Budget policy in the system of regional management. Regional financial and budgetary policy. Analysis of the regional economic crisis and the formation of regional budgetary policy

Keywords

ECONOMIC SECURITY / FINANCIAL SECURITY / BUDGET POLICY / TYPOLOGY OF REGIONS / BUDGET SECURITY/ ECONOMIC SECURITY / FISCAL SECURITY / FISCAL POLICY / TYPOLOGY OF REGIONS / FISCAL CAPACITY

annotation scientific article on economics and business, author of scientific work - Zagarskikh V.V.

Item. The subject of the study is the methodological aspects of the study economic crisis and formation of a regional budget policy that meet the requirements economic security within the national strategy economic reforms. The article presents the main results of the analysis of the regions of Russia. Objectives. Consideration economic security in the context of indicators characterizing the regions. In accordance with this goal, the following tasks were set in the work: to substantiate the need to study economic security regions in terms of cost-effective activities of authorities; show the impact of socio-economic differentiation of Russian regions on economic security countries; determine the main indicators characterizing fiscal security regions; analyze the factors that determine the threats economic security region.Methodology. As a methodological basis for the study, the principles of a systematic approach to the study of socio-economic processes were mainly used; evaluation methods economic security regions, including the observation of the main macroeconomic indicators and their comparison with threshold values, which are taken as world average values; methods of processing socio-economic data. Results. Based on interpretation economic security region, a regional economic crisis may threaten the national economic security. With a general trend towards a declining role of the federal government in economic processes regions of the Russian Federation regional system economic security is the basis of economic integration and, consequently, the provision of national economic security.Conclusions. Suggested indicators fiscal security region, as well as their threshold values, can serve as a basis for developing forecasts for the socio-economic development of the region and draft budgets for the constituent entities of the Federation. The analysis of the financial support of the regions can be used by the executive authorities in order to ensure stable, sustainable and progressive development of the economy and society.

Analysis of regional economic crisis and regional fiscal policy formation

Importance The article addresses the methodology for economic crisis research and regional fiscal policy formation to meet the requirements of economic security within the national strategy of economic reforms.Objectives The main purpose of the study is to examine the economic security in the context of indicators characterizing the fiscal security of the region.Methods The methodological basis of the research is basic principles of systems approach to the study of socio-economic processes, methods for assessing the economic security of the regions, including the monitoring of key macroeconomic indicators and their comparison with threshold values , methods of socio-economic data processing.Results Based on the interpretation of economic security of the region, a regional economic crisis is likely to endanger the national economic security . Under the general downward trend in reducing the role of the federal government in economic processes of the Russian Federation, the regional system of economic security acts as a basis for economic integration and, therefore, for ensuring the national economic security .Conclusions and Relevance The proposed indicators of fiscal security of the region, as well as their threshold values may be helpful for forecasts of socio-economic development of the region and budgetary estimates of the subjects of the Russian Federation. The analysis of financial support to regions can be used by executive authorities to ensure a stable, sustainable, and progressive development of the economy and society.

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Analysis of the regional economic crisis and the formation of regional budgetary policy"

ISSN 2311-8725 (Online) Economic development

ISSN 2073-039X (Print)

ANALYSIS OF THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC CRISIS AND FORMATION OF THE REGIONAL BUDGET POLICY*

Vera Valerievna ZAGARSKIKH

Senior Lecturer, Department of Logistics and Financial Support for the Activities of the Penitentiary System, Kirov Institute for Advanced Training of Employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service, Kirov, Russian Federation [email protected]

Article history:

Adopted on 03/14/2016 Adopted in revised form on 04/13/2016

Approved 11/23/2016 Available online 02/27/2017

UDC 338.246.87 JEL: H12, H72

Keywords:

economic security, budgetary and financial security, budget policy, typology of regions, budget security

annotation

Item. The subject of the study is the methodological aspects of studying the economic crisis and the formation of regional budgetary policy that meet the requirements of economic security within the framework of the national strategy for economic reforms. The article presents the main results of the analysis of the budgetary and financial security of Russian regions.

Goals. Consideration of economic security in the context of indicators characterizing the budgetary and financial security of the regions. In accordance with this goal, the following tasks were set in the work: to substantiate the need to study the economic security of the regions from the point of view of the cost-effective activities of the authorities; show the impact of socio-economic differentiation of Russian regions on the economic security of the country; determine the main indicators characterizing the budgetary and financial security of the regions; to analyze the factors that determine the threats to the economic security of the region.

Methodology. As a methodological basis for the study, the principles of a systematic approach to the study of socio-economic processes were mainly used; methods for assessing the economic security of regions, including the observation of the main macroeconomic indicators and their comparison with threshold values, which are taken to be world average values; methods of processing socio-economic data.

Results. Based on the interpretation of the economic security of the region, a regional economic crisis may threaten national economic security. With a general trend towards a decrease in the role of the federal government in the economic processes of the regions of the Russian Federation, the regional system of economic security is the basis for economic integration and, consequently, for ensuring national economic security.

Conclusions. The proposed indicators of the budgetary and financial security of the region, as well as their threshold values, can serve as a basis for developing forecasts for the socio-economic development of the region and draft budgets for the constituent entities of the Federation. The analysis of the financial support of the regions can be used by the executive authorities in order to ensure stable, sustainable and progressive development of the economy and society.

One of the most important components of economic security is budgetary and financial security, without which it is practically impossible to solve any of the tasks facing the state. The leading role in the process of socio-economic development of the region belongs to budgetary funds. The consolidated territorial budget accumulates the bulk of the region's income and, thus, is the main source of investment in the socio-economic development of any subject of the Russian Federation.

* The publication was prepared within the framework of the scientific project No. 15-12-43008 supported by the Russian Humanitarian Foundation.

In 2008, the Security Council of the Russian Federation approved the list and threshold values of 36 economic security indicators developed by the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is on these indicators that the threshold values of economic security are calculated. They characterize the limit values, the excess of which hinders the normal development of the economy and social sphere, leads to devastating consequences in the field of production and the standard of living of the population.

Using the analysis of indicators of economic security, the economy of the region can be considered from the standpoint of compliance with its development trends (within and compared to

with other regions). In the economy, the innovative nature of activity is increasing, the interdependence of various factors, therefore, the risk of managerial errors and their cost increase. To reduce the risks of the budgetary and financial security of the region, it is necessary to analyze the existing system of ratios of economic security indicators, for example, the maximum possible limits of the budget deficit, the share own funds in income consolidated budget, the ratio of public debt to own income, etc.

For the effectiveness of public administration, the threshold values of economic security should acquire the status of approved and approved at the state level, the observance of which should become an obligatory element of government economic programs.

Various aspects of regional economic security have been developed by scientists from the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Options for determining the rating assessment of the state of economic security are given by N. Dyuzhenkova, which provide for the derivation of an integral indicator from the system of blocks characterizing, among other things, the financial sector1. Scientists of the Mordovian State University. N.P. Ogareva developed a method for assessing the economic security of a region using multivariate statistical methods2. The method of scoring according to ten indicators for the analysis of the level of economic security of the regions was proposed by S. Volkov3. In turn, O. Taran and O. Kiseleva developed a system of indicators of economic security, including social (9 indicators) and economic (12 indicators) blocks. Of interest are the studies of I. Novikova and N. Krasnikov on the regional system of indicators of economic security in various areas of the region's economy. Works are devoted to the definition of indicators of economic security and their threshold values.

1 Dyuzhenkova N.V. The system of criteria and indicators for assessing the state of economic security // Information business in Russia: a collection of scientific papers based on the materials of the scientific and practical seminar. Tambov, 2001, p. 42.

2 Filetkin O.S. Development of a system for monitoring the economic security of the region. URL:

http://www.msnauka.com/ONG/Economics/13_ffletkin%20o.s.doc.htm

3 Volkov S.P. Peculiarities of ensuring the economic security of the branch of the national economy.

URL: http://www.cfin.ru/bandurin/article/sbm05/04.shtml

Despite the differences in indicators and their threshold values by region, there are similarities in the studies of scientists that determine the criteria for choosing these indicators. The analysis of the developed systems determined the feasibility of improving and unifying the groups, based on the availability of data from official sources and the limited number of indicators.

In the context of a shortage of budgetary resources, aggravation of threats to the budgetary and financial security of the country and the subjects of the Federation, the problems of scientific development criteria of rationality and security of budgetary policy.

Let's consider three main indicators that characterize the budgetary and financial security of the regions.

The first indicator - the balance of the region's consolidated budget - demonstrates the level of budgetary security and varies as a percentage of GRP. The value equal to zero is chosen as the threshold value. A positive value corresponds to a budget surplus, a negative value to a deficit. Economically secure in this case is a deficit-free budget.

Based on the analysis of the structure of financial balance sheet items for last years it is possible to identify the most important regularities in the movement of financial resources - from their creation to use. The balance allows you to establish the amount of financial resources left at the disposal of enterprises and organizations sent to local and higher budgets, as well as funds mobilized from sources external to the territory, mainly from the federal budget.

The multi-level and multi-channel structure of financing of the subjects of the Federation is reflected in the scheme of financial flows shown in Fig. 1.

Consideration of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation and the federal budget gives an idea of the context social policy states, and the study

consolidated budgets of the subjects of the Federation allows us to understand the scale and causes of regional differences in the financing of the social sphere.

The main source of information for the analysis of public spending in Russia is budget reporting data (Fig. 2).

Federal Treasury publishes in open access on the Internet portal monthly, quarterly and annual reports on the execution of budgets of all levels of the Russian budget system. The most detailed information is given in the reports on the execution of the federal budget. Apart from functional classification its expenses are presented in the context of federal ministries and departments (the main managers of budgetary funds), all target items and types of expenses are listed. In the reports on the execution of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation, there is no such detail, and it cannot be - each regional budget has its own list of items (types) of expenditure. To study social protection spending budget reporting can be supplemented with statistical information of both the all-Russian and regional levels.

For the regions of Russia, it is important to establish interbudgetary relations and coordinate the balance of mutual settlements with the federal financial system. For the analysis of interbudgetary calculations, you can use the data financial balance.

The financial balance can be represented by the following ratio:

SD + VD \u003d SR + BP,

where SD is the territory's own income, including collected customs payments;

IA - external income, which can include receipts from the federal financial system and other sources;

SR - own expenses, that is, carried out in the territory;

VR - external expenses, that is, transfers to the federal center.

If the amount of funds used by the region exceeds its own mobilization revenues (SR > SR), then the degree of federal financing of the region's expenses is higher than the degree of centralization of the region's revenue sources.

With a ratio of SR< СД централизуемые доходы региона выше возвращенных в регион финансовых средств.

When analyzing counter financial flows between the center and the region, the concepts of “subsidized region” and “donor region” are often used. The basis for assigning a region to one or another type is the sign of the balance of the consolidated budget of the region. At the same time, it is rarely explained for which monetary flows the fact of the subsidized mode of functioning has been established.

Financial mutual settlements between the region and the center can be analyzed according to criteria, each of which will correspond to a certain type of subsidy or donation.

The most common is the type of budget subsidized regions, in which the negative balance of the consolidated budget is limited only to the budget cut. There are three types of budget subsidies, based on a comparison of the amount of taxes, payments and other incomes of the regional consolidated budget assigned to it by federal legislation:

1) conditionally normative;

2) unconditional;

3) budgetary subsidies for mutual settlements.

For the first type, the resulting deficit is then covered by special transfer support from the federal budget system. A characteristic feature of this type of subsidization is a high degree of artificial regulation of interbudgetary relations between the two levels.

The degree of conditionally-normative subsidization is calculated using the following formula:

D1 \u003d (SDB - FN) / RB,

where SDB is the own budget revenues in the region in the total amount of taxes and payments collected by the budget system;

FN - federal taxes and payments transferred to the center;

RB - expenses of the territorial budget.

Ratio D1< 1 свидетельствует о наличии условно-нормативной дотационности, при этом остающихся на территории налогов достаточно для финансирования собственных бюджетных расходов после выполнения financial obligations before the federal budget.

Under the regime of unconditional budget subsidies, the entire volume of taxes, payments and other budget revenues collected in the region is not able to cover the minimum necessary expenses, and federal financial assistance is allocated to the region.

Budgetary subsidies for mutual settlements are not associated with the revenue and expenditure bases, but are established by simply comparing the volumes of budgetary resources transferred to the center and received back.

The degree of subsidization for mutual settlements is calculated according to the following formula:

Dz \u003d RFB / FN,

where RFB is the resources of the federal budget (subsidies and transfers to the regional budget).

The criterion for the budgetary subsidization of the region for mutual settlements is the inequality Dz > 1.

Financial support for regional economy can be carried out not only through the budget, but also directly to the needy subjects of the production and social spheres. And the sources of such support can be not only the federal budget and off-budget funds, but also intersectoral funds, consortiums, companies and various investment institutions located outside the region.

Thus, the second type of subsidization of the territorial economy can be budget-sectoral (economic) subsidization.

The degree of budget-sectoral (economic) subsidization of regions can be calculated using the following formula:

Dotr \u003d (RFB - FPO) / FN,

where RFB - resources of the federal budget (subsidies and transfers to the regional budget);

FPO - financial support of the central line of industries and departments;

FN - federal taxes and payments transferred to the federal budget.

The criterion for classifying a region as a budget-sectoral (economic)

subsidization is the fulfillment of the inequality

Dotr > 1.

The most general characteristic of the subsidization regime is the measurement of flows between the region and the center in the context of the national income produced and used in the territory (gross domestic product) - the subsidization of the region in terms of GDP.

With this approach, the volumes of direct financing of the expenses of law enforcement agencies, the socio-cultural sphere, etc. are added to budgetary and sectoral subsidies and subsidies.

The degree of subsidization of regions in terms of GDP is determined by the ratio of the gross domestic product used in the territory and the final product produced. If the volume of the first is exceeded over the second, we can talk about the subsidization of the region in terms of GDP - the third type of subsidization.

The consolidated balance sheet allows you to solve many analytical problems, namely:

Compare the financial needs of the territory and the real opportunities to cover them;

Determine the average financial security of a particular territory;

Assess the interaction between the region and the federal financial system, their contributions to the development of the economy;

Identify the potentials of the local budget and off-budget funds;

Track the processes of formation, accumulation, distribution and redistribution of financial resources.

The information base for compiling the consolidated balance sheet is:

Statistical data of reports of enterprises and organizations based on the results of financial economic activity;

Reports on the use of budgetary funds;

Data tax inspections;

Reports on the formation and use of off-budget funds;

Customs data and other information.

To develop a forecast balance, it is necessary to take into account a number of features of the formation of revenue and expenditure parts regional budget:

The source materials are financial balance data for reporting year, as well as the estimated parameters current year;

For the main industries, indicators of growth in prices for products are laid, as well as composite indices prices for consumer goods and services;

Efficiency indicators of the economy and its individual sectors are established for the next fiscal year(increase or decrease in physical volumes of production, level of profitability, investment plans enterprises, etc.);

The key indicators of tax revenues are determined: profit, wage fund, value added, taking into account inflation indices and wage growth;

All possible changes in the taxation system are taken into account;

The volumes of tax revenues, fees and other payments are calculated;

Other revenues from internal and external sources are predicted line by line.

Budget expenditure planning largely depends on possible budget revenues and other financial resources. First, the most necessary expenses are calculated, related to the mandatory payments of social benefits to the population, the maintenance of life support systems. public utilities cities and towns, the work of law enforcement agencies, state and municipal authorities, the current content of the socio-cultural sphere.

Volumes capital investments should be based on the priorities defined in the development of individual industries, types economic activity as well as individual cities and towns. The priority sectors, as a rule, are the fuel and energy and agro-industrial complexes, transport infrastructure and others. Local priorities may be given to areas affected by natural disasters and cities with a backward economy or undergoing a period of

reconstruction city-forming enterprises(for example, a city with a military-industrial complex that performs conversion), etc.

After the distribution of the predicted financial income in priority areas, the remaining resources are distributed in the areas of current and long-term financing.

With a shortage of financial resources, measures should be developed to attract foreign funds, funds from the federal budget in the form of grants, subsidies, subsidies and subventions.

Currently, the risks of ensuring the sustainability of the budgets of the subjects of the Russian Federation and local budgets are associated with a significant amount of debt, especially in some subjects. The high level of debt (in 2013 - 44%, in some regions of Russia - more than 50% of tax and non-tax revenues excluding gratuitous receipts) is proof of the existing problems in the formation and execution of regional budgets, which can complicate further socio-economic development and modernization economies of these regions.

There is no real assessment of tax and non-tax revenues for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which creates the risk of distorting the current situation in the regions, as well as the amount of financial assistance from the federal budget in 2016-2018.

The increase in the expenditures of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation is mainly due to an increase in current social expenditures while reducing the amount of funds allocated for the renewal of fixed assets.

An increase in interbudgetary transfers is forecasted mainly due to an increase in subsidies to equalize the budgetary provision of the regions and to compensate for losses in the decline in revenues from excises on petroleum products. At the same time, the share of interbudgetary transfers in the income of the consolidated regional budgets is decreasing. Thus, in 2015, it was planned to increase subsidies to equalize the budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by 10.9%.

The total number of subjects of the Russian Federation receiving subsidies in 2015,

amounted to 71, including the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol (in 2014 - 72, in 2013 - 73). At the same time, the number of regions that did not receive subsidies to equalize budgetary provision increased from 11 in 2014 to 14 in 2015.

The number of interbudgetary subsidies distributed to the budgets of the subjects of the Federation in 2015 increased to 16 subsidies (in 2014 - 11 subsidies), and their share in the total volume of interbudgetary subsidies - from 16.1% in 2014 to 18.9 % in 2015. The total number of subsidies in 2015 was 81 (in 2014 - 80). At the same time, no consolidation (aggregation) of subsidies is envisaged within the framework of government programs, which does not correspond to the tasks set in the budget message of the President of the Russian Federation on the provision of inter-budget subsidies in a consolidated form.

The total amount of subventions (this is government funding for a certain period for specific purposes, in contrast to subsidies, they are subject to return in case of misuse or not used in deadlines) amounted to only 3.2-3.4%.

The state of regional budgets depends on the level and dynamics of incomes and expenditures, their balance. In 2008-2014 it was extremely unstable. The most prosperous year in terms of income in 2008 was replaced by the crisis year of 2009. Then there was a rather rapid improvement in 2010-2011. Problems have aggravated since the end of 2012 due to the growth of regional budget expenditures for the implementation of decrees on wage increases in public sector, as well as economic stagnation and a slowdown in the growth of budget revenues. This led to an imbalance and deficit in the consolidated regional and municipal budgets (Table 1).

Dynamics and structure of budget expenditures shows political priorities

regional authorities, including in the social sphere. The main trend for the entire period under review is the outstripping growth of social expenditures of the consolidated budgets of the regions. With all spending up 43% in nominal terms, spending on education, health care, and social policy almost doubled. The increase in social spending slowed down only in 2014.

For comparison: the costs of all regions for the national economy (support for industry, transport and road infrastructure) after the crisis of 2009-2010. increased by 2014 to a level comparable to the dynamics of all budget expenditures. The main way to save the regions was to reduce the cost of supporting housing and communal services. The increase in spending on physical culture and sports in 2011 is associated with the preparation for the Olympics and other high-status competitions - more than 30% of the total spending, in 2012 - 38%, in 2013 - 35%, and in 2014 - 39%. Hosting the Olympic Games in Sochi turned out to be extremely expensive, including due to huge infrastructure costs, mass and children's sports also suffered. Since 2013, support for the economy has sharply declined due to the plight of the budgets of most regions, growing deficits and debt. Significant increase in spending on housing and communal services in 2011 due to a sharp increase in tariffs natural monopolies(Table 2).

The crisis of the regional budgets became apparent in 2013, but despite the huge deficit and the rapid growth of debt, the regions continued to increase spending, including social spending. Spending on education and healthcare remained the leaders of growth, culture and sports were added to them. Only the growth of social spending for the population has been minimized. In 2014, despite attempts to optimize budget expenditures, it was not possible to maintain their growth in the regions (plus 4.6% by 2013, except for Crimea).

The outstripping dynamics of health care expenditures, taking into account the expenditures of territorial compulsory health insurance largely due to increased funding for drug provision. The growth in spending on culture and social policy (social security) is associated with the implementation of presidential decrees and the indexation of benefits to the population. In 2014, the dynamics of non-social expenditures worsened most significantly - for housing and communal services and for the national economy. Opportunities to optimize spending on these items are close to exhaustion in most regions, except for the wealthy. The next step was to cut social spending.

In 2014, for the first time, enough a large number of regions (17) reduced nominal budget expenditures. Most of these regions were in the Central, Far Eastern, Southern

and Northwestern federal districts. Regions with large debts were forced to cut spending in order to obtain cheaper and longer-term loans from the Russian Ministry of Finance to replace loans from commercial banks. The tough policy of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation requires spending cuts and budget deficits to provide loans.

To assess the dynamics of social spending in the short term, it is necessary to consider all the possibilities for optimizing budget spending.

The first direction is the reduction of expenditures on the national economy. So far, the regions of the “new industrialization” - the Kaluga, Kaliningrad and Leningrad regions - do not give up and increase spending on the economy.

The second direction is the reduction of expenditures on housing and communal services - in half of the regions.

The third direction is the reduction of expenditures under the item “national issues”, but this path means lower costs for the maintenance of the state apparatus, which is much more difficult to ensure. This was done in 18 regions with minimal growth (1-5%).

The crisis that began in 2014 increased the need to support regional budgets from the federal budget. Nevertheless, federal assistance to the regions was not aimed at alleviating the budget crisis; it reflected geopolitical priorities: support for the remote Far East bordering China, the troubled North Caucasus, and annexed Crimea (Fig. 3).

From the end of March to December 2014, Crimea received 125 billion rubles. budget transfers (7.2% of all federal aid to the regions). These funds could not be used - the Crimean budget surplus amounted to 13.4%. Transfers to the Far East in 2014 amounted to 210 billion rubles. All the republics of the North Caucasus received 189 billion rubles. On a per capita basis, transfers to Crimea turned out to be twice as large as to the republics of the North Caucasus. At present, the level of subsidization of Crimea (80%) is comparable only to Ingushetia (87%) and Chechnya (82%), and given that all VAT remains in Crimea, which, according to the law, must be transferred to the federal budget, the subsidization approaches 85%. The subsidization of Sevastopol (70%) is comparable to Dagestan. Actually a priority

Crimea is currently supported at the expense of other regions of Russia, which worsens the state of their budgetary and financial security in a crisis.

In 45% of the regions, a large debt is supplemented by a budget deficit. The budget crisis is strongly manifested in moderately developed regions. The richest oil and gas regions and cities of federal importance have the least debt problems. The federal government, which actually provoked this crisis, is forcing the regions to save money, but strict optimization of budget spending, especially social spending, is risky for the governors who are to be elected. Therefore, it is easier for many to get into heavy debt, hoping for help from the federal government in case of worsening debt problems and the burden of debt repayment.

The risks of the budgetary situation in the regions in the near future can be systematized using indicators of budgetary security and the state of the consolidated budgets of the regions in 2014. These indicators include:

Per capita budget revenues adjusted for the index of budget expenditures, thousand rubles per person;

Total debt of regions and municipalities

to tax and non-tax revenues of the budget,

Budget deficit to income, %

As additional indicators of the budgetary and financial security of the region, the following are taken into account:

The level of subsidization, characterizing dependence on federal assistance;

The real scale of debt (debt is measured relative to the budgets' own revenues, excluding transfers);

The share of commercial bank loans in the debt structure, showing the degree of riskiness of commercial borrowings under more high interest and with more stringent return periods (Table 3).

Using the above system of indicators of budgetary and financial security, we will divide the regions into five types.

Type I (wealthy) - 9 regions with the highest wealth, these are the leading

oil and gas producing regions and agglomerations of federal cities. Their budgets are the most balanced, debt problems are minimal, and deficits are absent or small.

Type II (more responsible) - 12 regions with medium and low budget security and a reduced share of transfers (with the exception of Yakutia). They have a lower level of debt burden, but a deficit budget, while in a third of the regions the deficit is large, which indicates an increase in problems.

Type III (middle peasants) - the largest group of 33 regions with median values of safety indicators, divided in a 2:1 ratio, taking into account the resettlement factor: into regions of the main zone of settlement and sparsely populated. Almost all regions of this group have a reduced budgetary security, a significant debt burden that exceeds the average level for Russian regions, and an average or large budget deficit.

Type IV (default) - 20 regions with reduced budgetary security, high and ultra-high debt burden, medium or large budget deficit. Although the default of regions is impossible in Russia for political reasons, the characteristics of the regions correspond to it.

Type V (highly subsidized) - 9 economically underdeveloped republics with the maximum level of subsidization. Indicators of per capita budget revenues, debt and deficit in these subjects of the Federation are medium and high, but the main factor is the dynamics of transfers from the federal budget.

Taking into account the developed typology, it is expected that in 20 regions (type IV) social budget expenditures will be reduced at a faster pace. In another 33 regions (type III), the situation will be problematic, but dependent on the actions of the regional authorities. They will be approached by 12 regions (type II) due to the growth of the budget deficit, which is likely with a general deterioration in the budget situation. In the regions most dependent on federal transfers (type V), the dynamics will be determined by the policy of the federal authorities. For the 9 rich regions (type I), the risks are the least, but they will

gradually lose the benefits of higher per capita social spending. The population accustomed to these benefits may react to the cuts more sharply than the inhabitants of the regions who never had them. Losing is always more painful than not having.

The current state of regional budgets is fundamentally different from the crisis situation of 2009. First, the Russian regions entered a new economic crisis that began in 2014 with unbalanced budgets and huge debts. Secondly, the regions can no longer count on support from the federal budget in an amount comparable to 2009, when transfers to them were increased by a third. In 2015, federal budget revenues were reduced, and a decision was made to sequester spending by 10%. The regions are forced to adapt to these changes, cut budget spending, including in the social sphere and employment in the public sector. Transforming the existing cost structure, changing priorities is very difficult due to the high degree of inertia of the system: the adopted public regulatory obligations of budgets are almost impossible to cancel without political risks.

So for economic growth and increase tax potential Russian regions and municipalities, reducing the level of their subsidies in the field of interbudgetary relations, it is necessary to continue work to achieve an optimal balance between the objectively necessary equalization of budgetary security and the creation of incentives for economic and social development.

The indicator of the share of own funds in the income of the consolidated budget reflects the level of financial independence of the subject of the economy. The threshold is set to 75%.

The main problem of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is the insufficiency of their own revenues. In most subjects of the Federation, the largest share of income is occupied by gratuitous transfers. The number of subsidized regions is 70 out of 85, that is, 82% of all Russian regions are in the loss zone. They are home to 74.2% of the population, they occupy 87% of the territory of the state. This situation has persisted for more than 10 consecutive years. That is, most of the regions of the country are in a state of

chronic loss. Besides, in Russian economy there are fully subsidized federal districts. Thus, all regions of the Southern, Siberian and Far Eastern federal districts receive federal subsidies. In general, the structure of the distribution of subsidies for federal districts as follows:

Ural Federal District - 2.6%;

Northwestern Federal District - 4.5%;

Privolzhsky Federal District - 10.1%;

Central Federal District - 13.3%;

Siberian Federal District - 18.2%;

Far Eastern Federal District - 25.1%;

Southern Federal District - 26.2%.

The unprofitability of federal districts cannot be considered a normal phenomenon.

But in addition to subsidized entities in the Russian Federation, there are 13 donor regions. These include the Republic of Tatarstan, Vologda, Leningrad, Lipetsk, Samara, Sverdlovsk, Tyumen regions, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nenets, Khanty-Mansiysk, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs, Perm Territory.

According to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 66% of the country's total tax potential is concentrated in 13 subjects of the Federation.

The problem of the consolidated budget of the subject of the Federation is the issue of ensuring its own revenue base. It is necessary to stimulate the industry by reducing tax burden, however, the regions are forced to develop methods to increase revenues to the budget and at the same time optimize spending in order to ensure the implementation of their budget commitments.

The indicator of the ratio of public debt to own income, excluding gratuitous receipts, shows the level of the region's debt to the state and the amount of this debt. Threshold this indicator is 20%.

As of July 1, 2015, the number of regions in which the volume of public debt exceeded the volume of their own income increased to 14.

The regions with the highest level of debt burden, equal to the ratio of public debt to own budget revenues, include the Kostroma region (115.9%), the Smolensk region (110.4%), the Republic of Karelia (108.9%), the Republic of Khakassia (108. 1%), Karachay-Cherkess Republic (107%), Trans-Baikal Territory (105.6%), Astrakhan region(105%), the Udmurt Republic (101.4%), the Belgorod Region (101.3%), the Saratov Region (101.2%) and the Mari El Republic (100.4%).

Low level debt burden - below 10% of tax and non-tax revenues - is observed only in nine Russian regions. Their composition practically does not change. These are the Nenets Autonomous Okrug and the Sakhalin Region, which do not have public debt, the Tyumen Region, St. Petersburg, the Altai Territory, the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra and Moscow. They were joined by two new ones: Sevastopol, which has no public debt, and the Republic of Crimea, which has a small debt.

In general, according to the Russian Ministry of Finance, the total amount of public debt of all regions of the Russian Federation as of July 1, 2015 amounted to 2.121 trillion rubles. (Table 4).

According to experts rating agency"RIA Rating", in 2015 the growth rate of the public debt of the Russian regions accelerated against the backdrop of a stagnating economy and problems with the receipt of budget taxes. The structure of public debt will gradually change due to an increase in the share of budget loans and a decrease in borrowings through debt instruments and commercial loans. However, due to limited public funding, it is unlikely that complete replacement commercial loans. RIA Rating experts expect that the total public debt may grow by 25-30% over the year. In some regions, the situation with the debt burden may deteriorate significantly. At the same time, it should be noted that debt is distributed over time, and some regions in emergency can always count on the support of the federal center.

Budgetary and financial security is of decisive importance for the sustainable economic and social development of individual regions and the country as a whole. Analysis of socio-economic development

regions in 2015 shows the persistence of significant differences between the most and least economically developed regions in terms of key socio-economic indicators. Differentiation between the 10 most and 10 least financially secure subjects of the Russian Federation in terms of budgetary opportunities (before interbudget equalization) was 6.8 times in 2015 (in 2014 - 6.2 times, in 2013 - 6.7 times). times).

Differences between regions in terms of per capita budget expenditures in 2015 changed insignificantly compared to previous periods. Per capita budget expenditures show that Russia is actually divided into two unequal groups - rich regions (Moscow, St. to their average level.

Thus, the analysis of the budgetary and financial support of the regions showed that at present the social orientation of the budgets of the regions has increased to the extreme limit and has led to an imbalance in income and budget expenditures in most subjects of the Federation. Extensive growth of social obligations of regional budgets is not possible, the trend will reverse.

Ensuring the state and territorial integrity of the country requires consistent implementation constitutional principles building federal relations in the economy and the financial sector. The country's course aimed at modernizing the economy and reforming social policy can become effective only in combination with the effectiveness of budget policy at the level of the Federation and its subjects.

budget policy, corresponding to the strategic goals of the territorial development of Russia, should be aimed at creating

long-term institutional incentives for regional and local governments and administrations in carrying out structural reforms, ensuring sustainable development, competitiveness and economic security. Control public finance at all levels should be based on a combination of the principles of economic efficiency, budgetary responsibility, social justice and political consolidation.

In order to achieve social consensus on the distribution of financial resources between the levels of the budget system and regions, create conditions for the effective exercise by regional and local authorities of their powers within civil society, legal, financial and economic mechanisms should be involved that increase the responsibility of governing bodies for the results of their activities. policy, ensuring equal competition between regions.

Despite significant progress towards the creation of an effective public financial management system, all its elements function with a low degree of efficiency. This also applies to interbudgetary relations, and to the entire budget process, including the stages of formation, execution, accounting and control, as well as the transparency of budgets and budget decision-making procedures, debt and asset management. The general imbalance of the obligations and resources of the state in relation to GDP determines the low efficiency of the budget system.

Recent years have become a period of acute crisis in interbudgetary relations and regional finance as a result of the disproportion between the significant spending commitments and budgetary funds, on the one hand, and the lack of responsibility for their implementation and use, on the other.

Table 1

Revenues and expenditures of the consolidated budgets of the regions in 2008-2014

Revenues and expenses of consolidated budgets of regions in 2008-2014

Indicator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Volume of income, billion rubles 6,196 5,924 6,537 7,644 8,064 8,165 8,747

Expenses, billion rubles 6,251 6,253 6,637 7,679 8,343 8,807 9,216

Deficit, billion rubles -55 -329 -100 -35 -279 -642 -469

Income dynamics 151.7 95.6 110.3 116.9 105.5 101.2 107.1

to the previous year, %

Expenses dynamics 130.2 100 106.1 115.7 108.6 105.6 104.6

to the previous year, %

* Excluding the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol

An important function of self-government in the region is the budgetary policy. The current legal framework for regulating budgetary relations does not fully meet the requirements of the independence of the region. There are significant contradictions in the economic basis of the tax and credit policy both at the federal and regional levels. However, the proposals of a number of authors to turn the budgets of the territories (up to a single settlement) into the main budget level, where a significant part of the region's budget revenues would be concentrated, look untenable. It is known that both regions and territories within regions are heterogeneous in terms of economic potential, some are donors, others are subsidized. And this is a consequence of objective factors. Establishing standards for the formation of the budget of individual territories only depending on the level of their national wealth would mean conservation of this heterogeneity.

The regional fiscal system, like the rest tax policy are currently the most criticized. The main requirement for it is a targeted regional orientation, without which it simply turns into the lower level of the state budgetary tax system. Without this, it is impossible to ensure the independence of regional administration, to maintain the potential of the region at the proper level. Other requirements for the fiscal system are simplicity (accessibility for execution), clarity (validity of the principles of construction), fairness (taking into account regional and state interests).

Without going into the essence of the fiscal systems of various countries, we note the importance of the principle of equalization, i.e. redistribution of income in order to maintain individual regions. But for the regions acting as donors, this means a reduction in fiscal capacity. Taking into account the objective need to support individual (poor, depressed) regions, as well as the existing structure of the economy of regions rich in natural resources and having a higher tax potential, it is necessary to build fiscal system on the principle of justice, especially since the incomes of rich regions are provided, in essence, at the expense of the entire country.

The fundamental issue in this procedure for the formation of fiscal policy is to justify the share of tax revenues, which should be centralized at all levels of government. At the federal level, this is established by law, but some regions seek preferential terms. At the regional level, the definition of the regional fund of budgetary appropriations requires mandatory planning of the necessary funds for carrying out regional programs, financing of all-regional objects of culture, science, health care. The remaining part of the regional budget (as well as the federal one) should be distributed in proportion to the population. This approach provides a more equitable distribution of budgetary funds both between regions and within them than single-channel budgeting from the bottom up or from the top down.

An important function of self-government in the region is the budgetary policy. The current legal framework for regulating budgetary relations, in our opinion, does not fully meet the requirements of the independence of the region. There are significant contradictions in the economic basis of tax and credit policy both at the federal and regional levels.

However, the proposals of a number of scientists to turn the budgets of the territories (up to a single settlement) into the main budgetary level, where a significant part of the region's budget revenues would be concentrated, look untenable. It is known that both regions and territories within regions are heterogeneous in terms of economic potential, some are donors, others are subsidized. And this is a consequence of objective factors. Establishing standards for the formation of the budget of individual territories only depending on the level of their national wealth would mean conservation of this heterogeneity.

The regional budgetary-tax system, as well as the federal tax policy, are now subject to the greatest criticism. The main requirement for it is a targeted regional orientation, without which it simply turns into the lower level of the state budget and tax system. Without this, it is impossible to ensure the independence of regional administration, to maintain the potential of the region at the proper level. Other requirements for the fiscal system are simplicity (accessibility for execution), clarity (validity of the principles of construction), fairness (taking into account regional and state interests).

Without going into the essence of the fiscal systems of various countries, we note the importance of the principle of equalization, i.e. redistribution of income in order to maintain individual regions. But for the regions acting as donors, this means a reduction in fiscal capacity. Taking into account the objective need to support individual (poor, depressed) regions, as well as the existing structure of the economy of regions rich in natural resources and having a higher tax potential, it is necessary to build a fiscal system on the principle of justice, especially since the incomes of wealthy regions are provided, in essence, at the expense of the entire country.

The fundamental issue in this procedure for the formation of fiscal policy is to justify the share of tax revenues, which should be centralized at all levels of government. At the federal level, this is established by law, however, individual regions are seeking preferential terms. At the regional level, the definition of a fund of budgetary appropriations requires mandatory planning of the necessary funds for the implementation of regional programs, financing of all-regional objects of culture, science, and health care. The rest of the region's budget (as well as the federal one) should be distributed in proportion to the population. This approach provides a more equitable distribution of budgetary funds both between regions and within them than single-channel budgeting from the bottom up or from the top down.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution

higher professional education

Ulyanovsk State University

Institute of Economics and Business

department economic analysis and public administration

"State and municipal administration"

COURSE WORK on the topic:

"Budget federalism in the Russian Federation and regional fiscal policy"

2nd year students

Correspondence department

GMU-ZU-12/1 groups

Shamsutdinova Alsu Rafikovna

Scientific Supervisor: Doctor of Economics

Sciences, Professor Lapin Anatoly Evgenievich

Ulyanovsk

Introduction

1.1 The concept and essence of fiscal federalism

2.2 Fiscal policy of the Ulyanovsk region

2.3 Fiscal policy of the Republic of Tatarstan

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Life in a rapidly changing world leaves its mark on the processes taking place in various fields activities. In this regard, finding the right solutions that are adequate to the prevailing conditions is becoming more and more difficult, requiring an integrated approach to taking into account various factors and a high level of professionalism.

These General requirements are especially important for the budgetary sphere of activity, in which radical transformations have taken place in recent years. Radically changed the entire system of budgetary relations in our country. It is no coincidence that professional budget terminology has undergone significant changes in recent years, following new phenomena in the practice of budget work.

The urgency of the problem of the formation of new federal relations in Russia is greatly enhanced by the peculiarity of the modern political process in Russia, namely, a significant increase in the role of regions in the sphere of political decision-making at the national level. With the weakening of rigid centralization and the growth of tendencies towards autarky and direct economic exchanges between regions, the role of regional administrative and economic elites has sharply increased. The course of reforms, both in the political and economic spheres, has noticeably moved from the federal level to the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. There is an obvious tendency towards political polycentrism. The success of radical reforms in Russia is due to a large extent to the construction of a well-functioning, effectively functioning federal system. Much depends on whether the center will be able to establish such relations with the regions and their political elites, in which the interests of the latter would be taken into account to the maximum while maintaining the political, economic and military unity of the country.

In this regard, it would be expedient to address the questions of the methodology of relations between the center and the regions under the conditions of federalism in Russia. And for this it is necessary first to consider this method of political-territorial organization of society and, in particular, the features of its construction in Russia.

The system of interbudgetary relations that has developed in Russia, despite the reforms carried out in the 1990s, does not meet the fundamental principles of budgetary federalism. The success of economic stabilization in the country largely depends on the creation of an optimal mechanism for interbudgetary relations, the provision of a real (and not just regulated by law) combination of interests at all levels of the budget system, and the achievement of genuine financial equality of all authorities. As world experience shows, the creation of such a mechanism is an extremely difficult task. In this regard, it is impossible not to note the economic and financial contradictions between the Federal Center and the subjects of the Federation, as well as within the latter - between local self-government bodies (LSG) and state authorities of the subjects - the severity of which is not decreasing, despite the relevant measures adopted in recent years. legislative acts.

In terms of the level of decentralization of budgetary resources, Russia is practically not inferior to most federal states, however, formally it retains an extremely high, even by the standards of unitary states, centralization of tax and budgetary powers. The budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and especially local budgets (hereinafter referred to as regional and local budgets or territorial budgets) are overburdened with obligations imposed on them by federal law without providing funding sources (“unfunded federal mandates”). The main part of the expenses of regional and local budgets, including wages in the public sector, as well as network financing budget institutions governed by centrally established rules. More than 80 percent of the tax revenues of these budgets is formed by deductions from federal taxes. The dependence of regional and local budgets on annually set proportions (standards) for splitting federal taxes undermines the incentives to carry out structural reforms, attract investment, develop the tax potential of the territories and increase tax collection. Despite the tendency to formalize the distribution of financial assistance, a significant part of it is still distributed without clear criteria and procedures, which requires further development and legislative consolidation of the budget equalization methodology.

The formation of an effective mechanism of interbudgetary relations essentially depends on success in improving the efficiency of all social production, from strengthening and expanding the tax base, from the growth of tax revenues and an increase in the share of own revenues of budgets of all levels.

Interbudgetary relations play an important role in the budgetary system of any state that has an administrative-territorial division. In Russia, with its vast territory and significant differentiation economic potentials regions, the topic of interbudgetary relations has always raised many questions and problems.

The extremely limited fiscal powers of the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government bodies established by federal legislation make it possible to shift political and financial responsibility for balancing territorial budgets and the state of the social sphere to the federal center.

The contradictions between the decentralization of budgetary resources, the formal centralization of fiscal powers are exacerbated by the instability of macroeconomic conditions, the weakness of democratic institutions, the underdevelopment of capital markets and the low mobility of production factors, inflated social expectations and demands on the state, sharp differences in the budgetary security of the subjects of the Russian Federation and municipalities.

Regional and local budgets remain insufficiently transparent, there is no coherent system for monitoring the state and quality of public and municipal finance(public finance), the results of which would be available not only to authorities at different levels, but also to the population, investors and creditors.

A serious obstacle to the development of the budgetary system was the uncertainty of the budgetary status of municipalities and the existing system of administrative-territorial division of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The current organization of local self-government, the incompleteness of the process of its formation, the shortcomings of the inherited system of administrative-territorial structure do not allow for a full-fledged reform covering all levels of the budget system that guarantees the financial independence and responsibility of municipalities.

All this leads to inefficient use of budgetary resources, a reduction in the volume and quality of public services, undermining the prerequisites for sustainable economic growth, complicating the conditions for structural reforms, distorting conditions for equal competition, worsening entrepreneurial and investment climate further strengthening of inter-regional disproportions, growth of social and political tension.

At present, the problem of interbudgetary relations and, consequently, the approaches used to establish the composition and size, fixed and regulating the income of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, remains unresolved to this day. As before, when substantiating the draft budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation, there are disputes and discussions regarding the standards for deductions from regulatory revenues to regional budgets, the amounts of transfers and subsidies provided by budgets of a higher level to lower budgets.

This indicates that the existing system of interbudgetary relations needs to be reformed. In order to correctly determine the directions for reforming interbudgetary relations, it is necessary, first of all, to conduct an in-depth analysis of these relations.

Chapter 1: Budgetary Federalism in the Russian Federation

1.1 The concept and essence of budgetary federalism in the Russian Federation

Fiscal federalism is an integral part general concept federalism. The construction of genuine budgetary federalism is unthinkable if the main problems of federalism in the state are not resolved, since these concepts are closely interconnected, and the first directly follows and is built on the second.

The most important feature of federalism as an object scientific research- complex multilevel character of the studied phenomenon. Federalism cannot be unequivocally attributed to any one particular science, it is the object of study of a number of scientific disciplines: political science, law, management theory, management, economic theory, the theory of state regulation of the economy, regional studies. Discussions about the problems of federalism are in the focus of close attention of Russian and foreign legal scholars, philosophers, political scientists, economists, and are the subject of discussion at various seminars and conferences. And therefore it is impossible to reveal the essence of budgetary federalism based only on legal science (constitutional law, financial law), it is necessary to refer to and analyze the works of economists, political scientists.

Researchers endow federalism with the following institutional features:

The division of power between the center and the constituent parts of the state (subjects of the Federation), which, in relation to the budget, includes the distribution of both expenditure and tax revenues;

Equality in legal terms of the parts that make up the state, while the key question remains the extent of the responsibility of the central government for reducing (smoothing) territorial inequality (including financial), because it inevitably exists in any country because of the difference in territories in terms of population, natural resources, climate, location, etc.

The uniqueness of federalism as a political concept is also manifested in the fact that, on the one hand, every federal state has the same properties as a unitary state (single territory; population located on this territory; power acting throughout the state), and, with the other is that the federal state is a very complex system and "system theory" is applicable to it. And to strengthen the federal state, its integrity, two provisions are of fundamental importance: firstly, the stronger the relationship between the elements of the system, the higher the level of integrity of this system; and, secondly, no part of the whole can prevail over the whole. After the adoption of the Constitution of 1993, Russia began to have the classic attributes of the Federation with, on the one hand, federal features common to all federations and, on the other hand, distinctive features inherent only to it.

An essential role is played by the specifics of the state federal structure, based on a combination of administrative-territorial and national-territorial principles enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. A characteristic feature is not only the multiplicity of subjects, but also their different status.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation, adopted in 1993, formally equalized the rights of all subjects of the Russian Federation. However, at the same time, a number of problems arose related to the factually unequal position of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which differ significantly in the level of socio-economic and even political development, as well as the socio-economic crisis experienced by the country at that time. To this we can also add such features of the Russian Federation as a huge territory with a resource, production potential, the degree of development of social infrastructure, a large number of nationalities and nationalities that have a long historical period of cohabitation as part of a single state with a high degree of unitarity, although in the conditions of the USSR formally the state was proclaimed federal.

Particular attention should be paid to the principle of equality in the relationship between the budgets of subjects and the federal budget, which involves the establishment of uniform standards for all subjects of the Russian Federation for deductions to their budgets from federal taxes and fees and a single procedure for paying federal taxes and fees. Agreements between the Russian Federation and a subject of the Russian Federation containing norms that violate single order relations between the federal budget and the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and other provisions established by the RF BC, the federal law on the federal budget for the next financial year, are invalid and are not subject to execution.

The essence of fiscal federalism is revealed through the following four main principles:

1. the unity of national interests and the interests of the population as the basis for balancing the interests of all three levels of government on budgetary issues;

2. Combination of the principles of centralism and decentralism in delimiting budgetary and tax powers, expenditures and revenues, distribution and redistribution of the latter to the consolidated budgets of the subjects of the Federation on an objective basis;

3. a high degree of independence of budgets and responsibility of the authorities of each level for the balance of the budget, budget security, based on the tax potential in the relevant territory, bearing in mind the provision of the tax initiative necessary for this;

4. active participation of the subjects of the Federation in the formation and implementation of fiscal policy, including interbudgetary relations.

Concretizing the stated principles, it seems appropriate to consider some points of view in order to develop a common approach in interpreting the concept of "budgetary federalism".

In world practice, the essence of budgetary federalism is defined as the regulatory and legislative establishment of budgetary rights and obligations of two equal parties - federal and regional authorities and administrations, rules for their interaction at all stages of the budgetary process, methods of partial redistribution of budgetary resources between the levels of the budgetary system.

I.V. Podporina believes that budgetary federalism is a form of budgetary structure in a federal state, which implies the real participation of all parts of the budgetary system in a single budgetary process, equally focused on taking into account the interests of all participants in the budgetary process.

V.M. Rodionova believes that budgetary federalism is such an organization of budgetary relations that allows, in conditions of independence, autonomy of each budget, to organically combine the fiscal interests of the Federation, represented by the republican budget of the Russian Federation, with the interests of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments. The content of fiscal federalism includes:

A three-level system of budgetary relations and a clear delineation of functions between them;

Equality (but by no means identity) of the budgetary rights of the subjects of the Federation, which implies that they all have equal opportunities in the formation of their budgets. However, they may not realize these opportunities in the same way due to differences in the socio-economic conditions of management, territorial features, etc. That is why we should talk about equality, and not about identity, uniformity of budgetary rights;

Independence of each budget, providing a high degree of autonomy of regional and local budgets;

Preservation of the dominant position for the federal budget in the overall budgetary system of the country;

Equality of federal, regional and local interests, their close relationship on the basis of a clear delineation of revenue sources and expenditure assignments between the links of the budget system;

Transparency of interbudgetary relations based on approaches acceptable to all subjects of the Federation for determining the amount of financial assistance allocated to regions in need of it.

A more complete definition is given in the works of A.G. Igudina: “Fiscal federalism is a relationship based on a combination of the principles of centralism and decentralism between the federal authorities and the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation regarding the formation and implementation of the budgetary policy of the state, the distribution and redistribution of the latter between the federal budget and the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation at a high degree independence of territorial budgets, based on the need for the unity of national interests and the interests of the population living in the territories of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and their municipalities. He identifies three main components of fiscal federalism:

1. A clear delineation of powers between levels of government in terms of spending;

2. Giving the relevant levels of government sufficient fiscal rights to exercise these powers, ensuring the mobilization of the necessary amount of financial resources;

3. Smoothing vertical (and horizontal) imbalances through a system of budget transfers in order to provide a certain standard throughout the country public services.

The above brief analysis shows that both foreign and domestic publications, despite numerous interpretations, have not yet formulated a sufficiently capacious and concise terminological definition of budgetary federalism. In our opinion, this is due to the "versatility" of this concept.

In the course of the analysis and theoretical understanding of various approaches to the definition of budgetary federalism, we came to the conclusion that budgetary federalism (not only Russian) can be considered in two legal aspects:

1. budgetary federalism - as a financial and legal category;

2. budgetary federalism - as one of the most important principles for building legal relations in the interaction of all levels of government and government in the field of interbudgetary regulation (federal, regional, local self-government). This principle stems from fundamental principle building state system Russia - the principle of federalism.

Budgetary federalism - as a financial and legal category, in our opinion, includes the following main features:

It is a form of organization of legal relations;

The subject composition of legal relations consists of: the Russian Federation, subjects of the Russian Federation and municipalities that enter into legal relations with each other through their representative and executive bodies of power and administration;

Like any other federalism, budgetary federalism is based on the principle of centralism and decentralism, and therefore its indispensable condition is a combination of national, regional and municipal interests;

Each level of the budget system should be independent;

The goal of budgetary federalism is to ensure that every person and citizen of the country is guaranteed minimum social services and a decent standard of living.

Based on the identified essential features of budgetary federalism, we will formulate its definition: budgetary federalism, as a financial and legal category, is a form of organization of legal relations arising on the basis of a combination of the principles of centralism and decentralism between the Russian Federation, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities on the issues of formation and implementation budgetary policy and the budgetary process of the state, subject to the observance of the financial interests of the Federation, regions, municipalities, as well as the independence and autonomy of all levels of the budgetary system.

Budgetary federalism, based on the form of the budgetary structure in a federal state, implies the real participation of all parts of the budgetary system in a single budgetary process, equally focused on taking into account the interests of all participants in the budgetary process. The search for a compromise between these interests is precisely the social orientation of budgetary policy, which is implemented within the framework of budgetary federalism by methods of budgetary regulation.

The idea of budgetary federalism is to ensure the integral development of a federal state, respect for the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens, and receive a state-guaranteed minimum of social benefits, regardless of place of residence and type of activity.

The main task of budgetary federalism is to choose the most effective model of budgetary relations in specific economic and political conditions. To do this, first of all, it is necessary to clearly distribute the expenditure functions between the levels of government, fix the sources of financing corresponding to them, and form a system for providing financial assistance to financially disadvantaged regions. Each country solves the problem of choosing a model of budgetary relations in its own way. As practice shows, no country in the world has yet managed to build such a model of budgetary federalism, in which the volume of revenue powers of the subjects of the Federation or local bodies coincided with the spending powers assigned to a given level of government.

Fiscal federalism involves:

The presence of a truly democratic, civil society. Authorities and officials must be accountable to voters;

Equality of rights of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in their tax and budgetary relations with the Center, which means the application of uniform principles and mechanisms in delimiting the subjects of jurisdiction and powers in the tax and budgetary spheres;

Independence of budgets of different levels;

Legislative delineation of budgetary responsibility between federal, regional and municipal authorities and administration, which implies clearly assigned funding for specific areas for each budget;

Compliance of the financial resources of the authorities and management with their powers and functions, which means "vertical alignment" of budgets;

The use of unified formalized methods for distributing financial assistance to lower budgets, which means “horizontal alignment” of lower budgets (when federal levers should ensure, if possible, equal social standards for citizens of different regions of the Russian Federation);

Maximum transparency of interbudgetary relations and procedures, financial flows.

Budgetary federalism, as a principle, is a way of managing various levels of government (federal, regional, local) on the distribution of revenues and expenditures, as well as the delineation of budgetary competence between the Russian Federation and its constituent entities, with the indispensable combination of the interests of the state with the interests of territorial entities.

1.2 Interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation

The presence of a federal administrative-territorial structure in itself is not yet a sufficient sign of budgetary federalism.

Budgetary federalism presupposes not only greater decentralization of the budgetary system, but also greater responsibility and independence of all its links. This is reflected in the principles of interbudgetary relations.

In the Budget Code of the Russian Federation (Article 6), interbudgetary relations are defined as "interbudgetary relations - the relationship between public legal entities on the regulation of budgetary legal relations, organization and implementation of the budgetary process." Such a definition of this concept is of a very general nature, reducing these relations to budgetary legal relations and the budgetary process without affecting their very essence.

Interbudgetary relations are relations between authorities, mainly at different levels, by delimiting, on a permanent (without time limit) basis, expenditure and revenue authorities, their corresponding expenditures and, to the maximum extent possible, revenue sources, as well as interbudgetary regulation: the possible distribution of certain taxes on temporary (at least for the next financial year) the norms of deductions between budgets of different levels and the redistribution of funds from the budgets of one level of the budget system to another in various forms in order to ensure access of citizens throughout the country to receive public services in the volume and quality not lower than the minimum required level.

The need for such regulation arises mainly when the authorities of the lower territorial level, when forming budgets, for objective reasons, do not have enough funds from revenue sources, fixed on a permanent basis in whole or in part, to ensure the minimum necessary expenses in accordance with the functions assigned to them and powers.

Interbudgetary regulation is carried out, as a rule, by higher-level authorities through vertical (between different links of the budget system) and horizontal (in the context of the budgets of the same link of the budget system) equalization of the budgetary provision of territorial entities, in which it is below the minimum required level.

Interbudgetary regulation is not limited to equalizing the budgetary provision of territorial entities, where it is less than the minimum required level. Its functions also include reimbursement to budgets additional costs or loss of income caused by decisions taken by authorities of another level, and the possible share participation of budgets of a higher level in the expenditures of lower budgets, meaning the stimulation of priority (most socially significant) ones from the standpoint of higher authorities authorities directions of expenditure of these budgets.

The essence of Art. 7 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation on the budgetary powers of federal government bodies consists in vesting the federal center with the right to determine only “the foundations of the budget process and interbudgetary relations”, establishing “general principles for the provision and forms of interbudgetary transfers”. Legal regulation of the budget process and interbudgetary relations at different levels of the budget system according to the principle of fundamentals means that the federal center establishes general requirements (principles) on these issues, while their specification is carried out by regulatory legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities. According to Art. 71 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, among the budgets of different levels, the federal budget is within the jurisdiction of the federal center. That's why federal authorities state authorities have the right to establish detailed legal regulation on these issues, if strictly adhere to the requirements of budgetary federalism, exclusively in relation to the federal budget, and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - in relation to the regional budget and local budgets, guided by general principles established at the federal level.

In the Russian Federation, the differentiation of types of income (on a permanent basis) between the levels of the budget system is ensured through separate and joint local taxes. And interbudgetary regulation is carried out, first of all, by deductions from regulatory taxes. But since 2006, the possibility of applying such standards as additional (differentiated) to a single percentage of taxes fixed on a permanent basis has been provided only within the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and only for income tax individuals instead of subsidies to local budgets, calculated (per capita method) on a formalized basis. Thus, in the budgetary legislation, preference is given to interbudgetary regulation through gratuitous and irrevocable transfers to the budgets of other levels in various forms. According to this legislation, they are considered as interbudgetary transfers. Such transfers also include budget loans from the federal budget to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, provided on a reimbursable and repayable basis.

There are big differences in the proportions of income distribution (prior to their redistribution from the budgets of one level of the budget system to another) between the central budget of the state and territorial budgets.

In the Russian Federation, regional and local authorities have some rights in the field of taxation, to one degree or another independently solve the problem of budget deficit-free or reduce their deficit, before counting on financial assistance in various forms from the budget of a higher territorial level. It should be noted that according to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, there are a number of regional and local taxes, the tax rate of which can be set by a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or a municipality, but within the limits established by federal law.

Interbudgetary relations in federal states have features that are dictated by the budget structure of the state and the degree of development of budgetary federalism. Its essence is expressed through its basic principles. These include the following:

the presence of at least three main levels of the budget system;

the unity of national interests and the interests of the population as the basis for combining the interests of all three levels of government on budgetary issues;

a combination of the principles of centralism and decentralism in the delimitation of fiscal powers, expenditures and revenues, distribution and redistribution of the latter to the budgets of different levels on an objective basis;

the leading role of the federal budget as expressing the common interests of all subjects of the federation, combined with a high degree of independence of budgets and the responsibility of authorities at each level for a balanced budget, budget security corresponding to the tax potential in a given territory, with the provision of the tax initiative necessary for this;

active participation of subjects of the federation in the formation and implementation of the fiscal policy of the state, including interbudgetary relations.

The objective basis for combining the interests of budgets of all levels is that the ultimate goal of authorities at any level should be the interests of the population.

The combination of the principles of centralism and decentralism in the conditions of budgetary federalism means that along with the trend of decentralization, characterized by the strengthening of the democratic principles of the organization and functioning of the country's budgetary system, the necessary conditions are the preservation of the unity of the state, the financial provision of general social needs as completely free for the population ( public administration, defense and some others), in contrast to such public needs, which may be partially paid. This predetermines the observance of the priority of the federal budget, which expresses the common interests of all members of the Federation.

When implementing the budgetary policy of a federal state, it is important to combine the interests of the peoples of the multinational Federation (in their national and cultural development) as a national task.

The high degree of independence of the budgets of different levels and the responsibility of the authorities for the balance of the budget, budget security predetermines an increase in their interest in building up the tax potential, timely and complete collection of taxes, as well as in the efficient use of budgetary funds. Such independence of budgets is characteristic of classical budgetary federalism, since it allows for an independent fiscal policy at the regional and local levels within its competence.

The active participation of the subjects of the Federation in the formation and implementation of the fiscal policy of the state as a principle of budgetary federalism confirms the fact that budgetary federalism is not limited to interbudgetary relations, although the latter largely characterize its features.

The state of interbudgetary relations, and interbudgetary regulation in particular, is largely predetermined by the extent to which the delimitation of expenditures and revenue sources on an ongoing basis between the links of the budgetary system meets the principle of independence of budgets. Where the level of own revenues fixed on a permanent basis is low, the issue of budget independence becomes problematic.

Based on the principles of budgetary federalism, the following principles of interbudgetary relations can be defined:

a combination of interests of all participants in interbudgetary relations;

a clear legislative delineation of expenditure powers between authorities of different levels and the corresponding expenditures, as well as revenue sources (in whole or in part) between the links of the budget system;

the maximum possible differentiation on a permanent (without time limit) basis of types of income (in whole or in part) as fixed income between budgets of different levels;

reduction of subsidization and the number of subsidized budgets by optimizing counter financial flows and increasing the tax potential in the respective territories;

equality of rights in the interbudgetary relations of the subjects of the Federation with the federal center and municipalities with the authorities of the subjects of the Federation;

application in interbudgetary regulation for all subjects of the Federation, and within each of them for all municipalities of uniform methodology and criteria that take into account their individual and group characteristics; the obligation to compensate for the missing funds in case of an increase in budget expenditures or a decrease in their income, which were the result of decisions taken by authorities of another level;

inadmissibility of withdrawal or forced centralization to the budgets of another level of own revenues fixed on a permanent basis, additionally received or saved budget funds; the inadmissibility of changing the ranking of territorial entities in terms of budgetary security in comparable conditions when transferring funds to them from a higher budget in the manner of interbudgetary regulation; mutual responsibility of authorities of different levels for compliance with obligations on interbudgetary relations; the availability of reliable information on the financial security of territorial entities that need financial support from the budget of another level;

relative stability of the mechanism of interbudgetary relations adopted for implementation;

clarity (transparency) and publicity of interbudgetary relations, simplicity of calculations.

Comparison of the current mechanism of interbudgetary relations with the above principles - the requirements of budgetary federalism for its construction - makes it possible to improve the organization of these relations, as well as to ensure right choice directions for their further improvement.

The main functions of interbudgetary relations are equalizing the budgetary security of those territorial entities where it is less than the minimum required level (ensuring compliance with constitutional and other state social guarantees throughout the country), and stimulating the growth of tax potential, timely and complete collection of payments to the budget in the jurisdictional territory, and rational and efficient use of them. Both of these functions are to be implemented in combination - as a two-pronged process. Therefore, when the equalizing function becomes predominant, conflicting with the stimulating function, adjustments are required in operating mechanism interbudgetary relations.23

Based on the foregoing, we can give the following definitions of the delimitation and distribution of income between the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation.

The differentiation of income means the legislative consolidation by the federal government bodies of the relevant types of income (in whole or in part) on an ongoing basis for the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation.

The distribution of income is the transfer by state authorities and local governments of income assigned to budgets to other budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation according to deduction standards established on an ongoing basis or for the next financial year.

The differentiation of income between the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation is characterized by the following:

federal taxes and fees, as well as taxes provided for by special tax regimes, are fully or partially assigned to the federal budget, the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the budgets of municipal districts, the budgets of urban districts and the budgets of urban and rural settlements;

regional taxes are fully assigned to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

local taxes are fully assigned to the budgets of urban districts and the budgets of urban and rural settlements, on the territory of which they are levied; the budgets of municipal districts are assigned local taxes levied in inter-settlement territories;

non-tax revenues are fully or partially assigned to the federal budget, the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the budgets of municipal

districts, the budgets of urban districts and the budgets of urban and rural settlements.

In contrast to the delimitation of revenues between budgets, which falls within the competence of federal government bodies only, the distribution of revenues between budgets can be carried out by government bodies of both levels and local self-government bodies of municipal districts. At the same time, the standards for income assigned to budgets in the order of their differentiation are determined by the RF BC; norms for deductions on income distributed among budgets may be established by other (except for the RF Budgetary Code) acts of the budgetary legislation of the Russian Federation. For the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the budgets of municipalities of various types, the legislation of the Russian Federation provides for both securing income for them in the manner of delimitation, and transferring income to them to be credited to other budgets. At the same time, only revenues assigned to it can be credited to the federal budget, and only revenues transferred to them by state authorities of the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg can be credited to the budgets of intra-city municipalities of federal cities. The Budget Code of the Russian Federation defines the standards for transferring to the budgets of all types of taxes provided for tax code RF. At the same time, uniform standards are established for the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, uniform standards for the budgets of settlements, uniform standards for the budgets of municipal districts and uniform standards for the budgets of urban districts, assigned to the respective budgets exclusively on an ongoing basis. In turn, the transfer of income in the order of their distribution is carried out by setting standards for deductions to lower budgets from any types of taxes credited to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the budgets of municipal districts. Moreover, both uniform norms for deductions for the budgets of settlements, uniform norms for the budgets of municipal districts and uniform norms for the budgets of urban districts, approved on an ongoing basis, and differentiated norms for deductions for local budgets and for the budgets of subjects of the Russian Federation, adopted for the next financial year, can be established.

1.3 Main indicators of the federal budget of the Russian Federation

budget tatarstan tax federation

The budget is a form of education and expenditure of funds intended for financial support of the tasks and functions of the state and local self-government.

The federal budget is a list of income and expenses of the Russian Federation for the financial year.

Consolidated budget - a set of budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation in the relevant territory (with the exception of the budgets of state non-budgetary funds) without taking into account interbudgetary transfers between these budgets

Any budget consists of 2 main parts:

Budget revenues;

Budget spending.

Budget revenues - funds received by the budget, with the exception of funds that, in accordance with this Code, are sources of financing the budget deficit. The dynamics and structure of federal budget revenues of the Russian Federation are presented in Table 1:

Table 1: Dynamics and structure of revenues of the Federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2009-2013

billion rubles

Source of income
Income from foreign economic activity
Taxes and fees for the use of natural resources
Taxes on GWS sold in the territory of the Russian Federation
Taxes on goods imported into the territory of the Russian Federation
Income from the use of property	Not indicated
Other income

It should be noted that federal budget revenues are part of the consolidated budget revenues. Dynamics of execution of consolidated budget revenues for 2009 - 2013 (11 months) presented in the following diagram:

billion rubles

Portal data: http://info.minfin.ru

Thus, although the federal budget revenues are the main part of the consolidated budget revenues, there are also other sources of filling the revenue side (budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local budgets, budgets of state non-budgetary funds of the Russian Federation). In addition, there is a trend that the income of other consolidated sources is increasing (if in 2009 the total income of other sources was 6261.9 billion rubles, then in 2012 it was already 10581.4 billion rubles)

Budget expenditures - funds paid from the budget, with the exception of funds that, in accordance with this Code, are sources of financing the budget deficit. The dynamics and structure of expenditures of the federal budget of the Russian Federation is presented in Table 2:

Table 2: Dynamics and structure of expenditures of the Federal Budget of the Russian Federation for 2009-2013

billion rubles

Direction of spending
Social politics	Not indicated	Not indicated
national defense
National Security and Law Enforcement
National economy
General government spending
other expenses
Intergovernmental transfers			Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated

Portal data: http://info.minfin.ru

The expenditures of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation are presented in the diagram:

billion rubles

Portal data: http://info.minfin.ru

From the above, we can conclude that the federal budget is the main part of the consolidated budget, which carries out expenses for the existence of the state and social security of the country's population. In addition, the federal budget allocates funds to the budgets of other levels to cover the deficit and to provide financial support for the obligations of both subjects of the Russian Federation and local governments.

Chapter 2: Regional Fiscal Policy

2.1 The concept and essence of regional fiscal policy

The finances of the subjects of the Russian Federation are a set of monetary relations between the authorities of the subjects, business entities and local governments that arise regarding the formation, accumulation, distribution and redistribution, the use of centralized regional funds funds, representing the budgets of the regions, to solve the socio-economic problems facing the subjects of the Russian Federation.

IN general view finance includes:

1. means of the consolidated budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation;

2. funds own budget subject;

3. funds of territorial subdivisions of state non-budgetary funds located on the territory of the subject;

4. funds received from the placement on the markets of government securities, the issuers of which are the government of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation;

5. funds received through the sale and purchase of state blocks of shares; state unitary enterprises owned by the government of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and which can be transferred to trust management hired management of these enterprises;

6. part of the profits received as a result of the economic activities of subfederal state unitary enterprises.

The finances of the subjects of the Russian Federation are based on the following principles:

1. The principle of independence in the process of forming the budget of the subject, the budgets of the territorial divisions of state non-budgetary funds. Available legal framework, which is enshrined in the budget code of the Russian Federation, laws on regional budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

2. The principle of budgetary federalism, which implies the delimitation of budgetary powers, subjects of jurisdiction between the three levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation, the delimitation of sources of income between the three levels, the formation of interbudgetary relations both on the basis of regulatory taxes, the shares of which are credited to the three levels of the budget system, and to on the basis of interbudgetary transfers that perform a redistributive function between the budgets of the higher and lower levels.

3. The principle of transparency and openness, which consists in the openness and controllability of the budget process by civil society institutions, such as funds mass media and public organizations. The principle of transparency will be that the procedure for spending funds will be open to control by government agencies and public organizations.

The finances of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation are economic basis state power of the subject, along with property and property owned by public authorities of the subject of the Russian Federation or owned budget organizations or institutions subordinate to the state authorities of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

State authorities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation have a certain amount of authority by order financial resources the budget of the region and the budgets of territorial divisions of state off-budget funds. These powers are assigned to them in the process of development and adoption. federal laws and other normative legal acts that regulate issues related to the subjects of joint jurisdiction of federal and subfederal authorities, as well as on the exclusive subjects of jurisdiction of the region. In order to further ensure the execution by regional authorities of the powers assigned to them, sources of financing for areas of activity are transferred to the regions in accordance with the adopted federal and regional laws.

Legislation on the delimitation of powers and jurisdictions should create all conditions for the formation of sources of financing for regional budgets in amounts sufficient for the execution by regional authorities of the powers transferred to them, as well as conditions for attracting external investment and other funds, both for the implementation of federal and regional targeted programs and to provide financial assistance to the budgets of municipalities located on the territory of a particular subject of the Russian Federation.

This financial support can be implemented in the following main forms:

1. Budget credit - certain budget resources which may be provided on the basis of separate line budget of the region, issued for specific purposes, or on the basis of a separate loan agreement, which is concluded by the executive authorities of the subject with the legal entity or body to which the relevant funds are issued. The contract must specify the amount, the interest rate on the loan, the term, form and procedure for repayment, the purposes for which it is taken.

2. Budget subsidies - are provided to the budgets of a lower level on an untargeted gratuitous and irrevocable basis.

3. Budget subsidies - provided to budgets of a lower level on a shared basis; can be either irrevocable or reversible.

4. Budget subvention - targeted, irrevocable, gratuitous financial support.

Between the government of the subject of the Russian Federation and federal government additional agreements may be concluded on a special procedure for the delimitation of powers, which will include, in addition to them, the delimitation of objects of ownership for land, water, forest resources, which form the basis of the subject's economy; as well as the authority to manage facilities in the territory of the subject that are under federal jurisdiction.

On the basis of agreements, the state authorities of the subject can transfer ownership shares in natural resources and all sources of income from the use natural resources, as well as the share of profits from the operation of state-owned objects on the territory of the subject. These agreements are able to ensure the financial independence of the region's budget and are aimed at implementing the principle of independence.

Regional financial policy is part of the macro economic policy subject of the Russian Federation, which includes the following main areas: tax, budget, monetary, institutional, investment, social policy.

tax regional policy will include the following activities:

· Making proposals from the authorities of the subject to the federal authorities on the need to amend the legislation in order to redistribute income and optimize the tax base;

· Regulatory regulation the nomenclature of regional taxes that are assigned to the state authorities of the subject, that is, these bodies can cancel or introduce regional taxes;

Revision tax rates on regional types of taxes or, together with the local level, the revision of local tax rates;

· Regional authorities can make proposals both at the federal and local levels regarding the expansion of the tax base, and tighten or liberalize the system of tax administration in the territory.

Activities within the framework of budgetary policy include:

· The process of formation, approval and execution of the regional budget;

Budget policy in the system of regional management. Regional financial and budgetary policy. Analysis of the regional economic crisis and the formation of regional budgetary policy

annotation scientific article on economics and business, author of scientific work - Zagarskikh V.V.

Related Topics scientific papers on economics and business, author of scientific work - Zagarskikh V.V.

Analysis of regional economic crisis and regional fiscal policy formation

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Analysis of the regional economic crisis and the formation of regional budgetary policy"

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents