faster than the costs of the higher level budget for the provision of subsidies to the lower level of the budget system are growing. This rule applies to all types of subsidies, regardless of how they are distributed.
The socio-economic effects that subsidies should be aimed at can be formulated as follows:
Providing public authorities (local governments) with the opportunity to provide residents of the relevant public legal entities with certain additional budgetary services that are most in demand by residents or, again, improve the quality and volume of the most demanded budgetary services;
Encourage public authorities (local governments) to provide certain budgetary services.
finance and credit
Unlike subsidies, the performance of subsidies can be measured by any or all three of the following:
Increase in expenditures of the budget - the recipient of subsidies for the provision of subsidized services, attributed to his own authority;
Increasing the volume of subsidized budgetary services provided to the population;
Increasing the level of satisfaction of recipients from the consumption of subsidized public services.
The effectiveness of a subsidy, like that of a subsidy, can be measured by the ratio of the change in outcomes to the change in the cost of providing the subsidy. Thus, the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers can be measured through such an indicator as the elasticity of an interbudgetary transfer.
Grants and subsidies have a common qualification feature - the provision of funds to the recipient budget for the execution of its own spending powers, respectively, and the socio-economic effect for subsidies and subsidies should be homogeneous. But, since grants and subsidies differ in terms of the target component, respectively, there is a difference in socio-economic effects. Let us note that the vector of movement of the interbudgetary transfer (from the higher budget to the lower budget or vice versa) does not affect the characteristics of socio-economic effects.
The provision of subventions, unlike grants and subsidies, is focused on achieving a single socio-economic effect - to encourage public authorities and local self-government bodies of a public legal entity - the recipient of the subvention to ensure the most economical provision of budget services or even reduce social payments, if the delegated authority is to provide social support measures. Moreover, the economical provision of public services can be achieved both by reducing the cost of public services (due to optimization of management and reducing unnecessary costs), and by reducing the quality of public services to an acceptable level. For example, the priority of the same public service in public legal entities may well be different. Concerning
in regions or municipalities where the budgetary service provided within the framework of the delegated authority is of less priority, then the costs of its provision, other things being equal, will be lower. As for the provision of social support measures to certain categories of citizens, the delegation of this authority to a lower level is justified if, as a result of delegation, the number of payments is reduced or, at least, the growth of their number is restrained.
Such a calculation and provision of a subvention should be recognized as effective, as a result of which the subject to which the authority has been delegated is able to execute it. The provision of a subvention will be effective if, as a result of the delegation of authority, the costs of the country's budgetary system for its execution are reduced, but at the same time, there is no decrease in the level of satisfaction of the consumer of budgetary services, otherwise, we can talk about the ineffectiveness of the subvention.
Budget credits as a form of interbudgetary transfers do not give rise to socio-economic effects other than those listed above. The budget credit has signs of grants and subsidies, respectively, and the effects are similar.
Consumer satisfaction can be measured both through sociological surveys, research, and the analysis of statistical network indicators, which has recently been reflected in decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, regulatory legal acts regions on the assessment of the effectiveness of the work of the lower level of the budget system.
One of the debatable issues is the choice of the most optimal (or efficient) interbudgetary transfer that encourages the territories to increase the efficiency of their own budget expenditures. Grants and subsidies are considered as alternatives, and the latter form tends to be preferred, since it is subsidies that make it possible to ensure intended use budget funds, the introduction of elements of budgeting, focused on results.
Recognizing the validity of this position, we would like to draw attention to a number of factors that make us cautious about the current trend of increasing subsidiary financing and prospects
increasing the share of subsidies, including by reducing subsidies.
First, the provision of subsidies to finance earmarked expenditures can lead to a reduction in the recipient's own expenditures to finance subsidized expenditures (cost replacement effect) 2.
Secondly, the desire of the region (municipality) to attract additional funds in the form of subsidies on the terms of co-financing requires the mobilization of additional resources both by increasing their own income and by optimizing their own expenses, however, the mobilization of funds for co-financing can also be ensured by non-execution or improper execution of their own spending powers - in this case, the positive socio-economic effect will be reduced to zero.
Thirdly, if an increase in the share of subsidies is provided by a decrease in the share of subsidies, then this process can be characterized as hidden budget financing, and as a result, a decrease in the independence of public law entities, which, in turn, reduces the potential effect of providing any interbudgetary transfers.
In general, in our opinion, it should be assumed that the elasticity of the subsidy, other things being equal, tends to zero faster than the elasticity of the subsidy. Conditionally, the ratio of dynamics of the elasticity of subsidies and subsidies can be represented in the following graph:
This hypothesis is based, first of all, on the manifestation of the substitution effect as a result of the provision of a subsidy, which cannot be the case with the provision of subsidies. It should also be taken into account that subsidies are much less mobile than subsidies. Let us clarify, it is a priori assumed that the subject of the Russian Federation and (or) municipality participates in receiving a subsidy on the terms of co-financing in the event that the subsidy is aimed at financing priority expenses for which its own funds are not enough, but a different situation may arise. For example, after receiving several tranches of subsidies, a certain level of satisfaction with the consumer of subsidized budgetary services is achieved, and other expenses acquire higher priority, but it is impossible to redirect the rest of the subsidies to other expenses.
It is impossible to ignore the circumstances listed above, in connection with which an increase in the role of subsidiary financing is justified, subject to the role of subsidized financing. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the provision of subsidies is very limited.
despite differences in qualifications and socio-economic effects, a common characteristic can be identified for all forms of interbudgetary transfers - this is a way of managing public finances as a tool of public administration. all forms of interbudgetary transfers are characterized by the inducement of public authorities (local self-government) to make decisions to change the established practice of managing their own budgets. Therefore, the criterion for the truth of the calculation and distribution of interbudgetary transfers, in our opinion, is not the satisfaction of a certain level of the needs of the territories for funds, but the provision of management of the territories. efficiency - change in the budget policy on the ground, efficiency - the degree of achievement of changes in the budget policy of the lower level of the budget system based on the allocated volumes of interbudgetary transfers.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers opens up new opportunities for improving the efficiency of public finance management, in general, state and municipal administration.
literature
1. Budget Code of the Russian Federation.
2. Afanasiev M. P., KrivogovI. Modernization of public finances / ed. State. un-t - Higher School of Economics - 2nd ed. - M.: HSE Publishing House. 2007.
3. Bezhaev O. G. Interbudgetary relations: theory and practice of reforming / M.: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Entrepreneurship - 2001.
4. Dorzhdeev A. V., Zavyalov D. Yu, Ivanova T. A. Local budgets in the Volgograd region / M.: Finance Publishing House, 2007.
5. Interbudgetary regulation and distribution of financial assistance to regions: experience, problems, ways of improvement / ed. L. V. Perekrestova, A. V. Dorzhdeeva. Volgograd: Volgograd scientific publishing house - 2007 Guide to the budget of the Volgograd region / Volgograd: Publisher publishing house, 2007.
6. Regional finance: experience, strategy, prospects / under. ed. A. V. Dorzhdeeva, D. Yu. Zavyalova - M.: Finance Publishing House, 2008.
7. Guide to the management of public finances at the regional and municipal level / under the total. ed. A. M. Lavrov in 6 volumes - M .: Publishing house of OOO Publishing House "Business and Professional Literature", 2007. (Vol. 5).
8. Khristenko V. B. Interbudgetary relations and management of regional finances / M.: Publishing House "Delo" - 2002.
9. Dorzhdeev A. V., Zavyalov D. Yu. Social effects of the budget reform: performance assessment at the local level / Budget (January 2008). pp. 54 - 57.
10. Zavyalov D. Yu. The potential of interbudgetary regulation as an instrument of budget policy / Finance. 2008. No. 3. S. 11 - 14.
11. Sazonov S. P., Zavyalov D. Yu. Interbudgetary regulation at the subregional level and reform of local government / Finance. 2005. No. 10.
