Currently, the main macroeconomic problem of building federal budget is balancing budget revenues and expenses in the face of a sharp drop in oil prices. The economic stability of the state depends on the balance of these indicators. Thus, the issue of the relationship between budget revenues and expenditures is particularly relevant. Dynamics of the main parameters of the budget system Russian Federation for 2016 is characterized by a gradual decrease in the share of federal budget revenues in relation to GDP (from 20.9% in 2012 to 17.5% in 2016), as well as a reduction in the total volume of federal budget expenditures to 20.5% of GDP.

Table 2.1 Main parameters of the federal budget in 2012-2016

In accordance with the draft law on the federal budget for 2016, budget revenues should amount to 13,738.5 billion rubles. against 13251 billion rubles. in 2015. To reach this volume, a number of additional revenue sources were mobilized. The largest of them is the increase in the tax burden in the oil sector of the economy. For 2016, the oil export duty rate remains at 42%, along with the previously planned increase in the mineral extraction tax on oil. It was previously assumed that the oil export duty rate in 2016 would be reduced to 36%.

Additional budget revenues from such a “tax maneuver” in the oil sector amount to about 200 billion rubles. Additional 112 billion rubles. The government intends to receive it by increasing the mineral extraction tax on gas and gas condensate. Among other emergency measures to increase federal budget revenues, we highlight the preservation until the end of 2016 of the norm regarding the crediting of income from the management of the Reserve Fund and the National Welfare Fund to the federal budget and the increase to 90% of the share of Bank of Russia profits subject to crediting to the federal budget.

It should be noted that there was a significant increase in federal budget expenditures in 2013, which was primarily due to increased spending on national economy, social spending increased and military spending and, in particular, spending on rearmament of the army played a certain role; Of course, ensuring the combat effectiveness of the armed forces is one of the basic functions of the state institution, however, the purchase of equipment in the absence of competition in the military-industrial complex sector is inevitably accompanied by an unreasonable increase in costs. There is an increase in federal budget expenditures by 586 billion rubles. in 2015 compared to 2014, as well as an increase in expenses in 2016.

Throughout the period under review, the budget is executed and planned with a deficit. In order to analyze the federal budget in detail, we will analyze the main parameters of the federal budget and its structure.

Figure 2.2 Ratio of oil and gas and non-oil and gas income, in%.

During the analyzed period, one can note a significant change in the ratio of oil and gas and non-oil and gas income. Thus, if in the structure of budget revenues in 2012, oil and gas revenues occupied a predominant role and amounted to 50.2% of budget revenues or 6453.2 billion rubles. in absolute terms, non-oil and gas revenues accounted for 49.8% of total budget revenues or 6402.4 billion. rub. In 2016, the structure of budget revenues changes significantly and we see the opposite picture: the volume of oil and gas revenues amounted to 6,044.9 billion. rub. or 44% of total budget revenues, and not oil and gas revenues, on the contrary, increased to 7,693.6 billion rubles. and amounted to 56% of total budget revenues. This is explained by ultra-low oil prices due to which the budget is missing a significant share of oil and gas revenues of the Russian budget.

Let's consider federal budget revenues from the point of view of tax and non-tax revenues. Over the years tax revenues make up the majority of all federal budget revenues. So, for the period 2012-2016. their volume is more than 50%, while this share increased significantly over the period of time under review by 10.6 percentage points. This fact indicates that the state, in solving its socio-economic problems, has set a course for replenishing its financial base at the expense of tax revenues, especially the mineral extraction tax and corporate income tax.

Non-tax revenues also play a significant role in the formation of the federal budget, despite the fact that in 2012-2016. their share decreased by almost 11.5%. This decrease can be explained by a reduction in income from foreign trade activities. This trend is not accidental, given Russia’s relatively restrained policy on the world market, since at the moment the state is striving to develop the domestic market.

The macroeconomic indicators used in drawing up the draft federal budget for 2016-2018 differ significantly from the indicators that formed the basis for the formation of the federal budget for 2015 and the planning period of 2016 and 2017, since they did not take into account the changes that occurred in the second half of 2014.

Figure 2.3 Share structure of tax, non-tax income and gratuitous revenues for 2012-2015

The base scenario assumes the continuation of sanctions from the United States and the European Union against Russia and counter-sanctions from Russia throughout the entire forecast period. Consequently, the Russian economy will develop under conditions of limited access to the global capital market and continued capital outflow. The average annual price for Urals oil, which forms the basis for the formation of the federal budget, will be 50 US dollars per barrel in 2015 (against 100 US dollars per barrel in the forecast of December 1, 2014) and by 2018 will increase to 70 US dollars per barrel. barrel.

Despite geopolitical tensions and the relatively low level of oil prices, economic growth is predicted to resume as early as 2016 (at 2.3-2.4% per year). The growth of industry and real disposable income of the population will also resume, which will contribute to increased investment activity and consumer demand. The savings rate will increase from 16.8% of GDP in 2015 to 20.7% of GDP in 2018, and domestic demand for 2016-2018 will increase by 11.1% against a decrease of 9.5% in 2015.

The structure of budget expenditures of any country reflects basic functions states - provision of social benefits, defense, national security, economic development. According to the Government Finance Statistics Yearbook, 2010 (IMF, Washington, 2010), there are similarities in the expenditure side of the budgets of many countries, but there are also country differences. So, the costs of social protection in a number of countries higher than in Russia (1/3 of all expenses); they reach 35–40% in Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain. Expenditures on the economy on average vary in the range of 10–15%, on defense – 6–17%, etc.

Given the undoubted importance of all budget expenditures without exception, budget priorities are identified at each stage in accordance with budgetary and macroeconomic policies. On modern stage these include:

• fulfillment of social obligations;
• development transport infrastructure;
• security defense complex and national security;
• concentration of resources on modernization activities, including innovative projects and major scientific developments;
• preparation of particularly significant international events.

Leading among these priorities are social expenditures. In Russia, more than 1/3 is allocated for social policy purposes budget expenditures. Together with expenditures on education, healthcare, culture, physical culture and sports, the share of expenditures aimed at social protection of citizens and the provision of socially significant services amounts to more than 55% of the total expenditures of the national budget system. Unconditional fulfillment of public regulatory and other socially significant obligations (social compensation, social assistance) is not only a constitutional obligation of the budget, but also economic expediency. Increasing social spending is reasonable, as it encourages economic growth, preventing a fall in population consumption during a crisis. During the period 2014–2018 for a decision social problems additional funds in the amount of 0.6% of GDP will be allocated annually. Budget expenditures on social policy in the near future are illustrated in Fig. 4.6.

Rice. 4.6.

Social expenses are growing year by year. Among these expenses is an increase in wages for employees of federal social service institutions (translation to an “effective contract”). In 2011, wages in the social sector averaged 35% of the Russian average; by 2018 it is expected to increase it to 100%. In total, budget allocations in the amount of 80.2 billion rubles are provided to increase wages for employees of federal government institutions in the fields of education, science, culture, healthcare, and social services. in 2014, 126.5 billion rubles. in 2015 and 181.2 billion rubles. in 2016

In 2006–2011 share social assistance in population income has already increased from 0.3 to 0.8%, total government spending on supporting citizens has increased from 2.5 to 3.9% of GDP, and the number of poor in the Russian Federation has decreased to a level that is almost half the level of Brazil and Ukraine , Moldova and almost three times in India. Compensations are growing cash payments needy families with children, payments of maternity (family) capital. The provision of housing for veterans of the Great Patriotic War will continue Patriotic War, orphans, implementation of the Federal Target Program "Housing".

Particular attention is paid to poverty reduction. However, only 20% of recipients of subsidies for housing and utilities are really poor. Therefore, the transition from category to address is important social support. Saved operating mechanism indexing social payments certain categories of citizens; in order to bring the minimum wage closer to living wage for the working population in Russia as a whole, from January 1, 2013, it was increased to 5,205 rubles. per month.

The most important block of government spending is economic spending. They occupy 12% of all expenditures of the budget system (in 2016 - 3.8 trillion rubles). It is important to understand the complex, collective nature of this article. This is not only direct investment in the form of public investment, but also support for economic growth and diversification of the economic structure, increased infrastructure financing, and targeted subsidies for private investors. Such indirect measures of economic development have a greater stimulating effect than tax cuts, as they lead to an increase in purchases and demand.

In economic development, the budget priority is to support the civil industry by subsidizing interest rates and bringing them to the level of 7–9% per annum for a period of up to 5 years, which will attract additional credit resources in the amount of up to 680 billion rubles. for industrial development. State development program financed Agriculture and regulation of markets for agricultural products, raw materials and food. Funds are allocated for the development of sub-sectors of crop production, livestock farming, with an emphasis on the development of beef cattle breeding, technical and technological modernization, development rural areas, conservation and rational use of agricultural land.

In order to adapt the national agricultural sector to accession to the WTO, direct and indirect support measures are planned: subsidizing costs, extending a number of tax benefits, strengthening customs administration of the import of a number of products.

Expenditures on education occupy an important place in budgetary support for the development of human capital (Fig. 4.7).

So far, Russia lags behind OECD countries in terms of these expenditures by 1.5–2% of GDP.

Rice. 4.7.

In accordance with the State Program "Development of Education" for 2013–2020. 3.99 trillion rubles are allocated from the federal budget for this period, or 0.85% of GDP annually. Modernization programs are being actively implemented regional systems general education, the federal budget provides support to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (equipping children's furniture, sports equipment, toys, creating platforms for distributing modern models successful socialization of children, reimbursement of part of the costs in connection with the provision of general education to teachers educational institutions mortgage loan etc.).

Funds are allocated for financing vocational education. Priority funding is given to the infrastructure and scientific research of leading universities (9 federal universities and 27 national research universities), scholarship provision is being improved. Growth is expected in the labor sector average pay labor. Now average earnings education worker is 76% of the Russian average. It is expected to increase it in schools to 100%, in universities – to 110%. At the same time, wages are transferred to an “effective contract”.

Important elements of structural restructuring of the economy are reforming the research complex and optimizing its financing. Important government programs have been adopted – the “Program of Fundamental scientific research for the period 2013–2020", program "Development of Science and Technology", Federal target program"Research and development on priority areas development of the scientific and technological complex of Russia for 2007–2013," etc. Thus, the activities of the State Program of the Russian Federation "Development of Science and Technology" include support for cooperation between universities and organizations in order to create high-tech industries, support for scientific research in universities and within federal targeted programs aimed at innovative development of the economy, transfer of scientific workers to an “effective contract”, implementation of the Federal Space Program of Russia, etc.

Taking into account the growth of funding scientific developments Due to private investment, expenditures from the federal budget tend to decrease slightly (Fig. 4.8).

Rice. 4.8.

In the field of culture and cinematography, the Federal Target Program “Culture of Russia (2012–2018)”, the Federal Target Program “Development of Internal and inbound tourism in the Russian Federation (2012–2018)", finances support for cinematography, musical groups in the regions, grant support for creative projects of national importance, equipping libraries, creating virtual museums and public electronic libraries on the Internet. Increased wages for employees (translation into "effective contract"), the creation of five cultural development centers in small and medium-sized cities of Russia, a mobile fund of leading Russian museums is financed, and monetary incentives are introduced for municipal cultural institutions in rural settlements.

It is important to emphasize the introduction of tax benefits for cultural institutions. Since 2013, regardless of the source, cultural property acquired by state (municipal) institutions is not subject to VAT, which increases the volume of their financing.

An important social item of budget expenditures is healthcare costs. In 2016, they will reach 3.1 trillion rubles, or 9.6% of expenses of the entire budget system. However, their level will decrease from 3.7% of GDP in 2013 to 3.4% of GDP in 2016, with the trend continuing until 2020. This is lower than the level of many OECD countries and 2–2.5 times lower than in developed countries. This dynamics is explained by the growth of extra-budgetary sources of financing - resources from health insurance funds, funds from enterprises and citizens. In the future, there will be a transition to single-channel financing of the provision of medical care, i.e. only through the health insurance system.

Within the framework of the State Program of the Russian Federation "Healthcare Development" for the period 2013–2020. stands out financial support in the amount of 33.7 trillion rubles, including from the federal budget - 2.7 trillion rubles, from consolidated budgets subjects of the Federation - 10.5 trillion rubles, from the funds of compulsory health insurance funds - 17.1 trillion rubles.

The federal target program “Development of the pharmaceutical and medical industry of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020 and beyond” is being implemented with the aim of increasing the share of domestically produced drugs. Wages are increased for certain categories of workers in the healthcare sector, provided in the amount of 1/3 of the necessary funds from the federal budget, 1/3 - through the reorganization of ineffective organizations and 1/3 - from extra-budgetary sources, allocations are made for increasing wages in order to bringing it from 79 to 130% of the average Russian salary. At the same time, attention is paid to labor efficiency, and therefore there is a transfer to an “effective contract”.

It should be noted that government spending in this area is insufficiently effective. Budget expenditures per doctor and medical employee in Russia are low - 6 times less than per capita GDP, whereas in developed countries they are in the range of 15–25. Therefore, government policy should focus on a gradual reduction in government orders for medical graduates and reorientation of funds to capital investments into the health sector.

Expenditures of the budget system on physical culture and sports, the creation of sports infrastructure within the framework of the Federal Target Program "Development of Physical Culture and Sports in the Russian Federation for 2006–2015", including in the direction of "Mass Sports", on equipment for prefabricated physical culture and recreation centers are consistently growing. complexes. Funded the holding of major international sporting events - the XXVII World Summer Universiade 2013 in Kazan, the XXII Olympic Winter Games and the XI Paralympic Winter Games 2014 in Sochi, the World Athletics Championships in 2013 in Moscow, Rugby World Cup - 7 in 2013 in Moscow, World Martial Arts Games in 2013 in St. Petersburg.

In financing all areas social sphere A fundamental innovation stands out - the transfer of workers to an “effective contract”. It defines the terms of remuneration and social package" employee depending on the quality and quantity of work he performs. This promotes the efficiency of budget expenditures and increases the responsibility of the employees themselves for the effectiveness of their work.

Among the budget priorities is maintaining innovation activity through the development of pilot projects. Funding recipients are:

• innovation centers "Skolkovo", "Innopolis" (a modern Russian model of a scientific and technological park: a university with a campus, research and engineering centers, innovative enterprises, a technology park and SEZ of a technology-innovative type in the field of IT, machine tool building, space technologies, energy efficiency and energy saving, medical technologies);
• special economic zones(development of high-tech industries, import-substituting industries, tourism, development and production of new types of products, expansion of the transport and logistics system);
• territorial innovative technological clusters (nuclear and radiation technologies; aircraft and spacecraft, shipbuilding; pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and medicine; materials; chemistry and petrochemistry; IT and electronics);
• small and medium business, for which it is subsidized interest rate on loans;

Particularly supported are science cities whose research and production complexes are concentrated in the areas of energy saving, nuclear energy, genetic engineering, aircraft construction, production of military equipment, and radio electronics. For this purpose, the budgets of science cities are provided with interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget.

Budget priorities also include the development of Siberia and the Far East (the corresponding federal target programs have been adopted), the development of transport and road infrastructure. In particular, in order to create a single general economic space, funding for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of federal highways is being increased, providing rural settlements with year-round connections to the network of paved roads, etc. Financing of energy infrastructure is also being intensified. Overall, during the period 2014–2018. Additional funds in the amount of 2.2% of GDP will be allocated annually for the development of transport and energy infrastructure and the creation of new regional centers.

The priority of the budget is financing the sphere of national defense, national security and law enforcement activities (Fig. 4.9).

Rice. 4.9.

The level of defense spending in relation to GDP is one of the highest in the world; The country is second only to the United States and Israel. Fiscal policy must take into account the need to optimize these expenses. Budget expenditures include ensuring that the Armed Forces, other troops, military formations and bodies are equipped with modern weapons, military and special equipment; establishment monetary allowance military personnel at a level not lower than the level of wages in leading sectors of the economy; an annual increase in pensions for citizens discharged from military service by at least 2% above the inflation rate; annual, for five years, increase in the number of military personnel undergoing military service by contract.

The implementation of the new state armaments program (GAP) until 2020 will cost almost 20 trillion rubles. Most of the expenses will be incurred in the period 2016–2020, taking into account the use of not only budgetary, but also credit financing schemes. Enterprises that are the main executors of state defense orders receive loans under state guarantees. Modernization of the army and defense complex will increase annual expenditures in the period 2014–2018. by 1.5% of GDP.

These are the budget priorities for 2014–2016. General structure expenses are presented in table. 4.7.

Table 4.7. Budget expenditures of the budget system of the Russian Federation, % of GDP

Indicators	2013	2014	2015	2016
Expenses, total Including:
National issues
National Defense
National Security and Law Enforcement
National economy
Department of Housing and Utilities
Environmental protection
Education
Culture and cinematography
Healthcare
Social politics
physical Culture and sport
Mass media
Servicing state and municipal debt

In the long-term forecast until 2020, expenditures of the budget system are considered in three options: conservative (1), innovative (2) and forced (3) (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8. Main parameters of expenditures of the budget system of the Russian Federation, %VVG1

Indicators	Options
Interest expenses
Human capital *
Defense and security
Economic and infrastructure development
Social politics

The indicator includes expenses in the sections “Education”, “Healthcare”, “Culture and Cinematography”.

Source: Ministry economic development RF.

Greater flexibility and maneuverability of the budget is given by the allocation of so-called "conditionally approved expenses". The Ministry of Finance first created this kind of “budget pocket” in 2011. In this reserve, the government sets aside amounts for expected, but not yet calculated, large projects with uncertain amounts of financing. In 2015, the amount of conditionally distributed income will be RUB 384.0 billion. (2.5% of all expenses), in 2016 – 819.6 trillion rubles. (13.5%).

The fundamental budgetary innovation in public spending policy is the transition to a “program format”. The new design of budget financing of budget expenditures, in contrast to the departmental approach, is based on government programs. Government program is a document that defines the goal, objectives, results, main directions and tools public policy aimed at achieving the goals and implementing the priorities established by the Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020. The state program ensures implementation in deadlines large-scale events of national or international importance. As can be seen from table. 4.9, the program format covers 55–58% of all federal budget expenditures.

Table 4.9. Program structure of federal budget expenditures in 2013–2016, billion rubles.

Indicators
Sales costs government programs Russian Federation, total Including by directions
I New quality of life
II Innovative development and modernization of the economy (17 programs), without a closed part
III Ensuring national security (1 program), without closed part
IV Balanced regional development(5 programs)
V Effective state (5 programs)
Expenses for the implementation of government programs of the Russian Federation (closed part)
Expenses for non-program activities Including:
Financial support for the development of the pension system
Financial support for national defense
Other non-program expenses

Full financing of state programs includes, in addition to federal budget funds, extra-budgetary sources. The budgetary part of capital expenditures of an investment nature will increasingly be specified in federal target programs and federal targeted investment programs (FTP and FAIP).

Federal address investment program (FAIP ) is a collection of information on budget investments in construction, reconstruction, and technical re-equipment of facilities capital construction state property of the Russian Federation. The construction of more than a third of the facilities related to the Federal Targeted Program is financed through the Federal Investment Program. In 2012, the construction of 3,943 facilities was carried out through the FAIP (excluding special work included in the state defense order).

Allocations from the federal budget for programs and non-program parts of FAIPP are presented in table. 4.10.

Table 4.10. Budgetary allocations for the implementation of the Federal Target Program and the non-programme part of the Federal Investment Program, billion rubles.

In 2014, it is planned to implement 52 federal target programs, 5 of which are new - “Sustainable development of rural areas for 2014–2017 and for the period up to 2020”, “Research and development in priority areas of development of the scientific and technological complex of Russia for 2014–2017”. 2020", "Development of reclamation of agricultural lands in Russia for 2014–2020", "Scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel of innovative Russia for 2014–2020", "Development of a unified state system for registration of rights and cadastral registration real estate (2014–2019)".

In 2015–2016 It is planned to implement 51 and 34 federal target programs, respectively, of which two new ones will be launched in 2016 - the Federal Space Program of Russia for 2016–2025. and the Federal Target Program "Housing" for 2016–2020.

In general, the program-target method increases the responsibility and interest of government program implementers for achieving the best results within limited limits. financial resources.

Fundamentally important in modern budget policy is the optimization of expenses, i.e. their restructuring, reduction of ineffective spending. Adam Smith noted: every spendthrift is an enemy of society, every thrifty person is a benefactor. The country has adopted a “Program for Improving the Efficiency of Budget Expenditures”. Currently, efficiency priorities include three areas:

• 1) formation of a contract system;
• 2) the introduction of a public technological and price audit of all major investment (primarily infrastructure) projects with state participation;
• 3) development of public-private partnership.

Came into force in 2014 the federal law dated April 5, 2013 No. 44-FZ "On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs." During the formation of the contract system, the consistency and transparency of the procurement cycle from planning to acceptance and analysis of results, and the fight against corruption must be ensured.

During the development of public-private partnerships in the implementation of large investment projects with state and municipal participation, the fundamental innovations are as follows:

• for private investors, as opposed to public ones (managers of budget funds), budget resources provided on a competitive basis;
• mandatory public technological and price audit of project efficiency is being introduced.

Based on these principles, agreements will be concluded with private investors on co-financing of investment and concession agreements on government procurement and tariff regulation, contracts life cycle as a new format of public-private partnership.

Optimization of budget expenditures is part of global fiscal consolidation. A regime of strict budgetary austerity is being introduced, despite the consistently high price of oil, and responsibility for inefficient spending of funds is being established. According to the new budget rule from 2013, an increase in spending is possible only through additional non-oil and gas revenues. Budget rule is a mechanism enshrined in the Budget Code of the Russian Federation for determining the maximum (maximum possible) volume of budget expenditures, based on the long-term level of oil prices. Maximum expenditures should not exceed federal budget revenues at base price for oil by more than 1% of GDP (estimated budget deficit).

In 2013, the price of oil was calculated as the average for the last five years, in 2014 - for six years, in 2015 - for seven years, and from 2018 - for ten years. In particular, expenses under the new budget rule for 2013–2016. will be determined based on a price of $91–95 per barrel of Urals oil.

If the actual oil price turns out to be higher than the base price, excess oil and gas revenues are used to replenish the Reserve Fund until it reaches the standard volume of 7% of GDP. After reaching Reserve Fund 7% of GDP at least 50% of additional oil and gas revenues are directed to the Fund national welfare. The remaining funds can be used to finance infrastructure and other priority projects that do not entail ongoing obligations.

Budget rules allow you to maintain a stable and sustainable budget without increasing government debt, protect the budget from shocks, increase its stability, stabilize the total volume of expenditures, ensure the fulfillment of the state’s social obligations, the implementation of initiated projects and reform plans, and create conditions for increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures.

Strict compliance budget rule, signifying conservatism in government spending, is a step towards more responsible financial policy, a necessary condition for macroeconomic stability. And although limiting government spending somewhat slows down the dynamics of economic growth, the rule allows one to avoid sudden overheating and recessions. It is also important that the accumulation of oil and gas revenues and the limitation of budget expenditures will lead to a reduction in inflation in 2018 to a level of 3–4% per year. This creates the basis for sustainable growth in long-term private investment.

The volume of budget expenditures in real terms should not increase for the next ten years, and in the next three years it should decrease by 20%. The annual reduction in federal government spending is a "road map for fiscal consolidation." Planning horizons are expanding: the budget strategy of the Russian Federation until 2023 creates the basis for increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures, while at the same time being a restraining factor for their unreasonable growth.

Akindinova N.V.
director of the Institute
"Development Center" of the National Research University Higher School of Economics
Chernyavsky A.V.
k.e. n.
Leading Researcher

Chepel A.A.
expert
Institute "Development Center" National Research University Higher School of Economics

The regions' budgetary problems have attracted close attention from experts, especially since 2013, when their budget deficits and debt increased sharply. A significant role in this was played by additional expenses associated with the implementation of the “May decrees” of the President of the Russian Federation, against the backdrop of a reduction in federal transfers. In 2015, in conditions economic crisis the total deficit indicators of the consolidated budgets of the regions have improved (in contrast to the situation in 2009, when the total deficit increased). However, the price of this was a sharp (more than 10%) inflationary depreciation budget obligations. In this article we try to find out what is behind the overall performance numbers regional budgets taking into account regional differences, what happened to the costs of implementing the “May decrees” and salaries of public sector employees during the crisis, as well as how much fiscal consolidation contributed to solving the debt problem of the regions.

Literature review

A number of publications are devoted to modern regional budget problems. N. Zubarevich (2015) analyzes the development of the regional budget crisis from the 2000s to the end of 2014, including changes in the structure of expenditures under the influence of the “May Decrees”. The author notes a reduction in support for regional budgets from the federal center compared to 2009: the share of transfers in total income since 2012 has been either stable or declining, which, according to Zubarevich, reflects not imbalances in regional budgets, but political spending priorities federal budget.

The monitoring of the Independent Institute of Social Policy “Regional Budgets in 2015” (Zubarevich, 2016) provides a detailed analysis of the structure of revenues, expenses and budget deficits of consolidated regional budgets and draws a number of interesting conclusions. In particular, it is noted that, unlike the previous crisis, when the volume of transfers to the regions increased by 1/3, in 2013-2015. it remained unchanged if transfers to Crimea are not taken into account. According to the author of the monitoring, the policy of the federal center has become more stringent - regions must solve their problems themselves within the framework of available funding.

Issues of budget balance and regional debt are discussed in detail in: Tabakh, Andreeva, 2015. The article analyzes the structure of regional debt obligations, noting a decrease after the 2008-2009 crisis. the share of market borrowings and the increasing role of budget loans, the share of which in 2008-2014. increased fivefold. The work proposes to distinguish six groups of regions based on the following signs: structure of the debt portfolio at the end of 2014; debt to income ratio; the ratio of tax revenues and the population of the region; the share of interbudgetary transfers in the total volume of regional revenues; credit rating level; economic structure and regional income structure.

The contribution of various factors to the formation of the regional budget deficit in 2013 is discussed in the article by A. Chernyavsky (2014); wherein Special attention allocated to regions with the largest increase in budget deficit; The structure of its funding sources was also analyzed. The work noted a decrease in the debt sustainability of Russian regions, serious problems in the group that does not have access to bond markets and uses expensive bank lending.

S. Sinelnikov-Murylev and A. Mamedov (2014) consider three possible directions for supporting regional budgets during a crisis: increasing transfers from the federal budget; the regions receive additional tax revenues by transferring part of the revenues from the federal center or by granting the regions additional tax powers; transfer of spending powers to the federal budget level. The authors analyze the likelihood, pros and cons of using the listed strategies.

The authors of the report come to similar conclusions regarding possible measures to support regional budgets. Financial stability regional budgets" (RANEPA, 2015). They identify several groups of such measures: lifting restrictions on maximum bets regional and local taxes; expanding regional powers to promote tax collection; changes in the procedure and ideology of providing subsidies and other transfers; transfer of some social spending obligations to the federal level; increasing local flexibility budget policy by removing some restrictions, for example regarding sources of formation budget funds, and etc.

General balance indicators

Over the past seven years - from 2008 to 2015 - problems of balancing regional budgets arose in the crisis year of 2009 and again began to be discussed during the period of a sharp slowdown in economic growth in Russia in 2013, when the deficit of consolidated regional budgets reached almost 1% of GDP (Fig. 1). The main reason for the aggravation of regional budget problems is a sharp reduction in income growth in nominal terms and a decrease in income relative to GDP by 0.5 percentage points - from 11.9% in 2012 to 11.4% in 2013. If we compare the main types revenues of regional budgets - income tax, personal income tax and transfers from the federal budget and GDP for 2008-2015. (Fig. 2), we can note a sharp drop in income tax revenues and stabilization of personal income tax revenues since 2012. Also noticeable is the monotonous decline in transfers from the federal budget relative to GDP after the 2009 crisis. In our opinion, this became one of the important factors exacerbation of regional budget problems in 2013-2015.

In 2015, the situation with consolidated regional budget revenues generally improved. In nominal terms, they increased by 6.5% compared to 2014, amounting to 9.3 trillion rubles. At the same time, revenue growth was mainly ensured by key taxes: income tax revenues at the end of the year increased by 7.4%, which reflected the positive dynamics of this indicator. Income tax receipts individuals grew by 4.8%, exceeding the total increase in the wage fund. At the same time, transfers to the regions from the federal budget decreased by 3.2% - in continuation of the federal policy aimed at reducing the scale of redistribution budget revenues. As a result, in relation to GDP (calculated using the new methodology of Rosstat), the revenues of consolidated regional budgets in 2015 amounted to 11.6%, which is 0.4 percentage points higher than the corresponding figure for 2014. Note that regional revenues relative to GDP increased for the first time since the 2008-2009 crisis.

Against the backdrop of a general reduction in the volume of federal transfers, their structure changed noticeably in 2015 (Table 1). Compared to 2014, the share of subsidies to equalize budgetary security has increased, while the share of subsidies to support measures to ensure budget balance and other transfers has decreased. In 2014 and 2015 The volume of subsidies and their share in the structure of interbudgetary transfers sharply decreased. This may be due to the reaction of the regions to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 30, 2014 No. 999 “On the formation, provision and distribution of subsidies from the federal budget to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation,” which tightens the rules and responsibility for failure to meet the targets planned for their provision. Changing the structure of subsidies in favor of those determined on the basis of indicators of budgetary security can be considered a positive step; At the same time, sharp changes in the structure of transfers reflect the instability of inter-budgetary relations.

Table 1

Structure of transfers to regional budgets from the federal budget, 2012-2015. (V %)

Sources

Despite improved revenue dynamics, regions generally limited spending growth. Compared to 2014, total expenses increased in nominal terms by only 2.9%. At the same time, in constant prices (deflator - average monthly index consumer prices for goods and services, which in 2015 amounted to 15.5%), they decreased by 11%. As a result, the real level of regional spending in 2015 was 15% lower than the relatively prosperous year of 2012. Thus, the regional policies in 2015 differed sharply from those pursued in 2013-2014. (Then, faced with problems in generating budget revenues, the regions continued to increase spending, resulting in a 1.5-fold increase in regional and municipal debt.)

Complex financial position regions had a negative impact on social spending. The most obvious situation is with education expenses, which are predominantly financed at the regional level (regions account for about 80% of the corresponding expenses).

In 2015, nominal spending on education in the consolidated budgets of the regions increased by only 0.9%; in real terms, they fell by 13%, gradually eliminating the increase achieved in 2012-2013. under the influence of the “May decrees” (Fig. 3). At the same time, 55 regions reduced spending on education in nominal terms compared to 2014. It can be stated that the real volume of educational services financed from regional budgets in 2015 decreased significantly in some regions by more than 10% (Fig. 4) .

The influence of the “May Decrees”

Significant impact on the dynamics and structure of regional budget expenditures in 2012-2015. were influenced by the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 597 of May 7, 2012. In accordance with them, 11 categories of workers in the social sphere and science were established (later a 12th category was added) 1 for which it was planned to gradually increase the salary level relative to the regional average.

The main problem in implementing the “May decrees” was the inconsistency financial opportunities regions and the volume of their support from the federal budget to the scale of the tasks set. In 2012-2015 expenses for increasing public sector salaries gradually increased, but to a lesser extent than initially expected 2 . By 2013, the volume of the wage fund (WF) of the target categories reached 2.9% of GDP. After 2013, the volume of expenditures stabilized relative to GDP (Table 2).

table 2

Estimation of actual expenses for remuneration of labor of target categories in the social sphere and science* (in % of GDP)

* The assessment of budget system expenditures on payroll for target categories does not include social contributions, since these funds simultaneously increase income off-budget funds, reducing the need for their financing from other sources.

Note. Indicators for 2013-2015 calculated on the basis of officially published data from federal statistical monitoring in the field of wages individual categories workers in the social sphere and science. The assessment of the dynamics of the payroll of the target categories in 2011-2012, for which there is no direct data from the above-mentioned statistical observation, was made on the basis of Rosstat data on the dynamics of wages and the number of employees in budgetary institutions related to the relevant types of activities, as well as on the dynamics of the average accrued wages of employees of organizations of state and municipal forms of ownership for certain categories of personnel and types economic activity in 2011 and 2013 (according to sample survey data for October).

Sources: Rosstat; authors' calculations.

At the end of 2015, for most target categories on average in Russia, indicative targets for increasing wages were met. The lag was observed only for preschool teachers, employees of additional education institutions and social workers. At the same time, the increase in salaries was accompanied by a decrease in the number of target categories. Thus, the number of doctors at the end of 2015 compared to 2011 decreased by 6%, paramedical personnel - by 5, university teachers - by 18.5%. In 2014-2015 the process of reductions accelerated: the number of junior medical personnel and social workers decreased by 12.8%, cultural workers - by 14.4, scientific workers - by 24.1% (Table 3). The scale and direction of staff reductions did not always correspond to the expected directions of structural changes.

Table 3

Dynamics of the number of certain categories of social workers (thousand people)

Sources: Rosstat, http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/wages/; authors' calculations.

Insufficient funding was associated with both deterioration economic situation in 2013-2015 in comparison with what was expected when planning the reform, and with the fact that the real priorities of the federal budget expenditure policy during this period included financing the power bloc and the deficit Pension Fund, and not the development of science, education and health care. Under these conditions, the amount of resources allocated by the federal center to support the regions, which bear the main burden of financing wages in education and a significant part of healthcare costs, was gradually reduced. According to the materials of the draft federal budget, after the start of the reform, the volume of financing of expenses for increasing wages for target categories and assistance to regional budgets for these purposes did not exceed 0.2-0.3% of the GDP of the corresponding years (Table 4).

Table 4

Additional expenses of the federal budget for the implementation of presidential decrees regarding increasing wages for workers in science and the social sphere at the federal level and for financial support of the regions for these purposes (billion rubles)

Budget for 20I-2015
Financial support for subjects in the form of subsidies to ensure balance*
Budget for 2014-2016
Financial support for subjects in the form of subsidies to ensure balance*
Budget for 2015 2017
Subsidies to the budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation for partial compensation additional expenses to increase wages for public sector workers
in % of GDP of the corresponding year

* In 2013 2014 additional subsidies to ensure balance could be used by the regions for various purposes related to the implementation of the “May Decrees.” Since 2015, subsidies have been targeted in nature, related to direct compensation of labor costs.

Sources: materials for draft laws on the federal budget for 2013 2015, 2014-2016 and 2015-2017.

In 2013-2014 about 30%, and in 2015 - 17% of additional costs for the implementation of the “May Decrees” were financed from the federal budget. The rest falls on regional budgets and the compulsory medical insurance fund; in addition, extra-budgetary income of organizations is used (Table 5). Under these conditions, additional obligations to increase wages for the regions turned out to be, in fact, new “unfunded mandates.” This situation primarily led to a radical change in the structure of regional budget expenditures. In general, during the period of implementation of the “May decrees” the share of wages increased by 5 percentage points, crowding out other types of expenses. We note a significant reduction in investment expenses (by 3 percentage points; Fig. 5).

Table 5

Assessment of the distribution of additional costs for financing the “May decrees” by source (billion rubles)

Sources: Rosgtat; materials for draft laws on the federal budget for 2013-2015, 2014-2016 and 2015-2017; authors' calculations.

The “May Decrees” had a significant impact on the dynamics of real wages in the entire public sector. If before 2011 average salary public sector employees grew synchronously with wages in other non-fuel sectors, then from the beginning of the implementation of these decrees it went up sharply (Fig. 6), reaching maximum values in 2014. In 2015, the situation changed. In the context of the budget crisis, the federal authorities, and after them many regions, slowed down further increases in wages for public sector employees or abandoned them. In conditions of double-digit inflation, this led to a decrease in wages in real terms by 11% y/y, and they practically returned to the level of 2012, that is, by the beginning of the implementation of the “May decrees.”

Salaries in industries public sector during the period of implementation of the “May Decrees” changed in different ways. The strongest growth in 2014 compared to 2011 was observed in education, which was associated with the accelerated implementation of the provisions of decrees. In healthcare, the increase schedule was smoother. It is characteristic that during the same period, measures to increase wages in public administration that were not directly announced by the “May decrees” were carried out on the basis of individual decisions, as a result, the salaries of officials also grew at a faster pace, and the proportions between wage levels in different budget sectors changed little ( Fig. 7).

A comparison of the nominal dynamics of wages of target categories of workers, which increased within the framework of the “May decrees,” and wages in sectors of the public sector as a whole, including both target categories and others financed from the budget, shows that the former in fact did not have an advantage over the rest (Table 6). It can be assumed that this speaks of a “side effect” of the “May decrees”, as a result of which an increase in the salaries of some groups of public sector employees stimulated an accelerated increase in the salaries of other groups in order to avoid a critical gap between them. Of course, this created an additional burden on regional budgets. At the same time, in 2015, the slowdown in wage growth to 3-5% in nominal terms simultaneously affected both target and non-target groups of public sector employees.

Table 6

Comparative dynamics of nominal average wages in education and healthcare and the corresponding target categories (in%)

Education
the entire sector
Healthcare
the entire sector

Sources: Rosstat; authors' calculations.

Dynamics of deficit and debt

As shown above, after the accelerated growth of budget expenditures at the regional level in 2012-2014. in 2015, their nominal growth slowed significantly, and in real terms they depreciated. Taking into account the faster nominal growth of income, this contributed to the reduction of the deficit. In general, in 2015, regional budgets were executed with a deficit of 172 billion rubles. (0.2% of GDP). Thus, the level of their balance has increased compared to 2013 and 2014, when the deficit was 0.9% (according to our estimate) and 0.6% of GDP, respectively (see Fig. 1).

However, taking into account regional differences, the situation is not so favorable. This result was achieved due to several regions ending the year with a surplus. These include Moscow, Moscow region, St. Petersburg, Leningrad region, KhMAO, Tyumen and Sakhalin regions, that is, regions receiving capital or market rent. In addition to them, the city of Sevastopol and the Vladimir region were included in the list of “surplus” regions. The total surplus amounted to almost 200 billion rubles, of which Moscow accounted for 144 billion, which significantly affected the overall balance of regional budget execution. The remaining 78 constituent entities of the Federation ran a budget deficit in 2015. Figure 8 shows the regions with the highest ratio of deficit to income in 2015. It can be seen that most problem regions had significant budget deficits in 2014. In comparison, the level of budget imbalance increased in the Republic of Mordovia, Magadan, Kaliningrad and Smolensk regions, Khakassia and a number of other regions (35 in total).

In 2015, the ratio of the deficit of consolidated regional budgets to their income decreased by 3.2 percentage points compared to 2014. Individual factors 3 that influenced the final result can be identified (Table 7). Thus, the reduction of the budget deficit in 2015 was facilitated by a significant nominal increase in income tax and personal income tax revenues. This applies to an even greater extent to property taxes and total income, revenues from which increased by 12 and 10% respectively, that is, more than the income of the regions as a whole. Height own income regions dampened the negative effect of a reduction in transfers from the federal budget. As already noted, the limited growth of expenditures in nominal terms also became the reason for an increase in the balance of regional budgets.

Table 7

Factors of increase in the deficit of consolidated regional budgets, 2015 (as a percentage of income, regions with the largest increase in the deficit)

	Increase in deficit	Increase in income tax	Personal income tax increase	Increase in transfers	Increase in other income	Increase in expenses for education (increases in expenses are reflected with a "-" sign)	Increase in other expenses (increases in expenses are reflected with a “-”)
Russian Federation
Kaliningrad region
The Republic of Ingushetia
Smolensk region
The Republic of Mordovia
The Republic of Khakassia
Ulyanovsk region
Stavropol region
Sakhalin region
Altai Republic
Bryansk region
Republic of Kalmykia
Magadan Region
Kabardino-Balkarian Republic

Note. An increase in expenditures acts as a factor in the growth of the budget deficit, while their reduction reduces it.

However, in almost every deficit-prone region in Table 7, deficit growth was associated with rapid increases in spending. However, there were other reasons. In 11 of the 14 most problematic regions, the volume of federal transfers decreased in 2015. In the Kaliningrad region, along with an increase in expenses (by 14%) and a reduction in transfers, income tax revenues significantly decreased. In the Republic of Mordovia, the growth of the budget deficit was entirely due to a sharp drop in income tax revenues (in 2014, these revenues in the republic were abnormally high).

Due to the large number of deficit regions, debt continued to grow, although at a slower rate than in previous years. In 2015, the debt of regions and municipalities increased by 11% and at the beginning of 2016 reached almost 2.7 trillion rubles. (Table 8). In total, since 2012, regional debt has increased 1.7 times.

Table 8

Dynamics and structure of regional and municipal debt in 2012-2015. (billion rubles)

Bonds
in % of total volume
Bank loans
in % of total volume
Budget loans
in % of total volume
in % of total volume
in % of total volume

Sources: Ministry of Finance of Russia; authors' calculations.

The debt structure since 2013, when its rapid growth began, has been dominated by commercial bank loans (an expensive and short-term borrowing instrument). The plans of the federal center to replace them with cheap budget loans have only been partially implemented, since the federal budget does not have the necessary resources for this.

By international standards, the level of regional debt achieved at the beginning of 2016 (3.3% of GDP) remains low (Fig. 9). However relative indicators debts by region are highly differentiated (the coefficient of variation in indicators of regional debt at the end of 2015, attributed to regional income, is 56%). In a number of regions, the amount of accumulated debt is already creating a serious burden on the budget due to problems with refinancing and an increase in the share of interest expenses in total expenses (regional average 1.6% in 2015 versus 1.3% in 2014. and less than 1% in previous years).

How did the regions' debt, which existed at the end of 2014, influence their fiscal behavior - in terms of the formation of the budget deficit - in 2015? Let's compare two series of indicators: the level of regional debt in relation to income (at the end of 2014) and the level of the budget deficit in relation to income (for 2015). There is a positive correlation between these series, the coefficient is 0.43. The scatter diagram (Fig. 10) further illustrates that, in general, regions that had a high level of budget debt continued to live “beyond their means” in 2015. However, let us not rush to conclusions. The chart below shows that in some regions, high debt clearly correlates with high level deficit relative to income. At the same time, regions that ended 2015 with a consolidated budget surplus are characterized by low debt at the beginning of the year. At the same time, in the middle of the distribution there is a large number of regions where the connection is quite weak.

The two groups of regions with the strongest debt-deficit relationships are of greatest interest. The first includes seven regions that had both high debt at the beginning of 2015 and a high deficit relative to income (Table 9).

Table 9

Volume and structure of debt in regions with high levels and rates of debt growth (in%)

	Deficit/income in 2015	Debt/income, end 2015		In total debt
				securities		budget loans
The Republic of Mordovia
Smolensk region
Kostroma region
Kaluga region
Udmurt republic
Republic of Karelia
Astrakhan region

Sources: Ministry of Finance of Russia; authors' calculations.

In accordance with the requirements of the Budget Code (BC) of the Russian Federation, the maximum amount of debt of regions and municipalities should not exceed their income minus gratuitous receipts. At the same time, until 2018, budget loans may not be included in the calculation of the debt limit. For analytical purposes, we calculated this indicator in relation to the consolidated budgets of seven selected regions. Taking into account the temporary provisions of the Book Code, none of them violates the law. This is largely due to the high share of budget loans in the total debt in such regions as Mordovia, Smolensk, Kostroma and Kaluga region(in Russia, on average, this figure at the end of 2015 was 34%). Thus, a number of regions with high debt, simultaneously having high share budget loans in the debt structure continue to rapidly increase it, taking advantage of the peculiarities of budget legislation.

The second group includes regions of Russia that ended 2015 with a surplus. As already noted, these are regions with relatively low level debt. Table 10 shows the indicators of their debt structure (the size of the surplus is indicated as a deficit with a minus sign).

Table 10

Debt indicators of regions with a positive balance of the consolidated budget in 2015 (in%)

	Deficit/revenue in 2015	Debt/income, end 2015	Debt minus budget loans/income without transfers	In total debt
				securities	loans from credit institutions	budget loans
Vladimir region
Saint Petersburg
Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug - Yugra
Sakhalin region
Tyumen region
Moscow
Leningrad region

Sources: Ministry of Finance of Russia; authors' calculations.

In the debt structure of a number of the 10 regions shown in the table—Vladimir Region, St. Petersburg, Sakhalin Region—the share of budget loans is also large. Thus, it cannot be argued that access to them significantly influences budget strategies in all regions. In some regions - Sakhalin, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, Leningrad Region - a positive budget balance in 2015 was associated with a sharp increase in income. In other regions it was achieved, among other things, by reducing expenditures in nominal terms. These include two Russian capitals and the Tyumen region.

The amount of accumulated debt did not have a direct impact on limiting the budget deficit in 2015. A number of regions with high levels of debt continued to increase their debt at an accelerated pace. At the same time, some other regions, including Russian capitals, are adhering to a strategy of minimizing the level of debt relative to income.

In conclusion, we note that, despite the rapid growth of income compared to expenses and a reduction relative to 2013 and 2014. total deficit Russian regions continued to be affected by a full-blown economic crisis in 2015. Expenditures of regional budgets in real terms decreased by 15% compared to 2012. At the same time real wages in the budgetary sector returned to the 2012 level, which neutralized most of the effect of the “May decrees”. Reducing spending in real terms increases the risk of a further decline in the volume and quality of budget services provided and degradation of regional infrastructure in the coming years. Despite the formal increase in balance, the vast majority of regions remain deficient, and in a number of them it has become chronic. There is great differentiation among regions in terms of debt burden. At the same time, both poor and rich regions actively use budget loans, which allows problem regions to continue to increase borrowing while formally complying with the requirements for the maximum level of accumulated debt. This reinforces the dependence of the regions on one-time decisions of the federal center.

Taking into account the above, in order to solve the problem of the sustainability of regional budgets, in our opinion, in the future it will be necessary to make decisions aimed, on the one hand, at increasing the income base of the regions on a permanent basis, and on the other, at reducing regional differentiation. Such solutions, in particular, could be:

• providing regions with additional powers related to both the introduction of new taxes and changes in rates federal taxes within the framework of the general policy of financial decentralization;
• increasing the volume of subsidies to equalize budgetary security by reducing other subsidies and increasing the total volume of transfers from the federal budget.

1 Teachers of educational institutions of higher professional education, researchers, doctors and employees of medical organizations with a higher medical (pharmaceutical) or other degree higher education providing medical services (providing medical services), nursing (pharmaceutical) personnel (providing medical services), junior medical personnel (providing medical services), workers of cultural institutions, social workers, teaching staff of institutions of additional education for children, teachers and vocational training specialists of primary and secondary vocational educational institutions education, teaching staff of educational institutions of general education, teaching staff of preschool educational institutions, as well as teaching staff of educational, medical organizations or organizations providing social services to orphans and children without parental care.

2 In the article by V.V. Putin “Building justice. Social policy for Russia" (Komsomolskaya Pravda. 2012. 13 fsvr.) it was indicated that "the implementation of this task will require significant resources in total up to one and a half percent of GDP in year".

3 See also: Chernyavsky, 2014, regarding the analysis of factors in the formation of regional budget deficits.

List of literature / References

Zubarevich N.(2015). // Economic Issues. No. 4. P. 37 - 52.

Zubarevich N. V.(2016). Monitoring the crisis and post-crisis development of Russian regions. M.: NISP. http://www.socpol.ru/atlas/overviews/social_sphere/kris. shtml#no36.

Sinelnikov-Murylev S., Mamedov A.(2014). Regional budgets - 2015: Three ways to solve the deficit problem // Forbes. November 12.

RANEPA(2015). Financial sustainability of regional budgets: Report. http://council.gov.ru/media/files/41d58c257el3f3a5d414.pdf.

Tabakh A., Andreeva D.(2015). // Economic Issues. No. 10. P. 78-93.

Chernyavsky A.(2014). Problems of balancing regional budgets // Finance. No. 8. pp. 15-21.

• Fattakhova Diana Nadimovna,
• Bashkir State Agrarian University

• EXPENSES
• INCOME
• THE STATE BUDGET

The article discusses and analyzes income and expenses state budget RF.

• Analysis of methods for assessing the creditworthiness of borrowers - individuals
• Enterprise financial control system: methods and means of implementation

The state budget is one of the main documents of the country, which is a set of financial estimates of all departments, public services etc. It spells out all the needs of the country, which are met at the expense of the state treasury, and it also indicates the sources and amounts of expected revenues to the state treasury. According to Article 215.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation cash service execution of budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation is carried out by the Federal Treasury.

Formation and approval balanced budget is a primary function of the Ministry of Finance and the Government of the Russian Federation. First of all, the balance of state income and expenditure is important, since it is precisely because of this factor that the economic stability of the country depends.

Through the budget, the state forms and uses a national centralized fund Money, and it is through him that the state organizes the redistribution of the social product to meet national needs, which is why this topic is always relevant.

Based on the data presented on the website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, we can analyze and draw certain conclusions about the dynamics of state budget revenues and expenditures for the period 2010-2015.

Table 1. Revenue part of the federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2010-2015, billion rubles.

Revenue part of the federal budget
	Income, total		11 367,7	12 855,5	13 019,9	14 496,9	13 659,2
	Oil and gas revenues
	Non-oil and gas revenues
	Related to domestic production
	VAT (domestic)
	Income tax
	Import related
	VAT on imported goods
	Excise taxes on imported goods
	Import duties
	Others

Source: Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.minfin.ru/ru

Based on the data in the table, we can conclude that from 2010 to 2014, the income of the Russian Federation grew in all indicators from 8,305.4 billion rubles. up to 14,496.9 billion rubles. However, in 2015 the situation changes and we see that total income decreases to 13,659.2 billion rubles, and oil and gas revenues drop to 5,862.7 billion rubles. Naturally, this is connected with the political life of the country, since in 2014 the European Union imposed sanctions against the Russian Federation, we lost our partners, and oil prices fell on average from $110 per barrel to $45 per barrel.

The situation with non-oil and gas revenues is completely different. Growth here continues despite the difficult situation in the country. They are trying to replenish the state treasury of the Russian Federation with the help of various taxes, which lead to disapproval of state policy in society.

Table 2. Expenditures of the federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2010-2015, billion rubles.

Federal budget expenditures
	Expenses, total	10 117,5	10 925,6	12 895,0	13 342,9	14 831,6	15 620,3
	National issues
	National Defense
	National security and law enforcement
	National economy
	Environmental protection
	Education
	Culture, cinematography
	Healthcare
	Social politics
	physical Culture and sport
	Servicing state and municipal debt
	Interbudgetary transfers general budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation

In recent years, the federal budget has played a major role in ensuring the overall balance of regional budgets. In 2007-2012 Consolidated regional budgets were mostly maintained without deficits, with the exception of the peak of the crisis in 2009, when the overall deficit amounted to 0.8% of GDP, and 2012 (0.5% of GDP). In 2009-2011 the volume of federal transfers increased from 2.6% to 3-4% of GDP, which helped prevent the problem from growing. However, the main burden of the budget deficit fell on the federal budget. In 2012, the volume of transfers decreased to pre-crisis levels and the imbalance of regional budgets began to grow again.

2013 was quite a difficult year for both Russian economy, and for the budget system, especially at the regional level. The rate of economic growth slowed from 3.4% to 1.3%, worsened financial indicators enterprises. The share of regional budget revenues in GDP in 2013 reached a historical minimum since 1995. This happened both due to a decrease in tax revenues (primarily income tax) and a reduction in the volume of federal transfers. At the same time, regional budget expenditures decreased slightly (from 13.4% to 13.2% of GDP), and the expenditure plan was only 90% fulfilled. The main obstacle to more massive reduction expenses was due to an increase in the obligations of the constituent entities of the Federation to implement the “May” presidential decrees of 2012, primarily in terms of increasing salaries for public sector employees. Additional expenditure obligations of the regions in 2013-2014. are estimated at 0.5% of GDP.

The current situation had a number of negative consequences.

Firstly, in 2013, the problems of regional debt sharply worsened (increased by 30%), especially commercial debt (by 50%). The number of deficit regions and the total volume of the deficit exceeded the values ​​observed at the peak of the crisis in 2009 (0.8% of GDP in 2009 and 1% of GDP in 2013). At the same time, the regional budget deficit turned out to be twice as large as at the federal level (unlike the situation in 2009, when the ratio was the opposite). Although at the end of the year the total volume of regional debt remained relatively small - 2.6% of GDP, in a number of regions the volume of accumulated debt reached critical values ​​(more than 100% of income without transfers).

Secondly, the regions were forced to reduce investments. The share of investment expenditures in total expenditures consistently decreased from 17% in 2011 to 15% in 2013 (or from 2.5 to 2% of GDP).

Data for 8 months of 2014 indicate that the situation with the execution of budgets at various levels is somewhat improving, even despite the predicted slowdown in economic growth to 0.5%. Tax revenues could rise in 2014 due to some recovery in income tax revenues. However, a comparison of tax revenues not only with 2013, but also with 2012 shows that in real terms, tax revenues have not recovered; there is a noticeable drop to the level of 2012.

At the same time, the 2014 federal budget provides for a slight reduction in the volume of assistance to the regions.

As a result, at the regional level, total revenues in 2014 may remain at the level of last year (12.2% of GDP), and expenses will increase (with 100% implementation of the spending plan) to 13.5% of GDP. In this case, the overall regional budget deficit in 2014 will increase to 1.3% of GDP.

The fact that according to the results of the first 8 months of 2014 the volume of regional debt has remained virtually unchanged does not mean that the situation has completely normalized. Practice 2012-2013 showed that at the end of the year the debt grows by 15-20% (which is due to the continued unevenness of expenses and the need to fulfill all obligations by the end of the year). It must be taken into account that a significant reduction in the overall regional budget deficit compared to 2013 is only possible if the level of expenditure execution is at least 10% lower than planned (as was the case in 2013). It is also important to note that in 2014 the downward trend in the share of regional investment expenditures continued (share in total amount expenses for 8 months of 2013 - 12%, and for 8 months of 2014 already 10.3%).

Draft federal budget for 2015-2017. does not imply a change in trend: from the level of 2.17% of GDP in 2014, the total volume of interbudgetary transfers to constituent entities of the Russian Federation will fall to 2.01% of GDP in 2015 and to 1.74% of GDP in 2016. In 2017, a slight increase is expected to 1.81% of GDP. As a result, a further decline in the real volume of income of the consolidated budgets of the subjects from the minimum for the entire previous period time level of 12.2% of GDP in 2013-2014. up to 11.9% of GDP by 2017 is due in budget projections precisely to a decrease in the total volume of transfers from the federal budget.

It is also important to take into account that the forecast for revenues of both the federal budget and budgets of other levels was made based on a fairly optimistic macroeconomic forecast (reaching a 3% economic growth rate in a three-year perspective).

According to our estimates, in the next three years the rate ceiling GDP growth limited to 1.5-2% per year, and this does not take into account the implementation of additional foreign policy risks and the strengthening of mutual sanctions.

If these negative expectations are realized, the dynamics of the Russian economy will be close to zero. Expectations for a more pronounced and long-term slowdown in household consumption are associated with an increase in the debt burden of the population and the amount of interest payments on bank loans, reducing household disposable income.

As a result, regional budget revenues may be even lower than the Ministry of Finance forecasts. Thus, the following conclusions can be drawn. Although in 2014 there has been a certain improvement in the situation with the execution of regional budgets compared to 2013, it is clear that serious problems remain (especially when compared with 2012). The available data does not allow us to build an optimistic forecast for the whole of 2014, as well as for the next 2015. Moreover, if the macroeconomic situation continues to deteriorate, the predicted decline in regional budget revenues may be more widespread.

As world experience shows, any multi-level budget system There is both a vertical imbalance caused by the discrepancy between the distribution of expenditure and revenue powers, and a horizontal imbalance (inequality) in the position of subnational budgets of the same level. Interbudgetary transfers are one of the tools for correcting such imbalances, but not the only possible one. In general, increasing the balance of Russian regional budgets (correcting vertical imbalance) in the medium term is possible through three sources: increasing transfers from the federal budget, transferring additional tax revenues to the regional level (or introducing new regional taxes), transferring certain spending powers from the regional to the federal level (or simply reducing the volume of spending powers of regional budgets).

Increasing the volume of transfers from the federal budget. This is a more transparent method than, for example, increasing the volume of budget loans. When constant issuance new budget loans to repay old ones, this instrument becomes equivalent to subsidies for balance. It is more logical now to allocate subsidies instead of budget loans, and in the medium term it is necessary to increase the volume of subsidies to equalize budgetary security and reduce the volume of subsidies to balance, since the imbalance at the regional level is long-term in nature.

Additional tax revenues at the regional level. Until recently, the issue of introducing a sales tax (SPT) was actively discussed. The final decision to refuse its introduction is completely justified from an economic point of view. The negative consequences of the introduction of the NSP could be: excessive tax burden and an increase in administrative costs for business, as well as uneven distribution of future revenues across regions (especially if the NSP were introduced only for large retail chains).

If you raise tax burden on the economy (which is extremely undesirable), then this should be done through an increase in VAT.

The advantages are that a new tax does not need to be introduced (VAT already exists), and the volume of additional revenue is higher (according to our estimates, 0.6% of GDP with an increase in the VAT rate by 2 percentage points versus 0.34% of GDP for NSP with at a rate of 3%). In the future, an additional 2 pp of VAT can be used either to increase existing transfers to regions (primarily subsidies for equalizing budgetary security), or distributed between regions on a per capita basis (similar to the mechanism operating in Germany).

Reform of real estate taxation (property and land) and transition to determining the basis for cadastral value can also have a positive impact on improving the balance of regional budgets. However, one must take into account both the presence of “ transition period"and significant differences in market value real estate by region, which will lead to the corresponding tax revenues growing gradually and, moreover, unevenly across regions. Also, taking into account the social risks of carrying out a reform of property taxation specifically for individuals, in the medium term it is possible to increase revenues from this tax only up to 0.1-0.2% of GDP (from 0.03% of GDP in 2012-2013)

Transfer of spending powers from the regional to the federal level. In the current conditions, one of the rather effective measures could be the transfer to the federal level of the obligation to pay insurance premiums for compulsory health insurance(compulsory medical insurance) of the non-working population (approximately 0.67% of GDP). This is an unfunded federal mandate, the scope of which is clearly defined by federal law. IN financially assigning expenditure obligations for compulsory health insurance to the federal level is preferable to transferring additional revenue sources to the regions, since it has a stronger equalizing effect. It is achieved through a greater reduction in expenditure obligations per resident of the least financially secure regions, where, as a rule, the proportion of the unemployed population is higher.

One more possible option the transfer of powers from the regional to the federal level is the exclusion of regional social supplements to pensions from the competence of the subjects (0.17% of GDP). Generally pension provision is a federal authority. In addition, the mechanism of regional surcharges is ineffective, since only three regions make these surcharges without federal financial support (through the mechanism of interbudgetary subsidies).

Both with an increase in the volume of transfers to the regions and with the transfer of spending powers from the regional to the federal level, in order to prevent an increase in the federal budget deficit, it is necessary to redistribute funds from other areas of federal spending. At the same time, it is important to consider changes in the structure of expenses from the perspective of “productive expenses” (education, health care, industrial infrastructure), providing the economic growth, and “waste expenditures” (national defense, law enforcement, government) that contribute little or no to growth (above a certain limit). From this point of view, an increase in federal budget expenditures on healthcare (due to the inclusion of costs for compulsory medical insurance of the non-working population) with a significantly lower (than currently included in the draft budget for 2015-2017) increase in defense expenditures and a reduction in expenditures on public administration and law enforcement would be more consistent with the goal of increasing the growth rate of the Russian economy in the medium and long term.

The federal budget is essentially a “budget of last resort,” so growing problems at the regional level will require decisions from the center.

It may be necessary to increase financial assistance to regions to prevent a decrease in socially significant expenses. At the same time, the data presented show that even with a fairly favorable macroeconomic forecast, the revenues of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation still remain at minimal levels as a share of GDP, which indicates a long-term shortage of financial resources at the regional level.