Assessment of the inhibition of socio-economic development The impact of the crisis on macroeconomic indicators in 2008 The global financial crisis began to affect Russia in September 2008. Its impact on macroeconomic indicators in 2008 was very significant. The situation is worse

On modern stage development of a market economy in the public administration system for integrated development country, a significant role is played by state forecasting and development of programs for the socio-economic development of the territory.
State forecasting of socio-economic development is a system of scientifically based ideas about the directions of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, based on the laws of market management. The forecasting results are used by legislative and executive authorities when making decisions in the field of socio-economic policy of the state.
The concept of socio-economic development is a system of ideas about the strategic goals and priorities of the state’s socio-economic policy, the most important directions and means of achieving these goals.
The program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation is a comprehensive system of target guidelines for the socio-economic development of the country and effective ways and means of achieving these targets planned by the state.
Forecasts of socio-economic development are developed based on comprehensive analysis demographic situation, scientific and technical potential, accumulated national wealth, social structure, the external situation of the Russian Federation, the state of natural resources and prospects for changes in these factors.
Forecasts of socio-economic development are developed for the country as a whole, for individual economic complexes and sectors of the economy, and for regions. A development forecast is prepared separately public sector economy. Forecasts are developed in several versions, taking into account the probabilistic impact of internal and external political, economic and other factors.
Forecasts include quantitative indicators and qualitative characteristics of the development of the macroeconomic situation, economic structure, scientific and technological development, foreign policy activities, dynamics of production and consumption, level and quality of life, environmental situation, social structure, as well as systems of education, health care and social security of the population.
The Government of the Russian Federation ensures the development of state forecasts for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long, medium and short term.
A forecast of socio-economic development for the long term is developed every five years for a ten-year period. Based on this type of forecast, the Government of the Russian Federation organizes the development of a concept for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long term, which specifies options for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, determines possible goals for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, ways and means of achieving these goals.
The procedure for developing a forecast of socio-economic development and the procedure for developing the concept of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long term are determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.
These forecasts of socio-economic development and the concept of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long term are subject to mandatory publication.
In order to ensure the continuity of the socio-economic policy of the state, the data from the forecast of socio-economic development and the concept of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long term are used in the development of forecasts of socio-economic development and programs for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long term. medium term.
The forecast of socio-economic development for the medium term is developed for a period of three to five years and is adjusted annually.
The procedure for developing a forecast of socio-economic development for the medium term is determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.
The first message after assuming office of the President of the Russian Federation, with which he addresses the Federal Assembly, contains special section, dedicated to the concept of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation in the medium term. This section of the message of the President of the Russian Federation characterizes the state of the economy of the Russian Federation, formulates and justifies the strategic goals and priorities of the state’s socio-economic policy, directions for the implementation of these goals, the most important tasks to be solved at the federal level, and provides the most important target macroeconomic indicators characterizing the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation. Federation for the medium term.
The Government of the Russian Federation is developing a program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term based on the provisions contained in the message of the President of the Russian Federation.
The procedure for developing a program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term is also determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.
The country's socio-economic development program for the medium term should reflect:
1) assessment of the results of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for previous period and characteristics of the state of the economy of the Russian Federation;
2) the concept of the program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation in the medium term;
3) macro economic policy;
4) institutional transformations;
5) investment and structural policy;
6) agricultural policy;
7) environmental policy;
8) social politics;
9) regional economic policy;
10) foreign economic policy.
The program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term is officially submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation to the Federation Council and the State Duma, where it must receive approval.
The forecast of socio-economic development for the short term is developed annually.
The annual message of the President of the Russian Federation, with which he addresses the Federal Assembly, contains a special section devoted to the analysis of the implementation of the program of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term and the clarification of this program, highlighting tasks for the coming year.
The Government of the Russian Federation simultaneously with the presentation of the project federal budget submits to the State Duma the following documents and materials:
1) the results of the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation over the past period current year;
2) forecast of socio-economic development for the coming year;
3) draft summary financial balance across the territory of the Russian Federation;
4) a list of the main socio-economic problems (tasks) to be addressed by the policy of the Government of the Russian Federation in the coming year;
5) a list of federal target programs planned for financing from the federal budget for the coming year;
6) list and volumes of supplies of products for federal government needs according to the enlarged nomenclature;
7) planned plans for the development of the public sector of the economy.
The Government of the Russian Federation submits projects if necessary federal laws, providing for measures to implement the tasks of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation in the coming year.
The list of federal target programs indicates:
1) a brief description of each of the federal target programs adopted for implementation, including an indication of the goals, main stages and deadlines for their implementation;
2) the results of the implementation of the main stages for transitional federal target programs;
3) the required amounts of financing for each of the federal target programs accepted for implementation in general and by year, indicating the sources of financing;
4) the volume of financing of federal target programs from the federal budget in the coming year;
5) government customers of programs.
The planned development plans for the public sector of the economy include indicators of its functioning and development, receipt and use of income from the disposal of state property, assessment of the efficiency of use of federal property and shareholdings, as well as a program for increasing the efficiency of use of federal property.
The procedure for considering submitted documents and materials is determined by the State Duma when discussing the draft federal budget for the coming year.
Results of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for last year are submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation to the Federation Council and the State Duma no later than February of the current year and are subject to publication.
The Government of the Russian Federation and central bank The Russian Federation provides monthly monitoring of the state of the economy of the Russian Federation and publishes information and statistical data on the socio-economic situation of the Russian Federation.

REGIONAL PROBLEMS

V.N. Leksin, B.N. Porfiryev

ASSESSMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF STATE PROGRAMS FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONS OF RUSSIA

The article shows the importance of performance evaluation government programs in connection with the increasingly widespread use of the program approach in the system of public administration, strategic planning and the formation of budgets at all levels. The problems and possibilities of assessing the effectiveness of state programs “Socio-economic development of the Far East and Baikal region" and "Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020."

State programs in the system of public administration, strategic planning and formation of budgets at all levels. The radical change in the place and role of the program approach to public administration that occurred several years ago in Russia has led to the need to evaluate the effectiveness of programs, which is increasingly becoming an assessment of public administration as a whole.

Even during the first administrative reform, a transition to the so-called “results-based management” was declared, which presupposed a strict connection between goals and costs for achieving them in all structural divisions executive authorities. This, in turn, meant mastering software and design technologies and their constant use in the process of state (federal and regional) and municipal management, and, therefore, constant assessment of the effectiveness of software decisions made. Unfortunately, these intentions, confirmed by examples of the foreign practice of such an approach to the organization of public administration that existed at that time, were not properly implemented as interest in the most complex innovations of administrative reform waned.

The program-target approach in a more strict and operational form was implemented in the practice of budget planning. The government order published (in the summer of 2012) on increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures included as an integral part the program-target principles for organizing the work of state and municipal executive authorities in connection with the transition to a program structure of budget expenditures. Moreover, such a “result-oriented” approach was associated with all types of budget expenditures (there was even a stable abbreviation BOR - “result-oriented budgeting”). According to experts, the use of program-targeted budgeting would make it possible to more clearly identify the relationship between the expected results and the necessary costs and abandon the preferential distribution of budget resources between various federal authorities despite the fact that the replacement of Art. 179 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation “Long-term target programs” on Art. “State programs of the Russian Federation, state programs of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and

1 The article was prepared based on the results of a study carried out with the financial support of a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 14-38-00009) “Program-targeted management of the integrated development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation” (Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University).

municipal programs“is not a change of name, but an indication of a fundamentally different technology for the formation and approval of programs, the mandatory annual assessment of the effectiveness of their implementation, etc.

The Government of the Russian Federation, in turn, regulated the methods, procedure for development, implementation, and evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs in a number of regulations. However, a comprehensive definition of the place and significance of the program-targeted approach in state and municipal administration is formulated only in the Federal Law “On strategic planning In Russian federation" . In St. 11 of this law, programs are included among the mandatory strategic planning documents: “strategic planning documents are developed within the framework of goal setting, forecasting, planning and programming at the federal level, at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and at the level of municipalities.” At the same time, strategic planning documents developed at the federal level within the framework of goal setting on a sectoral and territorial basis include strategy spatial development of the Russian Federation and the strategy for the socio-economic development of macroregions (the most striking example is the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation), and to the strategic planning documents developed as part of planning and programming - state programs of the Russian Federation. Programming in this law earlier (Article 7, clause 7) refers to “the activities of participants in strategic planning in the development and implementation of state and municipal programs aimed at achieving the goals and priorities of socio-economic development and ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation contained in the documents strategic planning developed within the framework of goal setting.” The latter, according to Art. 3, paragraph 4, the essence is “determining the directions, goals and priorities of socio-economic development and ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation.”

In the context of the subject of this article It is especially significant that the ideology of strategic planning in Law 172-FZ strictly links the development of all government programs with the tasks of “achieving the priorities and goals of socio-economic development and ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation.” The latter, in turn, must be preliminarily defined in the socio-economic development strategy, in sectoral strategic planning documents, in the spatial development strategy and in the main directions of activity of the Government of the Russian Federation (Article 28).

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated November 11, 2010 No. 1950-established a unified List of state programs, which is approved by the government of the country. In accordance with the List, 43 state programs of the Russian Federation were to be developed by responsible executors. In 2011, two state programs were approved: “Accessible Environment” and “ Information society" In 2012-2013 37 more state programs were developed and approved. According to the requirements of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, in 2014, 39 state programs were updated and brought into line with the approved parameters of the federal budget for 2014 and the planning period 2015-2016. Also in 2014, the state program “Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020” was approved, the first year of implementation of which was set to be 2015. Updating state programs and bringing them into line with the approved parameters of the federal budget for 2015 and the planning period 2016-2017. were not implemented due to the suspension until January 1, 2016 of the corresponding norm of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation.

By mid-2015, the Government of the Russian Federation approved 39 state programs2, grouped in five areas: (1) a new quality of life (i.e. development of healthcare, education, family support and improvement of the quality of life of socially disadvantaged groups of the population, development of the pension system, etc. .); (2) innovative development and modernization of the economy (issues of development of industries, science, externally economic activity); (3) balanced regional development (regional policy and development of macro-regions, inter-budgetary relations); (4) ensuring national security (defense capability, state security); (5) effective state (governance federal property, public finance management, development of financial and insurance markets, foreign policy activities, justice). More than 50% of all expenses are allocated for the implementation of government programs in the 2016 federal budget. In the budgets of individual regions of the country, the share program expenses exceeds 70% and tends to consistently increase.

Concepts of efficiency and effectiveness of government programs and methods for assessing them. The task of assessing the effectiveness of government programs is methodologically complex, which is determined not least by the insufficiently correct identification of the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness in the previously mentioned regulatory documents The Government of the Russian Federation, which determines the procedure for developing such programs. Thus, in paragraph 15 of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 588 of 08/02/2010 “On approval of the Procedure for the development, implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs of the Russian Federation” it is stated: “Assessment of the planned effectiveness of the state program ... is carried out in order to assess the planned contribution of the results state program in socio-economic development and ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation." Clause 16 clarifies that “a prerequisite for assessing the planned effectiveness of the state program is the successful (full) implementation of the target indicators and indicators of the state program planned for the period of its implementation, as well as activities within the established time frame.”

It also clarifies that the following are used as the main criteria for the planned effectiveness of the implementation of the state program: “(a) criteria for economic efficiency, taking into account the assessment of the impact of the expected results of the state program on various areas economy of the Russian Federation. Assessments may include both direct (immediate) effects from the implementation of the state program, and indirect (external) effects arising in related sectors of the economy of the Russian Federation, and (b) criteria for social efficiency, taking into account the expected contribution of the implementation of the state program to social development, the indicators of which cannot be expressed in terms of value."

In an interesting study of assessing the effectiveness of government programs, taking into account the indicated broad normative interpretation of this concept, it is emphasized that “both budget legislation and legislation on strategic planning are about assessing the effectiveness of government programs; Moreover, this term is understood quite broadly and includes an assessment of the degree of achievement of planned results and socio-economic effects from the implementation of the program.” Having thoroughly analyzed the practice of assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of government programs in the Russian Federation, the authors of the study proposed several recommendations:

2 Approval of state programs: “Development of the pension system for 2017-2025”, “Development of the military-industrial complex”, “Ensuring the country’s defense capability”, “Socio-economic development of the Crimean federal district for the period until 2020” was planned at a later date.

boards for its improvement, including, in addition to calculating the degree of achievement of indicators, the advisability of taking into account their dynamics by calculating the performance index of government programs and its correlation with the level of funding. The proposed approaches to assessing government programs were tested on the basis of data on the implementation of government programs in 2014, which made it possible to identify government programs whose implementation meets such performance criteria as saving budget resources while achieving a high degree of achievement of performance indicators. One cannot but agree with the final conclusions of the study under consideration: the mechanism for assessing the effectiveness of government programs needs to be more focused on taking into account the effectiveness of program implementation and the achievement of final results. This requires both improving the quality of development of government programs (in particular, ensuring the systematic application of requirements for the formation of performance indicators for their implementation) and adjusting methodological approaches to assessment.

It seems that many methodological problems of assessing the effectiveness of government programs could be solved with a clear separation of the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency in them. We believe that the criteria for the effectiveness of government programs, especially those included in the “balanced regional development” block and designed to have regulatory impacts on the state of territorial systems of different scales and statuses, are not identical to efficiency in its traditional interpretation, which implies the ratio of the quantitatively expressed economic effect and the costs of his achievement.

As for assessing the effectiveness of the transformation of territorial systems, this is a separate and still poorly developed subject of economic science due to the different times and difficulties of isolating the actual economic component of changes in the demographic, social-infrastructural, national-ethnic, natural resource, environmental and other potentials of the territory . However, such effectiveness should be mandatory count and take into account, since government programs almost entirely consist of investment projects. To assess their effectiveness (both economic and social), there is a detailed methodological apparatus, which, in particular, is set out in.

The essential differences between the effectiveness and efficiency of government programs were formulated many years ago,3 and since then, the concept of effectiveness as a special criterion-based form of program evaluation has been repeatedly reproduced in the context of various studies. In this regard, hereinafter, effectiveness is understood solely as the degree of achievement of set goals (expected results), expressed in quantitative parameters or in another form that allows such an assessment. At the same time, neither the costs of achieving the goal are significant (this should be assessed by cost-effectiveness indicators), nor the qualitative or meaningful assessment of this goal, nor the social, political or other consequences. The criterion is the degree of achievement of the result: completed in full, partially, by so many percent, not achieved. Therefore, quantitative or extremely specific qualitative expression of goals becomes the main condition for assessing the effectiveness of government programs as targeted

3 For example, in a book that went through more than ten reprints in the section “Software mechanisms government regulation Territorial Development” subsections “Expected result and its price”, “Efficiency” and “Effectiveness of programs” are highlighted. The last of them notes: “We interpret the effectiveness of programs, firstly, as a measure of compliance of its results with the stated goal and, secondly, as the degree of approximation to the latter... When assessing the effectiveness of programs according to the second criterion, it is important to express the qualitative quantitative parameters of the program goal, and in some cases, the tasks that specify it.”

corrected regulatory impacts on the state of territorial systems, and clearly fixed parameters of the goals and subgoals of the programs are the only possibility of parametric decomposition of their overall effectiveness.

The above determines other fundamental differences between assessments of the effectiveness of software solutions and assessments of their effectiveness. Efficiency can be assessed at all stages of the development and implementation of programs, starting from the stage of preliminary justification of private projects, and effectiveness (in our interpretation of this concept) can only be assessed “in fact”, comparing the degree of already begun implementation of the program and its individual tasks (subprograms, projects ). Economic efficiency can be assessed both for individual software projects and (taking into account the admissibility of integral, including ranked assessments) for programs as a whole. The effectiveness of most government programs as a whole (unless these are programs for the creation of one integral object, for example, a specific transport highway) is extremely difficult to assess due to their multi-purpose nature. In this case, the reliability of future assessment of the effectiveness of government programs directly depends on the specificity of the formulation of goals and their parametric characteristics. This can be confirmed based on a comparison of the possibilities for assessing the effectiveness of two subject-related government programs developed at approximately the same time: “Socio-economic development of the Far East and the Baikal region” and “Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020”.

State program for the development of the Far East and the Baikal region: possibilities for assessing effectiveness. The responsible executor of the first of these programs is the Ministry of the Russian Federation for the Development of the Far East, and the program participants are 11 federal executive authorities4, the advisability of involving them in direct participation in the implementation of the program is beyond doubt. The formulation of the goals, objectives and expected results of the program in question in its passport are consistently clarified. Thus, it was initially stated that the program pursues two main goals: the accelerated development of the Far East and the Baikal region and the improvement of the socio-demographic situation in the Far East and the Baikal region. Assessing the achievement of these goals in relation to excessive use general concepts“accelerated development” and “improvement” can be quite arbitrary.

This issue is somewhat clarified by the formulation of the Program’s objectives: “(1) development transport accessibility and improving the quality of life in the Far East and the Baikal region through the construction and reconstruction of sites highways regional significance; (2) ensuring timely and reliable export of goods produced in the Far East, as well as transiting through the territory of the Far East and the Baikal region, due to a significant increase in throughput railways and the development of sea ports and (3) creating the basis for increasing the mobility of the population of the Far East and the Baikal region through the reconstruction of airports of regional and local importance."

A further approach to assessing the effectiveness of the program under consideration is contained in the formulation of the expected results (criteria) of its implementation: “(a)

4 One of them is the Ministry regional development RF - was abolished by the beginning of the program. The rest include: Federal agency sea ​​and river transport, Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation, Federal Air Transport Agency, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Federal Agency for Railway Transport, Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation, Federal Communications Agency, Federal Road Agency, Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and Federal Fisheries Agency .

elimination of significant interregional imbalances in development on the basis of advanced socio-economic development of the macroregion; (b) creating conditions for population growth in the macroregion, improving the overall quality of life; (c) development of industrial and social infrastructure; (d) realization of potential economic ties with countries of the Asia-Pacific region; (e) development of traditional activities and the formation of prerequisites for creating a core of new high-tech industries in the mining and manufacturing industries; (e) increasing the level of investment activity through the use of all types of resources (state, private, foreign); (g) increase in the volume of investments by the end of the Program by 2.2 times; (h) creation of new highly productive jobs, increasing the efficiency of use of labor resources; (i) overcoming the processes of enclavization in the macroregion through the development of transport potential; (k) modernization of social infrastructure, including education, healthcare, and the housing sector, ensuring a significant increase in the quality of human capital, quality of life standards and social security of the population; (k) growth of the population of the macroregion by 2025 to 10.75 million people.”

Each of the listed qualitative criteria for the implementation of the Program can be expressed in quantitative parameters, allowing one to evaluate its effectiveness as the degree to which these parameters are achieved at all stages of its ten-year implementation. In the document under consideration, some of these parameters (which, unfortunately, are rarely found in the practice of government programming) are proposed in a generalized form. These include (%): GRP growth index (year-on-year); GRP growth index on an accrual basis by 2011; share of the macroregion in the structure of GRP; share of the macroregion in the structure of Russian GDP; share of manufacturing industries in the structure of GRP of the macroregion; investment growth index in comparable prices (year-on-year); population as of January 1 (million people); share of the macroregion in income consolidated budget RF. The listed criteria and parameters allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of the Program implementation as a whole.

Similar criteria and parameters, i.e., essentially the expected results of the Program, are clearly recorded for each of its subgoals, which makes it possible to obtain an assessment of the effectiveness of each component of the Program. Thus, the final results of the subgoal “development of transport and energy infrastructure to ensure accelerated development of the Far East and the Baikal region and improve investment climate in the macroregion” are characterized by the following quantitative parameters: an increase of 681.2 km in the length of highways that meet regulatory requirements for transport and operational status; increasing the production capacity of ports by 15.65 million tons; commissioning after reconstruction of 40 airport complexes and landing sites for regional and local airlines; construction of 48 sidings on the Baikal-Amur Railway; increase in cargo turnover by Eastern training ground Trans-Siberian and Baikal-Amur railways up to 587.6 billion t-km/year.

The content of the corresponding formulations recorded in the Passport and in the main text of another state program, “Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020”5, appears to be fundamentally different in comparison with the above formulations of the expected results of the implementation of the state program for the development of the Far East and the Baikal region.

5 Approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 21, 2014 No. 366, as amended by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 17, 2014 No. 1393 regarding the replacement of the abolished Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation with the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation.

State program for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation: specifics of performance assessment. The responsible executor of the program is the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, and the participants of the program are the Ministry of the Russian Federation for the Development of the Far East, the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. The goal of the program is to increase the level of socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, and the objectives are to strengthen the coordination of the activities of government bodies in the implementation public policy in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and organizing monitoring of the socio-economic development of this zone. Such tasks have not yet been set in any state program of Russia or the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The program includes the only subprogram “Coordination of the activities of government bodies in the field of socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation.” Its goal is “to create a system for coordinating the activities of government bodies in the implementation of state policy in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation,” and its objectives are “to improve the system of statistical monitoring of indicators of socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation; security effective management state resources and legal regulation in the sphere of implementation of state policy in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and Information Support state program".

The above determines the specifics of assessing the effectiveness of the program as the only one in Russia designed to coordinate the implementation of individual tasks of previously adopted state programs of the Russian Federation - federal target programs of the Russian Federation and federal targeted activities investment program- implemented in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation6. This is clearly evidenced by the Program Passport: “Target indicators and indicators of the Program are reflected in other state programs of the Russian Federation implemented in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation; the composition of indicators is determined as part of the work interdepartmental commission on the implementation of state policy in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation after the allocation of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation into a separate object of statistical observation.” Nevertheless, it also expresses confidence that “the implementation of the Program, along with the measures provided for by sectoral state programs of the Russian Federation and federal target programs for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, will have a positive impact on ensuring the national security of the country; the growth of its international authority; socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation".

An assessment of the effectiveness of the state program under consideration can either characterize the level of coordination of the implementation of tasks of other programs (an extremely complex object of assessment), or give the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation the status of an “object of statistical observation.” In the first case, the assessment of the effectiveness of the entire complex of “Arctic” tasks and projects contained in coordinated programs should, first of all, be carried out in relation to these programs themselves, which, however, differ significantly both in content and chronologically.

These are, in particular, the state program “Socio-economic development of the Far East and the Baikal region” discussed above; federal target program “Risk reduction and mitigation of consequences” emergency situations natural and man-made in the Russian Federation until 2015" within the framework of the state program of the Russian Federation "Protection of the population and territories from emergency situations,

6 The text of the program says: “On the territory of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, as an integral part of the Russian Federation, all state programs of the Russian Federation operate. At the same time, in some state programs the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation is given Special attention and state policy measures specific to this territory are identified.”

security fire safety and safety of people on water bodies"; federal target programs “Development of the Russian transport system (2010-2020)” and “Modernization Unified system air traffic organization of the Russian Federation (2009-2020)" within the framework of the state program of the Russian Federation "Development of the transport system"; federal target program “Development of civil marine equipment for 2009-2016” within the framework of the state program “Development of shipbuilding for 2013-2020”. In this regard, we especially note the complex of development programs social sphere, including the federal target program for the development of education for 2011-2015. within the framework of the state program “Development of Education for 2013-2020” and the federal target program “Culture of Russia (2012-2018)” within the framework of the state program “Development of Culture and Tourism for 2013-2020”.

The versatile nature of performance assessments can be shown by the example of tasks of just one coordinated within the state program “Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020” - namely the state program “Protection environment for 2012-2020." It proposes the organization of comprehensive research in high-latitude regions of the Arctic, including the North Pole drifting stations; research on climate change and its consequences; assessment of hydrometeorological regime and climatic resources; development of data collections of Roshydromet, its research and expeditionary fleet. It is also envisaged to ensure the functioning of a system for constantly assessing the negative impact on the Arctic of emissions of harmful (pollutant) substances from sources located within and outside the territory of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. As part of the reconstruction of the Russian space observation system, it is planned to launch and ensure the continuous operation of a space hydrometeorological system consisting of at least seven satellites (three geostationary weather satellites of the Electro series, three polar-orbiting satellites of the Meteor series and an oceanographic satellite), as well as the creation and ensuring the continuous operation of the Arctic space system (including two Molniya-type weather satellites in highly elliptical orbits and at least two similar satellites in low polar orbits).

The development of hydrometeorological and heliogeophysical support for activities in the Arctic will be carried out by restoring to the minimum required level of hydrometeorological and heliogeophysical observations that meet the requirements for the accuracy of short-term weather forecasts and warnings of dangerous hydrometeorological phenomena, including using automatic and automated measuring instruments. In addition, it is required to build and equip modern equipment seven new large-tonnage vessels (with a displacement of 3-10 thousand tons) to monitor the condition and pollution of water areas in the Far Eastern and Arctic regions of Russia, as well as eight new medium-tonnage research vessels (with a displacement of 200-300 tons) to carry out work of federal importance in the Okhotsk , Barents, White Seas and other waters. Measures are envisaged to create a database of comprehensive studies of the marine environment, oceans and seas necessary for the implementation of various types of maritime activities in the Russian Federation (navigation along the Northern Sea Route, fishing, maritime fleet and national defense).

Work is planned to eliminate the damage caused by past economic activities on the Franz Josef Land archipelago (collection and removal of barrel containers, land reclamation). It also provides for the elimination of the consequences of the past economic activity oil and gas production complex in the river delta. Pechory on the territory of the Nenetsky State Nature Reserve.

All of these are program tasks that require performance assessment in only one direction of implementation of the state program under consideration “Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020.” At the same time, according to the “Strategy for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and ensuring

National Security Development for the period up to 2020”, declared as the initial conceptual document for the development of the program under consideration, a number of areas for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and ensuring national security are classified as priorities. These include the comprehensive socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation; development of science and technology; creation of a modern information and telecommunications infrastructure; ensuring environmental safety; the international cooperation in the Arctic.

The strategy also states that the main mechanisms for its implementation are the Program, other state programs of the Russian Federation, federal and departmental target programs, as well as industry strategies, regional and municipal programs, large companies, providing for measures aimed at the comprehensive development of the territory of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. Such a mosaic of coordination mechanisms in the state program under consideration, which is a set of fragments of already adopted programs, is in conflict with the national significance of the Arctic megaproject and significantly limits the effectiveness of the state program.

Both the opportunities and problems of developing a substantive list of program performance criteria are clearly illustrated by its target subsection. At the beginning, it states, for example, that “in accordance with the priorities of state policy in the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and taking into account the problems in its socio-economic development, the goal of the Program is to increase the level of socio-economic development of the Arctic zone.” However, there is no generally accepted criterion for the “level of socio-economic development” of regions, and even more so of mega-regions (the most extensive and diverse of them is the approved Arctic zone of the Russian Federation). As scientific research proves and practical experience, neither the growth of GRP, nor the growth of incomes and the increase in life expectancy of the population, nor any other single criterion can be considered satisfactory.

The state program under consideration also proposes to consider that “increasing the level of socio-economic development” of the Arctic zone will be achieved under the following conditions: “(a) expanding the resource base of this zone to meet the country’s needs for various types strategic raw materials, (b) the creation of a favorable operational regime in this zone, (c) the protection of the natural environment of the Arctic and the elimination of the environmental consequences of economic activity in the context of increasing economic activity and global climate change, (d) the formation of a single information space in this zone, (e ) providing high level fundamental and applied scientific research on the accumulation of knowledge and the creation of modern scientific and geoinformation foundations for managing Arctic territories (including the development of tools for solving defense and security problems, as well as for the reliable functioning of life support systems and production activities in the natural and climatic conditions of the Arctic), (e) ensuring a regime of mutually beneficial bilateral and multilateral cooperation of the Russian Federation with the Arctic states on the basis of international treaties and agreements to which the Russian Federation is a party.” It is assumed that “the solution to this problem, including by including issues of social development of the Arctic zone in the strategy of long-term socio-economic development federal districts and constituent entities of the Russian Federation, industry strategies and programs will ensure the acceleration of socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation."

In principle, it is necessary to identify quantitative parameters that correspond to the listed target criteria. As shown in our previous publications, the main task should be considered to be the identification of parameters that would characterize qualitative changes in the level of socio-economic development. These include: (1) rational, i.e., economically beneficial and environmentally acceptable withdrawal of any natural resources in conjunction with measures to restore their renewable potential; (2) balance between places of employment and settlement system; (3) real diversification of economic activities, taking into account the development of economically mutually beneficial relations with other territories of the country and foreign countries; (4) real provision of legally established rights of the indigenous population in the territory of traditional environmental management and the rights arising from the ethnic self-identification of representatives of this population; (5) consistency of economic, social and environmental policies of federal, regional and municipal authorities in the Arctic zone; (6) coordinated participation of business structures operating (and intending to operate) in the Arctic zone of Russia in the implementation of the strategy for the integrated development of this zone and (7) widespread implementation of the principles of integrated development common to the entire Arctic zone in all its territories and normatively established exclusive conditions in individual sectors (districts) of this zone, allocated taking into account the peculiarities of natural-climatic, territorial, national-ethnic and other nature.

But these clarifying criteria for increasing the level of socio-economic development must be supplemented by such important positions as balancing national and corporate interests; application of the most stringent environmental and environmental standards and the use of effective resource-saving technologies; rational combination of places permanent residence and temporary stay of people with unconditional provision of modern conditions for their livelihoods and basic social, everyday and cultural needs; organic inclusion of the restored military presence in the overall concept of the comprehensive development of the Arctic zone; widespread and uninterrupted transport links within this zone and beyond; the presence of measures of special state regulation of labor, budgetary, tax, national and other relations.

The proposed procedure for clarifying and “expanding” the approved goals and subgoals of the Program into a system of criteria-based assessments of the effectiveness of its implementation is quite feasible, but this requires significant adjustments to the Program in the previously indicated directions. This is also necessary in connection with the requirements of the Federal Law of June 28, 2014 No. 172-FZ “On Strategic Planning” (Article 3, paragraph 11), which normatively enshrines the “principle of measurability of goals.” It implies that “it must be possible to assess the achievement of the goals of socio-economic development and ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation using quantitative and (or) qualitative target indicators, criteria and methods for their assessment used in the strategic planning process.”

State program for the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation: assessment of effectiveness in the context of the potential for regulatory impact. When assessing the effectiveness of the state program under consideration, it should be taken into account that the state of economic structures and territorial systems of this region is influenced by almost all regulatory actions of the state. On legal and economic environment the functioning of these systems and the conditions for the formation and activities of social and other institutions in the Arctic zone

influenced by thousands of already adopted and hundreds of new annually adopted federal laws, tens of thousands of annually updated regulations of the Government of the Russian Federation and federal executive bodies, regulations of subfederal and municipal bodies. All of them have properties of regulatory influences, and it is no coincidence that last years a lot of materials are published, both official and prepared by famous public organizations, in particular by “Business Russia”, with assessments of the impact of adopted regulatory documents on the socio-economic situation.

The practice of such assessments was, in particular, regulated by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 17, 2012 No. 1318 “On the procedure for federal executive bodies to assess the regulatory impact of draft regulatory legal acts, draft amendments to draft federal laws and draft decisions of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission, as well as on amendments to some acts of the government of the Russian Federation." According to paragraph 15 of this Resolution, a summary report (see) on such an assessment “is generated by the developer using the software of the official website and signed by the head of the structural unit of the federal executive body responsible for preparing the draft act.”

In this case, a report on a draft act that has a high degree of regulatory impact must contain information: “a) the degree of regulatory impact of the draft act; b) description of the problem to be solved by the proposed method of regulation, assessment of the negative effects arising in connection with the presence of the problem under consideration; c) analysis of international experience in relevant fields of activity; d) the goals of the proposed regulation and their compliance with the principles of legal regulation, program documents of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation; e) description of the proposed regulation and other possible ways problem solving; f) main groups of subjects of business and other economic activities, other interested parties, including government bodies, whose interests will be affected by the proposed legal regulation, estimation of the number of such entities; g) new functions, powers, duties and rights of federal executive authorities, state authorities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments or information about their changes, as well as the procedure for their implementation; h) assessment of relevant expenses (possible revenues) of budgets budget system Russian Federation; i) new advantages, as well as obligations or restrictions for subjects of entrepreneurial and other economic activities, or changes in the content of existing obligations and restrictions, as well as the procedure for organizing their implementation; j) assessment of expenses and income of business and other economic entities associated with the need to comply with established obligations or restrictions or with changes in the content of such obligations or restrictions; k) information on the abolition of obligations, prohibitions or restrictions for subjects

entrepreneurial and other economic activities; l) the risks of solving the problem using the proposed method of regulation and the risks of negative consequences; m) description of methods for monitoring the effectiveness of the chosen method of achieving the regulatory goal; o) necessary to achieve the stated goals of regulation

7 Subparagraph “l” is set out in new edition, which came into force on October 1, 2015 on the basis of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 30, 2015 No. 83. By the same Resolution, the summary report for draft acts with a medium degree of regulatory impact must contain the information specified in subparagraphs “a” - “k” and “m” - “y”, and for draft acts with a low degree of regulatory impact it must contain the information specified in subparagraphs “a”, “b”, “d” - “e”, “m”, “o” and “p” - “y” (See).

organizational, technical, methodological, information and other activities; n) indicative indicators, monitoring programs and other methods (methods) for assessing the achievement of the stated regulatory goals; p) the expected date of entry into force of the draft act, the need to establish transitional provisions ( transition period), as well as experiment; c) information about the placement of the notification, the deadline for submitting proposals in connection with such placement, the persons who submitted the proposals, and the structural units of the developer that reviewed them; r) information on the conduct of an independent anti-corruption examination of the draft act; s) other information that, in the opinion of the developer, allows one to assess the validity of the proposed regulation.”

All measures of regulatory influence of federal, regional and municipal authorities on the state of territorial systems at various levels as instruments of their own regional policy are applied only after the adoption of certain regulations, but practically none of them go through the above procedure. The list of the most common measures includes about two dozen items, which can be roughly divided as follows5:

1) in terms of the scale of regulatory impact on territorial systems - into three groups: group A affects specific components and connections of the territorial system; group B - on the structure of such a system as a whole; group B - for the type of territorial system;

2) according to the nature of the regulatory impact - into two groups: (a) common and (b) exclusive, focused on a specific territorial system;

3) according to the duration of the regulatory impact - into (1) one-time, (2) periodic and (3) long-term (permanent).

Analysis of the features of various regulatory measures using the proposed classification of their impacts on the state of economic entities and territorial systems in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation allows us to obtain important typological characteristics necessary for solving the problems of socio-economic development of the Arctic. In particular, interbudgetary subsidies can be presented as a set of regulatory impact measures that integrate types of impacts with indices of groups A, a, 1 or A, a, 2 (in symbolic form, respectively, TLAa1 or 1LA>a>2); change in the distribution of taxes between levels of the budget system - in the form of ТЯА1а2; ensuring direct investment in the construction of large production facility depending on the scale of the system - TLA,b or TLBb; making decisions and allocating funds for the development of the internal market of the Arctic territories - TLBb; allocation and development of investments in the diversification of the economy of an Arctic single-industry city - TLB, b, 3 or TLv, b, 3; development of intra- and interregional transport infrastructure Arctic zone - TLBb3; change in the organizational and legal status of the Arctic territories - TLBb3; implementation of the rehabilitation program for Arctic depressed territories - TLBb3 or - TYAVb3, etc.

It is significant that out of 19 analyzed measures of regulatory impact on economic and social objects of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, only three did not have a long-term impact on their condition and only four - on the entire territorial system as a whole. At the same time, the degree of impact on the state of objects of program and other regulation varied several times due to the nature of the measure used and the characteristics of the mentioned objects.

5 Designations A, B and C; (a) and (b); (1), (2) and (3) are indices of the corresponding types of measures.

This allows us to identify the following main types of transformation of economic structures and territorial systems in the Russian Arctic according to the criterion of their “sensitivity” (reaction) to specific regulatory influences: fully controlled, partially controlled and uncontrollable. At the same time, the degree of controllability of each of these structures and systems may vary depending on certain regulatory influences, therefore, classifying these systems and structures as one of the above types of transformation is possible only on the basis of taking into account all available measures of regulatory influences and their results. Institutional economic and legal analysis of forms of regulation of regional development, as well as diagnostics of gaps and contradictions in legislation in this area are presented in a collective monograph of leading Russian specialists. In it, the method for assessing the regulatory impact of legal acts is clarified based on the use of criteria for the implementation of procedures for developing and making management decisions.

Ideally, the goal of program and other regulatory influences should be to bring the problematic (internally unbalanced) territorial system of the Arctic into a mode of maintained stable functioning. Naturally, for individual species economic structures, territorial systems and their actual state, the ways to achieve stability are different. Consequently, regulatory measures should also differ, taking into account their possible effectiveness in the conditions of the abnormally dispersed type of settlement characteristic of the Russian Arctic, Arctic single-industry towns, specially protected areas, areas of new industrial development, areas of compact residence of indigenous peoples, etc.

In the practice of modern public administration, the goals of bringing problematic (internally unbalanced) economic structures and territorial systems into a stable functioning mode or maintaining them in this mode are rarely declared, and the directions for using certain regulatory measures are most often cited as goals. These are, for example, the target justifications for all measures without exception in the system of interbudgetary relations, programs to reduce unemployment, etc. The same applies to government decisions regarding the transformation of the state of territorial megasystems, for example, the Far East and the Baikal region or the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, achieving the desired results is initially complicated by several circumstances: the subjective factor of decision-making, the a priori expected high effectiveness of regulatory actions; poor choice of institutions for implementing such impacts; sluggish reaction of key participants in the implementation of program solutions to the proposed regulatory impulses; lack of long-term government interest in regulatory innovations. This may significantly distort the effectiveness of the adopted program “Socio-economic development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020” and determines the need to evaluate its implementation taking into account the considered circumstances.

Literature

1. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 24, 2005 No. 1789-r “On approval of the “Concept of administrative reform in the Russian Federation in 2006-2008”. http://base.garant.ru/188767/

2. Leksin V.N., Leksin I.V., Chuchelina N.N. The quality of state municipal governance and administrative reform. M.: Europroekt, 2006.

3. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 30, 2010 No. 1101-r “Approval of the program of the Government of the Russian Federation to increase the efficiency of budget expenditures for the period until 2012 and the action plan for its implementation in 2010.” http://www.garant.rU/products/ipo/prime/doc/6639347/#ixzz3uPDEXkXG

4. Savelyeva Yu.V., Savelyeva M.Yu. The concept of program budgeting: problems and prospects for implementation // Management economic systems. 2014. No. 11. P. 33.

5. Gubanova E. E. Program budget: regional level // Current issues economic sciences: materials of the II international. scientific conf. (Ufa, April 2013). Ufa: Summer, 2013. pp. 101-103.

6. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 588 dated 08/02/2010 “Approval of the Procedure for the development, implementation and evaluation of the effectiveness of state programs of the Russian Federation” (as amended on 07/17/2015). http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/70485826/

7. Order of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation dated November 20, 2013 No. 690 “Approval Guidelines on the development and implementation of state programs of the Russian Federation." http://www.rg.ru/2014/04/04/metodika-site-dok.html

8. Federal law of June 28 71.0418 oz. No. 172-FZ “On strategic planning in the Russian Federation.” NWRF dated June 30, 2014 No. 26 (Part I) Art. 3378.

9. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 11, 2010 No. 1950-r (as amended on November 2, 2015) “On approval of the list of state programs of the Russian Federation.” NW RF. 11/22/2010. No. 47. Art. 6166.

10. http://minfin.ru/ru/document/?id_4=64713&area_id=4&page_id=2104&popup=Y#ixzz3uVCwkxNT

11. Yuzhakov V., Dobrolyubova E., Aleksandrov O. How to evaluate the effectiveness of government programs: methodological issues // Economic Policy. 2015. No. 6. pp. 79-98.

12. Leksin V.N., Porfiryev B.N. Problems and prospects for using the project approach in managing the development of the Russian Arctic // MIR (Modernization, Innovation, Development). 2015. volume 6. No. 4 (24). pp. 10-19.

13. Vilensky P.L., Livshits V.N., Smolyak S.A. Evaluating the effectiveness of investment projects: theory and practice. 5th ed. M.: PoliPrintServis, 2015. 1300 p.

14. Leksin V.N., Shvetsov A.N. State and regions. Theory and practice state development territorial development // M.: URSS, 1997. P. 372.

15. http://minvostokrazvitia.ru/upload/iblock/b0e/gp_mvr_visual.pdf

16. http://www.rg.ru/2014/04/24/arktika-site-dok.html

17. Ivanter V.V., Leksin V.N., Porfiryev B.N. Arctic megaproject in the system of state interests and public administration // Problem analysis and public management design. 2014. No. 6. P. 6-24.

18. Leksin V.N., Porfiryev B.N. Redevelopment of the Russian Arctic: issues of methodology and organization // Russian Economic Journal. 2015. No. 2. P. 84-104.

19. Leksin V.N., Porfiryev B.N. Methodological basis system diagnostics of the current situation and problems in the Arctic zone of Russia // Problem analysis and public management design. 2015. No. 2. P. 47-59.

20. Leksin V.N., Porfiryev B.N. Redevelopment of the Russian Arctic as a subject of systemic research of state program-target management: issues of methodology // Regional Economics. 2015. No. 4. P. 9-20.

21. Leksin V.N., Porfiryev B.N. New development of the Arctic: challenge and socio-economic resource of the future of Russia // Problems of theory and practice of management. 2015. No. 6. P. 54-60.

22. Leksin V.N., Porfiryev B.N. Scientific and institutional potential for the integrated development of the Russian Arctic in the medium and long term // Problems of forecasting. 2015. No. 6. P. 58-66.

23. Frolov I.E. Development Russian zone Arctic: problems of recreating transport and military infrastructure // Problems of forecasting. 2015. No. 6. P. 67-74.

24. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 17, 2012 No. 1318 “On the procedure for federal executive bodies to assess the regulatory impact of draft regulatory legal acts, draft amendments to draft federal laws and draft decisions of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission, as well as on introducing changes to some acts of the government of the Russian Federation". http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=187957;

fld=134;dst=1000000001,0;rnd=0.24161056661978364

25. Order of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated May 27, 2013 No. 290 “On approval of the form of the summary report on the assessment of regulatory impact, the form of the conclusion on the assessment of regulatory impact, the methodology for assessing regulatory impact.” http://economy.gov.ru/minec/activity/sections/ria/info/lib/doc20130527_08

26. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 30, 2015 No. 83 “On assessing the actual impact of regulatory legal acts, as well as on introducing amendments to certain acts of the Government of the Russian Federation (with amendments and additions).” http://base.garant.ru/70858444/#block_200921#ixzz3x76twRoC

27. Kazantsev N.M., Bukhvald E.M., Bakhtizin A.R. and others. Economic and legal institutions for regulating regional development of the Russian Federation / Ed. N.M. Kazantseva. M.: Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation. JSC "Grif and K", 2013. 468 p.

Lecture No. 22

Character constant definition directive

Example of using preprocessor directives

Preprocessor Directives

Namespace

Attributes

Attributes is additional information about program elements, including assembly metadata that can be retrieved during program execution. Attributes can be standard or custom. All attributes are described in square brackets before the class member to which it belongs. For example:

The attribute means that all instances of this class can be stored in external memory, and the name field marked with the attribute means that this class field will not be accessible.

A namespace is a store of types that defines their scope. The namespace is used for:

o logical grouping of program elements located in different files;

o grouping of names provided by the assembly for use by other modules.

In the C# language, there is practically no preprocessor, but some directives have been transferred to this language from the C++ language.

Preprocessor- This is a preliminary compilation stage that forms the final version of the program text.

Preprocessor directive– an instruction to the compiler to exclude or include in the compilation process certain fragments of code that must be executed under certain conditions.

The C# language mainly uses directives conditional compilation.

//#define var 1 //Defining symbolic constants named var 1 and var 2

namespace consoleApplication1

static void f () (Console.WriteLine (“Example1”);)

static void f())(Console.WriteLine (“Example2”);)

public void func () ( f(); )

When compiling this program, you can comment out one of the defined symbolic constants, and depending on which variable is defined, this implementation of the f() method will participate in the compilation.

At the present stage of development of a market economy in the public administration system, for the comprehensive development of the country, state forecasting and development of programs for the socio-economic development of the territory play a significant role.

State forecasting of socio-economic development is a system of scientifically based ideas about the directions of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, based on the laws of market management. The forecasting results are used by legislative and executive authorities when making decisions in the field of socio-economic policy of the state.

The concept of socio-economic development is a system of ideas about the strategic goals and priorities of the state’s socio-economic policy, the most important directions and means of achieving these goals.

The program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation is a comprehensive system of target guidelines for the socio-economic development of the country and effective ways and means of achieving these targets planned by the state.

Forecasts of socio-economic development are developed based on a comprehensive analysis of the demographic situation, scientific and technical potential, accumulated national wealth, social structure, external situation of the Russian Federation, the state of natural resources and prospects for changes in these factors.

Forecasts of socio-economic development are developed for the country as a whole, for individual economic complexes and sectors of the economy, and for regions. A forecast for the development of the public sector of the economy is compiled separately. Forecasts are developed in several versions, taking into account the probabilistic impact of internal and external political, economic and other factors.

Forecasts include quantitative indicators and qualitative characteristics of the development of the macroeconomic situation, economic structure, scientific and technological development, foreign policy activities, dynamics of production and consumption, level and quality of life, environmental situation, social structure, as well as education systems, health care and social security of the population .

The Government of the Russian Federation ensures the development of state forecasts for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long, medium and short term.

A forecast of socio-economic development for the long term is developed every five years for a ten-year period. Based on this type of forecast, the Government of the Russian Federation organizes the development of a concept for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long term, which specifies options for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, determines possible goals for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, ways and means of achieving these goals.

The procedure for developing a forecast of socio-economic development and the procedure for developing the concept of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long term are determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.

These forecasts of socio-economic development and the concept of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long term are subject to mandatory publication.

In order to ensure the continuity of the socio-economic policy of the state, the data from the forecast of socio-economic development and the concept of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the long term are used in the development of forecasts of socio-economic development and programs for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation in the medium term.

The forecast of socio-economic development for the medium term is developed for a period of three to five years and is adjusted annually.

The procedure for developing a forecast of socio-economic development for the medium term is determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.

The first message after assuming office of the President of the Russian Federation, with which he addresses the Federal Assembly, contains a special section devoted to the concept of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation in the medium term. This section of the message of the President of the Russian Federation characterizes the state of the economy of the Russian Federation, formulates and justifies the strategic goals and priorities of the state’s socio-economic policy, directions for the implementation of these goals, the most important tasks to be solved at the federal level, and provides the most important target macroeconomic indicators characterizing the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation in the medium term.

The Government of the Russian Federation is developing a program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term based on the provisions contained in the message of the President of the Russian Federation.

The procedure for developing a program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term is also determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.

The country's socio-economic development program for the medium term should reflect:

1) assessment of the results of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the previous period and characteristics of the state of the economy of the Russian Federation;

2) the concept of the program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation in the medium term;

3) macroeconomic policy;

4) institutional transformations;

5) investment and structural policy;

6) agricultural policy;

7) environmental policy;

8) social policy;

9) regional economic policy;

10) foreign economic policy.

The program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term is officially submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation to the Federation Council and the State Duma, where it must receive approval.

The forecast of socio-economic development for the short term is developed annually.

The annual message of the President of the Russian Federation, with which he addresses the Federal Assembly, contains a special section devoted to the analysis of the implementation of the program of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term and the clarification of this program, highlighting tasks for the coming year.

The Government of the Russian Federation, simultaneously with the presentation of the draft federal budget, submits to the State Duma the following documents and materials:

the results of the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation over the past period of the current year;

forecast of socio-economic development for the coming year;

draft consolidated financial balance for the territory of the Russian Federation;

a list of the main socio-economic problems (tasks) to be addressed by the policy of the Government of the Russian Federation in the coming year;

a list of federal target programs planned for financing from the federal budget for the coming year;

list and volumes of supplies of products for federal government needs according to an enlarged nomenclature;

7) planned plans for the development of the public sector of the economy.
The Government of the Russian Federation submits, if necessary, draft federal

laws providing for measures to implement the tasks of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation in the coming year.

The list of federal target programs indicates:

1) a brief description of each of the federal target programs adopted for implementation, including an indication of the goals, main stages and deadlines for their implementation;

results of the implementation of the main stages for rolling federal target programs;

the required amounts of financing for each of the federal target programs adopted for implementation in general and by year, indicating the sources of financing;

volumes of financing of federal target programs from the federal budget in the coming year;

5) government customers of programs.
The planned development plans for the public sector of the economy include indicators

its functioning and development, receipt and use of income from the disposal of state property, assessment of the efficiency of use of federal property and stakes, as well as a program for increasing the efficiency of use of federal property.

The procedure for considering submitted documents and materials is determined by the State Duma when discussing the draft federal budget for the coming year.

The results of the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the previous year are presented by the Government of the Russian Federation to the Federation Council and the State Duma no later than February of the current year and are subject to publication.

The Government of the Russian Federation and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation provide monthly monitoring of the state of the economy of the Russian Federation and publish information and statistical data on the socio-economic situation of the Russian Federation.