Increasing the efficiency of formation, provision and distribution of interbudgetary transfers. Assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers Veronika Viktorovna Vinitsyna Ways to increase the efficiency of using targeted transfers
Introduction
CHAPTER 1 FORMATION OF THE BUDGET SYSTEM OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 8
1.1 Features of the budget system of the Russian Federation 8
1.2 Russian model of fiscal federalism 25
1.3 Evolution interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation 37
CHAPTER 2 FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS 61
2.1 Country specific features of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations 61
2.2 Transformation of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations between the federal center and regions in the Russian Federation. 73
2.3 Features of providing transfers from regional budgets to the Russian Federation 87
CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERBUDGETARY TRANSFERS 94
3.1 Basics of constructing a model for assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers 94
3.2 Assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers based on a matrix model 106
3.3 Features of the application of the matrix model at the subfederal level (using the example of municipalities of the Republic of Khakassia) 128
CONCLUSION 135
REFERENCES 142
APPLICATIONS 162
Introduction to the work
For any state in modern conditions development, the problem of interbudgetary relations remains important, which is traditionally expressed in the search for answers to three main questions: how should revenue sources be distributed between the levels of the budget system, what is the fair division expenditure obligations what forms of financial assistance are most effective.
The reform of the budget system of the Russian Federation, which began in the 90s of the 20th century and continues now, has already shown positive results.
From 2000 to 2008, the federal budget was executed with a surplus. In order to ensure predictability and continuity of draft budgets at all levels of the budget system, a transition was made to medium-term budget planning. Result-oriented budgeting mechanisms have been introduced. Correction made tax legislation. In order to improve efficiency budget expenditures and improving social and economic development the country has implemented decisions aimed at the development and financial support of infrastructure projects, and the implementation of priority national projects has begun. Amendments to the Budget Code adopted in 2007 completed the consolidation of long term basis income for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities. The approaches to providing financial assistance from higher budgets to lower ones have been changed.
However, despite the results achieved, there are still no mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the use of funds received in the form of interbudgetary transfers at the level of regions and municipalities.
The need to assess the effectiveness of interbudgetary relations at the federal and subfederal levels predetermined the choice of topic, setting the goal and objectives of the dissertation research.
The purpose of the study is to develop a scientific and methodological approach to assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers at the subfederal and local levels.
To achieve this goal, the following tasks are solved:
the features of the structure of the budget system of the Russian Federation are revealed;
transformation is analyzed Russian model fiscal federalism through the evolution of interbudgetary relations;
country specific features of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations are identified;
The transformation of interbudgetary transfers is studied, providing
allocated from the federal, regional and local budgets;
a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers is being developed;
a universal model for assessing the level of socio-economic development of regions and municipalities is being developed;
The developed model is being tested at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and
municipalities.
The object of the dissertation research is the subjects of the Russian Federation and bodies local government Republic of Khakassia.
The subject of the study is interbudgetary transfers at both the regional and local levels.
The theoretical and methodological basis of the study are the scientific works of domestic and foreign scientists - economists and political scientists, devoted to the problems of the formation and use of interbudgetary transfers allocated from both the federal and regional budgets.
The scientific research is based on a systematic approach as a general scientific methodology using comparative, eco-
nomic-statistical, index, graphical analysis, logical generalization.
The information base for the dissertation research was: federal laws on the execution of the budget of the Russian Federation, laws of the Republic of Khakassia on the execution republican budget; official statistics from Rosstat and Khakasstat; data from the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Khakassia, materials from periodical economic press.
The scientific novelty of the study lies in the development of a model for assessing the effectiveness of instruments of interbudgetary relations through assessing the effectiveness of the use of interbudgetary transfers.
Scientific novelty is confirmed by the following scientific results of the study:
the directions of transformation of the Russian model of fiscal federalism are substantiated;
country specific features of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations are identified;
a classification of principles for constructing a budget system has been proposed, which allows us to assess the influence of economic, organizational and legal factors on the functioning and development of the budget system;
a universal model has been developed (that is, applicable both at the level of the Russian Federation - a subject of the Russian Federation, and at the level of a subject of the Russian Federation - local budget) for assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers, based on constructing a matrix “the share of interbudgetary transfers - the level of socio-economic development”;
a model has been developed for assessing the level of socio-economic development of a region or municipality based on the calculation of an integral indicator;
A general indicator for assessing the effectiveness of the system is proposed
interbudgetary transfers at the level of federal subjects and municipal
formations.
The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that the conclusions and proposals formulated in the work can be used to assess the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers, both at the regional and local levels.
The results of the dissertation research can also be applied in educational process when studying such disciplines as “Finance”, “Budget system of the Russian Federation”, “State and municipal finance”, “Regional finance”.
The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and appendices. The total volume of the work is 161 pages of typewritten text, the work contains 24 tables, 13 figures, and a bibliography (247 sources).
In the introduction, the relevance of the research topic is substantiated, the purpose and objectives of the work are formulated, the subject and object of the study are defined, the scientific novelty is shown, the theoretical and methodological basis research, the practical significance of the research results is shown.
IN first chapter dissertation “The Formation of the Budget System of the Russian Federation” examines the features of the budget system of the Russian Federation through an analysis of the composition of the budget system, the principles of its construction and the relationship of budgets united in the budget system.
The models of fiscal federalism established in theory and practice in Russia and abroad are examined. The formation of the model of Russian federalism from the decentralized type in the 90s to the centralized one that has developed today is analyzed.
The evolution of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation is considered, and a new periodization of the development of the system of interbudgetary relations is proposed.
In second chapter“Financial aspects of interbudgetary relations” examines the country-specific features of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations, as well as the process of transformation of the instruments of interbudgetary transfers provided from the federal and regional budgets.
In the third chapter“Development of a model for assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers”, substantiates the approach to assessing the effectiveness of using funds received in the form of financial assistance, based on the matrix “share of interbudgetary transfers - level of development of the region” (matrix model). A methodology has been developed for determining the integral indicator of the level of socio-economic development, both at the level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and at the level of municipalities. A general indicator for assessing the effectiveness of the system of interbudgetary transfers (Index economic efficiency interbudgetary transfers).
In conclusion, the main conclusions arising from the study are presented.
The appendices contain tables and figures illustrating individual provisions of the dissertation.
Features of the budget system of the Russian Federation
The transition to market relations, which occurred in our country in the 90s of the last century, necessitated reform of the budget system and budget structure
A budget device includes at least three important characteristics:
1) the structure of the budget system;
2) organizational principles for building a budget system;
3) the relationship of budgets united in the budget system.
The first characteristic is determined primarily by the type of government. There are two main types of government: federal and unitary. Before characterizing the budgetary structure of states of each type, it is necessary to clarify the fundamental differences between unitary states and federal ones.
The most common characteristic of types of government is the number of levels of government, or the degree of centralization budget funds and independence of territorial budgets.
Thus, in unitary states, the budget system is represented by two levels: the state budget and local budgets, while local budgets do not include their income and expenses in the state budget. In federal states, the budget system includes. At least three links: the federal budget (central government budget), budgets of members of the federation, local budgets. In a federation, local budgets are not included in the budgets of federation members, and the expenses and income of federation members are not included in the federal budget. From the position of Romanovsky M.V., Vrublevskaya O.V., Sabanti B.M. Unitary budget systems correspond to a high level of centralization of budget funds, the absence or insignificant amount of budgetary rights of lower authorities. Federal budget systems are characterized by a high degree of independence of territorial budgets while maintaining the unity of national institutions.
However, these approaches do not provide comprehensive differences between these two types of budgetary structure, since a unitary state is not always strictly centralized, and in federations territories do not always have absolute independence. Centralization and decentralization of power are present in any society..."
The degree of centralization or decentralization of a unitary state depends on the distribution of powers between the central and local levels. The problems of the functioning of territories are more immediate and understandable locally, so local authorities can find ways to solve them that protect the interests of the population faster. Therefore, it is reasonable for the central government to transfer some of its powers to the territories. They are also limited in financial resources, since in unitary states the parliament determines through the budget what funds will be made available to the territories.
Country specific features of the financial mechanism of interbudgetary relations
One of the key issues in the functioning of the budget system is the question of the relationship between its levels, that is, we are talking about interbudgetary relations.
In our opinion, in the economic and legal literature today there is no optimal and precise definition of the concept of “interbudgetary relations”. Let's consider what approaches to the interpretation of this concept exist.
In accordance with budget legislation, in the Budget Code, until January 1, 2005, interbudgetary relations were understood as relations between government bodies of the Russian Federation, government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments. According to a number of researchers, the main drawback of the definition was its general nature, since interbudgetary was understood as any relationship on any issue between different levels of budgets." This definition was very vague.
In the current budget legislation, the essence of interbudgetary relations was specified in the following interpretation: “... the relationship between public legal entities on the regulation of budget legal relations, organization and implementation of the budget process”3.
This definition more clearly outlines the circle of occurrence of interbudgetary relations, but limits them to the budgetary process.
Different approaches to determining interbudgetary relations can be traced in the domestic economic literature. So, for example, A.M. Babich and L.N. Pavlov offer the following definition: “... the totality of relations between government bodies of the Russian Federation, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government regarding the delimitation and consolidation of budgetary powers, compliance with the rights, duties and responsibilities of government bodies in the field of drawing up and executing budgets and the budget process” .1 This definition also limits the scope of interbudgetary relations to the budget process only.
O.G. Bezhaev expanded the above definition of interbudgetary relations by including a complete list of issues on which budgets interact different levels. From his point of view, “... these are economic and legal relations that arise between state and municipal authorities during the budget process regarding the delimitation on a permanent or long-term basis of expenditure powers, income flowing into the country’s budget system, and the determination of standards for fixing on a permanent basis and long-term basis of federal and regional taxes, redistribution of funds from budgets of higher levels to lower ones in the order of budget regulation, reimbursement of expenses associated with the transfer of spending powers or decision-making that caused additional expenses or loss of income of other budgets, transfer of funds in the form of subsidies, subventions, subsidies, temporary financial assistance on a repayable paid and free basis, as well as the pooling of funds to finance expenses in the interests of different levels of government and different territories of the same level of government.”2 Advantage this definition, in our opinion, is that the sphere of emergence of interbudgetary relations is divided into legal and economic.
Basics of constructing a model for assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers
In the course of reforming the system of interbudgetary relations in Russia, certain results were achieved: the structure of interbudgetary transfers was determined; in general, the procedure for their provision has been formalized (more than 95% of the volume of interbudgetary transfers is distributed on the basis of uniform methods based on objective indicators1).
However, at the All-Russian seminar - meeting of leaders held in Ufa on May 28-31, 2008 financial authorities subjects of the Russian Federation
Interbudgetary relations
methodological aspect
assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers
D. Yu. Zavyalov,
Candidate of Legal Sciences, Deputy Chairman - Head of the Department of Interbudgetary Relations of the Committee on Budgetary and Financial Policy and Treasury
Administration of the Volgograd region
Interbudgetary transfers account for a significant amount of spending state budgets budget system of the Russian Federation: federal and regional levels. Thus, at the end of 2007, the share of interbudgetary transfers in federal budget expenditures was about 32%, in regional budgets - about 26% of budget expenditures; such high figures were also observed in 2004, 2005 and 2006. 1
Providing lower levels of the budget system with ample opportunities to independently exercise their own spending powers (issues of local importance) allows us to consider interbudgetary transfers as one of the main directions for increasing the efficiency of using budget funds. To solve this problem, appropriate tools are needed: a methodology for assessing the efficiency of calculating and providing interbudgetary transfers and a special methodology for assessing this form of budget expenditures.
The need to develop a special methodology for assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers is evidenced by the significant differences between interbudgetary transfers and other forms of spending budget funds, differences both in economic and legal terms.
In economic terms, the provision of interbudgetary transfers is not an expenditure
1 Calculations were made according to data posted on the official website of the Federal Treasury of the Russian Federation www. roskazna. ru.
I eat in the traditional sense, i.e. it is not a final waste Money. Providing an interbudgetary transfer from the federal budget to the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and further downward does not lead to a decrease in the volume of centralized finances, which occurs as a result of financing through other forms of spending budget funds (in settlements with suppliers of goods and services for state and municipal needs or the provision of social benefits certain categories of citizens).
In legal terms, the peculiarity of interbudgetary transfers is manifested in the way they are regulated. Thus, the provision of interbudgetary transfers is regulated by public law norms, while the implementation of other forms of budget expenditures is regulated by civil law norms.
The features of interbudgetary transfers are so significant that they lead to the use of special methods for their planning, financing, and efficiency assessment.
Little attention is unfairly paid to assessing the effectiveness of intergovernmental transfers. If performance becomes the subject of attention quite often, as evidenced by the speeches of the country's top officials, the requirements imposed by the Federation on programs for reforming regional and municipal finances, normative legal acts, regulations,
that provide subsidies to the budgets of public legal entities, the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers is not considered or not considered at all - the effectiveness of budget expenditures is identified with the effectiveness of their provision. In part, this identification is directly facilitated by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, which, in our opinion, is not justified.
so, in accordance with Art. 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law dated April 26, 2007 No. 64-FZ), the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of budget funds means the expenditure of budget funds corresponding to one of the following conditions: achieving specified results using the least amount of funds or achieving the best result using a certain budgeted amount of funds. It follows from this that the concepts of “effectiveness” and “efficiency” are not distinguished by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. on the one hand, this is justified, for example, social effect and social result are almost identical concepts. At the same time, efficiency, unlike effectiveness, involves taking into account the costs incurred to achieve the result.
The Budget Code of the Russian Federation for interbudgetary transfers nevertheless describes certain results, the achievement of which should be aimed at providing one or another form of interbudgetary transfer. Provision in accordance with Art. 131, 137, 138 and 142.1. Bank of the Russian Federation subsidies from funds financial support involves achieving such a result as financial support for the own spending powers of the budgets of public legal entities of subsidy recipients. The name of the subsidy - “to equalize budgetary security” or “to equalize the level of budgetary security” characterizes more the method of calculating the subsidy than the social or economic result. At the same time, unfortunately, the federal legislator provides the opportunity to freely interpret that there is an equalization of budgetary security or the level of budgetary security. Note that, within the framework of the Federal Law of October 6, 2003 No. 131-FZ “On general principles organization of local self-government in the Russian Federation" by equalizing the level of budgetary security was understood as equalizing the financial capabilities of local governments to resolve issues of local importance. After further amendments were made, this provision was removed from the text of the law. based on the definition
tions of the level of budgetary security (budgetary security) given in Art. 131, 138 and 142.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, equalizing the level of budgetary security is equalizing per capita income taking into account objective factors that determine differences in the cost of budget services, but this is a description of the technology for calculating subsidies, rather than the socio-economic effect (result).
A similar situation arises with respect to other subsidies, for example, subsidies to ensure budget balance. If ensuring budget balance (again, what should be understood by achieving balance - achieving a balance of income and expenditure obligations?) is the socio-economic effect (result) of providing this subsidy, then does this mean that the subsidy is not aimed at equalizing the level of budget security? to achieve a balance in the budget of public legal education.
the social effect (result) of providing a subsidy is supposed, but is still replaced by a description of the procedures (methodology) for calculating subsidies.
Another form of interbudgetary transfers is a subsidy provided for in Art. 132, 139, 142.2, 142.3 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, is aimed at co-financing the own expenditure obligations of public legal entities - recipients of subsidies, as well as equalizing the provision of public legal entities in order to implement their own expenditure obligations. In the first case, again, a technical goal is indicated - the participation of public law education in financing the costs of public law education at a different level. In the second case, the purpose of the subsidy is similar to the purpose of grants. There is no description of the social effect (result) in both cases.
subventions are a form of interbudgetary transfers provided for in Art. 133 and 140 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, provided for financial support of expenditure obligations transferred to a public legal entity, but in this case, the purpose of their provision is reduced to a technical component, the social and economic result is not defined.
The Budget Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 132.1, 139.1 and 142.4) provides for the possibility of providing “other” interbudgetary transfers, the socio-economic effect (result) of the provision of which is not determined at all. interbudgetary transfers also include the provision of
finance and credit
budget loans to the budgets of public legal entities, the purpose of which must be determined by the lender independently, which also does not allow us to formulate, based on the norms of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the socio-economic effect of providing this form of interbudgetary transfer.
Thus, the existing norms of the current budget legislation are not enough to determine the economic and (or) social effect (result) of calculating and providing interbudgetary transfers.
In our opinion, it is necessary to distinguish between the provision of an interbudgetary transfer and the expenditure of funds received in the form of interbudgetary transfers. If the expenditure of funds received by the budget of a public legal education of a lower level from the budget of a higher level is linked to the provision of a final state or municipal service, then the provision of an interbudgetary transfer in itself is not the provision of a budget service or a social payment. The provision of a budget transfer cannot be considered as the provision of a final budget service, and therefore the result at which the provision of an interbudgetary transfer is aimed is difficult to formulate.
A paradoxical situation is emerging - up to one third of state budget expenditures (what is interbudgetary transfers in the federal and on average in regional budgets) do not have a clearly formulated result (effect) towards which they should be oriented. Wherein special purpose an interbudgetary transfer is an indication for its further use by the recipient budget and cannot be considered as a socio-economic result or effect.
However, despite the fact that the provision of an interbudgetary transfer is not the provision of a final budget service, assessment of its effectiveness (effectiveness) is still possible. Moreover, methods for assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers should differ depending on the form of its provision.
Let's systematize existing forms interbudgetary transfers based on their qualifying characteristics.
Interbudgetary transfers can be divided into two groups: the first - gratuitous and non-repayable (subsidies, subventions and subsidies),
the second - provided on the terms of repayment and payment (budget loans to the budgets of public legal entities).
The qualifying features of the subsidy are as follows:
They have no intended use;
The opposite of subsidies are subventions,
the qualifying features of which can be formulated as follows:
Have a specific purpose for further use;
Used by the recipient to perform the powers delegated to him.
Currently, the Budget Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of providing subventions from the budget of a municipal district to the budget of a settlement, and vice versa. However, the existence of subventions is directly provided for in Federal Law No. 131-F3, which is a way of financially ensuring transferred powers to resolve issues of local importance. In accordance with Art. 142 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, financial support for transferred powers to resolve issues of local importance is provided through such a form as “other interbudgetary transfers”, which in its economic and legal nature corresponds to a subvention.
a subsidy as a form of interbudgetary transfer combines the features of both subsidies and subventions:
Provided both from a higher budget level to a lower budget, and vice versa;
Have a intended purpose of use;
Used by the recipient to fulfill his own spending powers.
As one of the features of subsidies, one can single out such a property as “co-financing” of the recipient’s budget expenses by another level of the budget system. However, in our opinion, this feature is optional. Thus, the provision of not all subsidies is associated with the allocation of funds from the recipient’s budget for similar expenses. for example, transfer of “negative transfer” - subsidies
from the budget of a municipal entity to the budget of a subject of the Russian Federation provides for the subsequent distribution of a “negative transfer” through the corresponding regional fund for financial support of the subject or a compensation fund. At the same time, the formation of a financial support fund through own funds region is not at all mandatory. Providing subsidies to the budget can also be considered as “co-financing” by a higher level of the budget system of the recipient budget’s own expenditure obligations, but without indicating a specific expenditure obligation. The listed circumstances allow us to conclude that the attribute “co-financing” is optional.
“Other” forms of interbudgetary transfers, depending on the composition of participants and the conditions for their calculation and provision, may, in their own way, economic essence be classified as grants, subventions or subsidies. “Other interbudgetary transfers” should be considered not as a form, but as a way of reflecting an interbudgetary transfer in the report.
Compensatory and repayable interbudgetary transfers - budget loans have the following characteristics:
Provided from a higher level to a lower budget level;
May or may not have a intended purpose;
Used by the recipient to fulfill his own spending powers.
Of all the forms of gratuitous and irrevocable transfers, budget loans to the budgets of public legal entities have more in common with subsidies.
Based on the analysis of the listed qualifying criteria, for each form of interbudgetary transfer it is possible to formulate a list of socio-economic effects (results) that the interbudgetary transfer is aimed at achieving.
Socio-economic effects (results), in turn, can be analyzed both for effectiveness - whether the desired is achieved or not, and for efficiency - whether the costs of achieving the desired are justified. Interbudgetary transfers are one of the forms of budget expenditures, and if efficiency, i.e. the ratio of results to costs, is low, then, perhaps, in terms of priority, the provision of this interbudgetary transfer will be inferior to another form of interbudgetary transfers or even to another form of budgetary transfers.
expenses of public legal education providing interbudgetary transfer.
For subsidies, in our opinion, the socio-economic effect (result) is the occurrence of the following consequences:
Providing public authorities (local self-government bodies) with the opportunity to provide residents with additional budgetary services or budgetary services of higher quality, the priority of which is the highest in the relevant public legal entity;
Stimulating state authorities and local governments to make decisions aimed at mobilizing the territory’s own revenue potential and increasing the efficiency of using budget funds. The calculation and provision of subsidies will be effective only if, as a result, the level of consumer satisfaction as a whole increases from the complex of budget services provided to him: It is not significant whether this was achieved through the provision of subsidies or the actions of state authorities and local governments to mobilize additional own income, finding additional funds by optimizing your own expenses.
The calculation and provision of subsidies should be considered effective when consumer satisfaction with the totality of budget services increases at a faster rate than the growth of the costs of the higher-level budget for the provision of subsidies to the lower level of the budget system. This rule applies to all types of subsidies, regardless of the methods of their distribution.
The socio-economic effects that subsidies should be aimed at achieving can be formulated as follows:
Providing government bodies (local self-government bodies) with the opportunity to provide residents of the relevant public legal entities with certain additional budget services most in demand by residents or, again, improve the quality and volume of the most in-demand budget services;
Encourage public authorities (local governments) to provide certain budget services.
finance and credit
Unlike grants, the effectiveness of subsidies can be measured against each or all three indicators:
Increase in budget expenditures of the recipient of subsidies for the provision of subsidized services assigned to his own powers;
Increasing the volume of subsidized budget services provided to the population;
Increasing the level of satisfaction of recipients from the consumption of subsidized budget services.
The effectiveness of a subsidy, like a subsidy, can be determined by the ratio of the change in results to the change in the costs of providing the subsidy. Thus, measuring the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers can be carried out through such an indicator as the elasticity of interbudgetary transfers.
Grants and subsidies have a common qualifying feature - the provision of funds to the recipient budget for the execution of its own spending powers; accordingly, the socio-economic effect for grants and subsidies should be uniform. But, since subsidies and subsidies differ in the target component, accordingly, there is a difference in socio-economic effects. Please note that the vector of movement of the interbudgetary transfer (from a higher budget to a lower budget or vice versa) does not affect the characteristics of socio-economic effects.
The provision of subventions, in contrast to grants and subsidies, is aimed at achieving one single socio-economic effect - to encourage state authorities and local governments of a public legal entity - the recipient of the subvention to ensure the most economical provision of budget services or even a reduction in social payments, if the delegated authority consists of providing social support measures. Moreover, the economical provision of budget services can be achieved both by reducing the cost of budget services (due to optimization of management and reducing unnecessary expenses) and by reducing the quality of provision of budget services to an acceptable level. For example, the priority of the same budget service in public legal entities may well be different. Due to this
in regions or municipalities where the budget service provided within the framework of the delegated authority is a lower priority, then the costs of its provision, all other things being equal, will be less. As for the provision of social support measures to certain categories of citizens, the delegation of this authority to a lower level is justified if, as a result of delegation, the number of payments is reduced or, at least, the growth of their number is restrained.
Such calculation and provision of a subvention should be recognized as effective, as a result of which the subject to whom the authority is delegated is able to fulfill it. The provision of a subvention will be effective if, as a result of the delegation of authority, the costs of the country's budget system for its implementation are reduced, but at the same time there is no decrease in the level of satisfaction of the consumer of budget services, otherwise we can talk about the ineffectiveness of the subvention.
Budget loans as a form of interbudgetary transfers do not generate socio-economic effects other than the above effects. A budget loan has the characteristics of grants and subsidies, and accordingly the effects are similar.
Consumer satisfaction can be measured both by conducting sociological surveys, research, and by analyzing statistical and network indicators, which has recently been reflected in the decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, regulatory legal acts of the regions on assessing the effectiveness of the work of governing bodies of lower levels of the budget system.
One of the controversial issues is the choice of the most optimal (or effective) interbudgetary transfer, encouraging territories to increase the efficiency of their own budget expenditures. Grants and subsidies are considered as alternatives, and preference is given to the latter form, since it is subsidies that make it possible to ensure the targeted use of budget funds and the introduction of results-oriented budgeting elements.
Recognizing the validity of this position, we would like to draw attention to a number of factors that force us to be cautious about the current trend of increasing subsidy financing and the prospects
increasing the share of subsidies, including by reducing subsidies.
Firstly, providing subsidies to finance targeted expenses can lead to a reduction in the subsidy recipient’s own expenses to finance subsidized expenses (cost substitution effect) 2.
Secondly, the desire of a region (municipality) to attract additional funds in the form of subsidies on the basis of co-financing requires the mobilization of additional resources both by increasing its own income and by optimizing its own expenses, however, the mobilization of funds for co-financing can also be achieved through non-fulfillment or improper execution of one’s own spending powers - in this case, the positive socio-economic effect will be reduced to zero.
Thirdly, if an increase in the share of subsidies is ensured by reducing the share of subsidies, then this process can be characterized as hidden budgetary financing, and as a consequence - a decrease in the independence of public legal entities, which, in turn, reduces the potential effect of providing any interbudgetary transfers.
In general, in our opinion, we should assume that the elasticity of the subsidy, other things being equal, tends to zero faster than the elasticity of the subsidy. Conventionally, the relationship between the dynamics of the elasticity of subsidies and subsidies can be represented in the following graph:
This hypothesis is based, first of all, on the manifestation of the substitution effect as a result of the provision of a subsidy, which cannot happen when providing subsidies. It is also necessary to take into account that subsidies are much less mobile than subsidies. Let us explain that it is a priori assumed that a subject of the Russian Federation and (or) a municipal entity participates in receiving a subsidy on co-financing terms if the subsidy is aimed at financing priority expenses for which its own funds are insufficient, but a different situation may arise. For example, after receiving several tranches of subsidies, a certain level of consumer satisfaction with subsidized budget services is achieved, and other expenses take on greater priority, but it is impossible to redirect the remainder of the subsidies to other expenses.
The circumstances listed above cannot be ignored, and therefore increasing the role of subsidized financing is justified subject to the role of subsidized financing. Otherwise, the effectiveness of providing subsidies is very limited.
Despite differences in qualifying criteria and socio-economic effects, for all forms of interbudgetary transfers it is possible to identify general characteristics- is a way of managing public finances as an instrument of public administration. All forms of interbudgetary transfers are characterized by encouraging government bodies (local self-government) to make decisions to change the existing practice of managing their own budgets. Therefore, the criterion for the validity of the calculation and distribution of interbudgetary transfers, in our opinion, is not the satisfaction of a certain level of the territories’ need for funds, but the provision of management of the territories. performance - change budget policy on the ground, efficiency is the degree to which changes in the budget policy of the lower level of the budget system are achieved based on the allocated volumes of interbudgetary transfers.
Assessing the effectiveness of interbudgetary transfers opens up new opportunities for improving management efficiency public finance, in general, state and municipal government.
literature
1. Budget Code of the Russian Federation.
2. Afanasyev M.P., KrivogovI. Modernization public finance/ ed. State University - Higher School of Economics - 2nd ed. - M.: Publishing house of the State University Higher School of Economics. 2007.
3. Bezhaev O. G. Interbudgetary relations: theory and practice of reform / M.: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Entrepreneurship - 2001.
4. Dorzhdeev A.V., Zavyalov D.Yu, Ivanova T.A. Local budgets in the Volgograd region / M.: Publishing House Finance, 2007.
5. Interbudgetary regulation and distribution of financial assistance to regions: experience, problems, ways of improvement / ed. L. V. Perekrestova, A. V. Dorzhdeeva. Volgograd: Volgograd Scientific Publishing House - 2007. Guide to the budget of the Volgograd region / Volgograd: Publishing House Publisher, 2007.
6. Regional finance: experience, strategy, prospects / under. ed. A. V. Dorzhdeeva, D. Yu. Zavyalova - M.: Finance Publishing House, 2008.
7. Guidelines for managing public finances at the regional and municipal levels / under general. ed. A. M. Lavrov in 6 volumes - M.: Publishing House LLC Publishing House "Business and Professional Literature", 2007. (Vol. 5).
8. Khristenko V. B. Interbudgetary relations and management of regional finances / M.: Publishing house “Delo” - 2002.
9. Dorzhdeev A.V., Zavyalov D.Yu. Social effects of budget reform: assessment of performance at the local level / Budget (January 2008). pp. 54 - 57.
10. Zavyalov D. Yu. Potential of interbudgetary regulation as an instrument of budgetary policy / Finance. 2008. No. 3.. P. 11 - 14.
11. Sazonov S.P., Zavyalov D.Yu. Interbudgetary regulation at the subregional level and local government reform / Finance. 2005. No. 10.
Responses to the Request for this section of the Report were received from 83 constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
Based on the results of the analysis of materials provided by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the greatest activity in identifying problems, describing the measures taken and proposals for amending the legislation of the Russian Federation was demonstrated by Voronezh region, Irkutsk region, Kirov region, Arkhangelsk region, Kemerovo region, Altai region, Vladimir region, Kamchatka region, Tomsk region and Chelyabinsk region.
Main problems
The current situation in the field of formation, provision and distribution of interbudgetary transfers is characterized both by the relative success of the regions in terms of increasing the efficiency of the distribution of interbudgetary transfers, and by the presence of a significant number of problems associated with macroeconomic changes, as well as with changes made to federal legislation.
The main most pressing problems and challenges in the field of interbudgetary relations can be grouped in the following areas:
consolidation of interbudgetary transfers;
procedures for providing interbudgetary transfers;
changing budget parameters;
methodology for calculating interbudgetary transfers;
legislation and legal regulation.
One of the common problems is the presence of a significant number of different subsidies with excessive detail in the areas of spending budget funds. This was noted by 14 constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
To date, most regions have failed to consolidate subsidies. Consolidation of subsidies can help to more quickly resolve difficulties associated with financial support for expenditure obligations, financing and co-financing of which is carried out from the federal budget, simplifying the administration of these revenues, reducing the number of requested documents, as well as preparing reports on effective use and spending of funds. Problems with fragmentation of subsidies arise at a time when the purpose of the transfer does not fully correspond to the goals of the socio-economic development of the subject, and due to the need to comply with the target orientation requirement, there is no possibility of redistributing the subsidy to other priority areas. The process of consolidation of subsidies is actually constrained by the need for direct control by government authorities over the target areas for which these subsidies are provided.
Difficulties also arise when providing interbudgetary subsidies included in the relevant government programs(subroutines). As a rule, subsidies are provided in the context of subprograms, thereby, in accordance with the budget classification, the codes of not only the state program, but also the corresponding subprograms are reflected in the target expenditure items. As a result, each interbudgetary subsidy has to be reflected separately in the budget law and in the budget schedule, which makes it impossible to consolidate interbudgetary subsidies within the framework of one state program ( Novosibirsk region, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug).
However, not all regions have a negative attitude towards the fragmentation of targeted transfers. So, Arhangelsk region highlights the advantages of “narrow” interbudgetary subsidies at the “subject - municipality” level, in connection with the possible increase in efficiency in solving specific issues of local importance in the context of limited financial capabilities of the consolidated budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation. It is also noted that reducing the number of subsidies through their consolidation is not always justified, since through the provision of targeted subsidies the Regional Government prioritizes the solution of priority tasks within the planned development strategy of the region. In addition, the provision of targeted subsidies allows for timely control over the targeted use of allocated budget funds and compliance by local self-government bodies with the conditions for the provision of interbudgetary transfers, as well as promptly obtaining information and responding to the progress of work, which helps to increase the financial discipline of the region’s municipalities. This position is shared in Kirov and Ulyanovsk regions.
On the general deficit of financial resources of the consolidated budget due to a reduction in the revenue base indicated by 7 subjects of the Russian Federation. This situation does not allow us to provide financial support at the proper level. local budgets, which leads to a decrease in them financial stability and rising debt.
The resource shortage is caused by two main factors: a reduction in the revenue base and an increase in expenditure obligations. Reducing taxes and not tax revenue provoked by current problems Russian economy. Due to the fall in budget revenues from taxes from industrial production, regions are reducing their capital investments and face a growing risk of accounts payable. Receipts are also declining in terms of transfers from the federal budget. Republic of Adygea indicates that almost every year since 2009 the volume of subsidies and subsidies from the federal budget has been decreasing. The reduction of certain types of subsidies and other interbudgetary transfers significantly affects the balance of the budgets of many regions. The growth rate of regions' own incomes often does not make it possible to compensate for the lost volumes of financial assistance from the federal budget.
Against the backdrop of a shrinking revenue base, difficulties arise in optimizing expenses, a significant share of which is allocated to insurance premiums for mandatory health insurance non-working population, co-financing in areas of government programs that provide subsidies from the federal budget.
The low share of interbudgetary transfers distributed by the budget law Among the main problems in the field of interbudgetary relations, only 6 constituent entities of the Russian Federation were noted.
In general, it is necessary to note the positive dynamics in the share of interbudgetary transfers provided to local budgets in the next financial year, distributed by the budget law, in the total volume of interbudgetary transfers provided to local budgets. The indicator increased significantly in the Kaliningrad, Smolensk, Tomsk regions, as well as in the Republic of Khakassia and the Stavropol Territory. In 27 regions the indicator exceeds the value of 90%, in 36 regions the indicator ranges from 70% to 90%. On average, for a sample of 76 regions that submitted materials, the value of this indicator is 84.2% (Appendix 6.1). Among the subjects of the Russian Federation with 100% results are the Chechen Republic, Kemerovo, Novgorod, Novosibirsk regions.
Considering that since 2016, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are required to form regional budgets in a “program” format, planning of budget allocations is carried out in strict connection with the goals, objectives and indicators of regional state programs.
The provision of subsidies and other targeted interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget already in the process of executing regional budgets forces regions to make significant changes to their own state programs already in the process of their execution. Often, specialized federal executive authorities establish such requirements for the provision of interbudgetary transfers that regions are forced to develop new subprograms, and sometimes state programs, in the middle of the financial year.
Later, bringing to the attention of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation the results of the distribution of subsidies for equalizing budgetary security and subsidies for balance was identified by 5 constituent entities of the Russian Federation as among the most significant problems.
Ultimately, the regions cannot fully take these funds into account when drawing up a draft law on the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Difficulties arise in approving the distribution of interbudgetary transfers by the budget law and due to the fact that most of the subsidies provided are on a grant basis and are provided as a result of competitive procedures. Since draft regional budgets and federal budgets are sent to legislative bodies at approximately the same time, at the level of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation there is no final information on the volume of targeted subsidies from the federal budget. In particular, for a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, faced with significant restrictions on the size of the regional budget deficit or market debt, the volume of subsidies is essential in the issue of budget balance, and later communication to the regions of the results of the distribution of subsidies to equalize budgetary security does not allow for an effective assessment of the existing resources.
In addition to the deterioration in the quality of planning budget parameters, the problem of using transfers financed from the federal budget arises. IN Omsk region This situation is explained by the practice of delaying decision-making on individual administrative documents, which leads to the formation of balances of provided transfers.
The volumes of subsidy balances existing in local budgets as of January 1, 2015 for targeted interbudgetary transfers provided from the budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in many constituent entities of the Russian Federation remain significant. In many cases, subsidy balances are associated with unrealized housing and infrastructure projects. The Bryansk region showed the largest balance of 352.6 billion rubles, followed by Chechen Republic the balance amounted to 4.7 billion rubles. Minimal balances (up to 1 million rubles) were noted in St. Petersburg, Khabarovsk Territory, Altai Republic, Kurgan Region and Volgograd Region. On average, for a sample of 78 regions that provided materials, the value of this indicator in 2015 was 538.3 million rubles (Appendix 6.2).
Regular amendments to legislation related to the redistribution of powers between the regional and local levels were noted as a significant problem by 4 constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
In this regard, the share of subsidies for equalizing budgetary provision in the total share of interbudgetary transfers is reduced, and the process of forming the structure of interbudgetary transfers for the long term is also hampered.
Problems also arise when making changes to other regulatory legal acts regulating certain areas of activity. For Kirov region changes in the requirements for forestry legislation caused difficulties in financing the created specialized institutions. Magadan Region faced difficulties in reimbursing lost income to public utility organizations when providing heat and electricity services due to changes made to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.
Insufficient consideration of the socio-economic and geographical features of the region 3 subjects of the Russian Federation indicated among significant problems.
Regions highlight problems when calculating the volume of subsidies provided. When calculating the transfer, the population indicator (individual population groups) is taken into account, which underestimates the volume of subsidies to regional budgets. The problem is especially relevant for the regions of the Far Eastern Federal District, which, as a rule, have a low population density. In addition, the features of the regions of the Far North and equivalent areas, in whose territory the cost of providing state (municipal) services is objectively higher, are not sufficiently taken into account.
In addition, the problem is part lack of opportunities to include the required share of co-financing in the budget noted Republic of Kalmykia and Omsk region.
Subjects of the Russian Federation with a low share of budgetary provision are faced with problems associated with co-financing activities. The narrow focus of individual subsidies excludes the possibility of a number of municipalities with low budgetary support to receive these transfers due to the lack of opportunities to include the required share of co-financing in the local budget (as a mandatory condition for the provision of the transfer).
problem non-accounting of non-tax income allocated Kemerovo And Murmansk region.
This problem manifests itself when calculating subsidies to equalize budgetary security, as well as tax potential. In particular, when calculating tax potential, this factor reduces the objectivity in assessing local budget expenditures. According to the Budget Code, when calculating the level of estimated budgetary provision of municipal districts (city districts, city districts with intra-city division), tax revenues that can be received by the local budget based on the level of development and structure of the economy and (or) are taken into account. tax base(tax potential). The Kemerovo region noted that in the budgets of some municipalities (settlements included in the municipal district), the bulk of their own revenues are non-tax revenues in the form of land rent paid by the largest coal mining enterprises, which are not taken into account when determining the budgetary security of municipalities. Accordingly, municipal districts that have a developed revenue base from land rent receive subsidies to equalize budgetary security, comparable in size to subsidies allocated to municipalities with low budgetary security.
Besides, there is no system of indicators for assessing the effectiveness of subsidies, which is necessary for their consolidation. Currently, decisions made by control, supervisory and judicial authorities, leading to the need for municipalities to accept new expenditure obligations not provided for in the current financial year, significantly affect the final balance of local budgets.
Subjects with a large “dispersion” experience problems with the correctness of the information provided. settlements. Coupled with low qualifications of personnel, this leads to the need for additional balancing of the budgets of settlements from the regional budget throughout the year.
problem lack of a real mechanism for the redistribution of a single subvention noted Vladimir region. In particular, the region has problems with the redistribution of a single subvention at the level of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation due to the fact that the initial data for calculating each type of subvention included in a single subvention, as well as indicators of the effectiveness of the use of funds, have already been agreed upon with the relevant federal authorities.
Main events
Among the main activities that help improve the efficiency of the formation, provision and distribution of interbudgetary transfers, the regions highlight the following.
34 constituent entities of the Russian Federation indicated that they are implementing measures on consolidating subsidies in order to expand the areas of their spending.
In particular, in Republic of Mordovia work is being done to consolidate subsidies in order to eliminate subsidies provided outside of government programs.B Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) A gradual transformation of the subsidizing mechanism is being implemented with the aim of consolidation, among other things, by establishing the responsibility of the main expense managers.
IN Tver region To transition to the provision of interbudgetary subsidies on the principle of one state program - one subsidy, a draft law has been prepared, according to which the need to approve procedures for providing subsidies from the regional budget to local budgets in the relevant state programs will be legislated, as well as to formulate procedures for the provision of interbudgetary subsidies in accordance with established rules.
Consolidation of several areas of co-financing of municipalities within a particular area is also being carried out in accordance with established priorities. So, in Perm region funds are provided for the implementation of municipal program activities and investment projects municipalities. IN Komi Republic There is a practice of consolidating in a single subsidy several areas of its expenditure within the framework of the implementation of the state programs of the Komi Republic “Development of Education” and “Culture of the Komi Republic”.
The ratio of the number of subsidies planned to be provided to local budgets from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in the current year, compared to the reporting year, shows contradictory dynamics compared to last year. 57 constituent entities of the Russian Federation managed to reduce the amount of this type of transfer. The Tomsk region has achieved significant success, reducing the number of subsidies by more than half. Twelve regions failed to consolidate subsidies, and their number was increased in 2015. On average, for a sample of 78 regions that submitted materials, the value of this indicator in 2015 is 83.5% (Appendix 6.3).
Another important event is increasing the share of interbudgetary transfers distributed by the budget law, which ensures stability of regulation and increased efficiency in the use of interbudgetary transfers.
In particular, the regions welcome a targeted policy to inform government authorities on this issue and audit the effectiveness of their activities within the framework of financial management and the quality of regional financial management. So, in Murmansk region When monitoring the quality of financial management carried out by the chief administrators of regional budget funds, one of the evaluation indicators is “the share of interbudgetary transfers distributed by the budget law.”
In order to increase the level of transparency and predictability of interbudgetary relations, regions actively distribute interbudgetary transfers from the regional budget on the basis of uniform methods based on objective indicators that adequately reflect the factors determining the need for financing. Methods for calculating the volume of financial support funds for municipalities are being clarified.
A number of regions, in particular Krasnodar region, the methodology for distributing subsidies is being improved annually. The changes are aimed at timely adjustment of factors and conditions affecting the cost of providing municipal services. When distributing subsidies to equalize the budgetary provision of local budgets, the structure of expenses and factors affecting the cost of budget services for each industry are taken into account. IN Republic of Khakassia The forms and mechanisms for providing interbudgetary transfers are updated annually in accordance with changes in federal legislation.
There is also a tightening of requirements and procedures for implementing all necessary procedures. For example, in Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug GRBS are working to change the procedures for providing interbudgetary subsidies, including in them rules regarding changes (to earlier) deadlines for municipalities to provide relevant documents (information, applications, etc.) for the full distribution of the entire volume of the corresponding interbudgetary subsidy between municipalities when preparation of a draft law on the district budget (deadline – annually until October 1, 2015).
Increasing the share of subsidies to equalize budgetary security in the total volume of interbudgetary transfers Among the effective measures, 25 constituent entities of the Russian Federation were identified. Among the tasks of distributing subsidies to equalize budgetary security, it is noted, among other things, ensuring equal opportunities for citizens to have access to municipal services provided at the expense of funds from the budgets of municipalities, ensuring local budgets financial resources in volumes that guarantee the minimum need of municipalities for funds to pay for socially significant and priority expenses.
Measures aimed at increasing the efficiency of distribution of subsidies to equalize budgetary security are implemented both within the framework of government programs ( Altai Territory, Vologda and Ryazan regions), and within the framework of regional programs to improve the efficiency of public finance management ( Sverdlovsk region).
Among the main practices for distributing subsidies to equalize budgetary sufficiency, two main approaches predominate: allocation of subsidies based on the current budgetary sufficiency of the municipality and transfer substitution.
Within the first approach, the determination of the volume of subsidies for equalizing the budgetary provision of municipalities is based on the need to achieve the criterion of equalizing the financial capabilities of settlements in the implementation of local self-government authorities of settlements, to resolve issues of local importance and achieve the criterion of equalizing the estimated budgetary provision of municipal districts (urban districts).
IN St. Petersburg subsidies for equalizing budgetary security are distributed among municipalities in accordance with the methodology approved by the law of St. Petersburg on interbudgetary transfers. In accordance with the document, subsidies for equalizing budgetary security are partially or completely replaced by income receipts according to additional differentiated standards for deductions from the tax levied in connection with the use of the simplified taxation system. The distribution of subsidies for equalizing budgetary provision between municipalities is approved by the Law of St. Petersburg on the budget of St. Petersburg.
IN Tomsk region volume of the financial support fund for municipal districts (urban districts) for 2015-2017. is determined from the need to ensure the maintenance of the level of budgetary provision of municipal districts (urban districts) in the amount of at least 90% of the budgetary provision of the municipality with the highest level of budgetary provision.
The second approach is used to strengthen the financial independence of local government bodies and increase their interest in the results of their activities. In this case, the distribution of subsidies is carried out based on the determination of the total amount of subsidies for equalizing budgetary security, most of which was replaced by additional standards for deductions from income tax individuals. However, in connection with the specified redistribution of powers from the local level to the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the share of subsidies for equalizing the budgetary provision of municipalities in the total volume of interbudgetary transfers tends to decrease.
Khabarovsk region notes that the application of the approach, supported by a thorough formalization of the system of methods of interbudgetary support, contributed to reducing the gap in budgetary provision between the least and most wealthy budgetary entities from 46.9 to 4.6 times.
IN Amur region In order to stimulate municipalities to increase tax revenues, the subsidy for equalizing the budgetary provision of municipal districts (urban districts) is almost fully (98.9% in 2015) replaced with the consent of the representative bodies of municipalities with additional standards for deductions from personal income tax.
IN Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) to stimulate municipal settlements to increase collection rates local taxes and non-tax revenues, when distributing subsidies to equalize budgetary security, an incentive portion is additionally distributed in the amount of 3% of the total subsidy, which is given to municipalities that ensured an increase in revenues from local taxes and non-tax revenues and a reduction in accounts payable in the reporting year compared to previous year in an amount corresponding to income growth.
IN Chelyabinsk region The methodology for calculating subsidies for 2017 for municipalities with an increase in the tax base above the regional average level introduced a restriction on the amount of the tax base for personal income tax, taken into account in calculating the index of the tax potential of municipalities. Thus, if the growth of the tax base for personal income tax of a municipality exceeds the corresponding average for the region, the regional average is taken into account in calculating the tax potential index, that is, an increase in the territory’s income in this case will not lead to a decrease in financial assistance.
Reducing the share of other interbudgetary transfers noted 19 constituent entities of the Russian Federation among priority activities. In most regions, the share of other interbudgetary transfers in the total volume is relatively small, in some cases insignificant. In some situations, an increase in their volume may be caused by the transfer of funds from other interbudgetary transfers received from the federal budget for the implementation of projects that are particularly important for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation. Also, the share of other interbudgetary transfers may fall on the reserve funds of the subjects Russian Federations making transfers to local budgets.
A reduction in the share of other interbudgetary transfers can be facilitated by the practice of limiting incoming other transfers. For example, in Altai Republic other interbudgetary transfers are provided only in two forms - in the form of subsidies to budgets to support measures to ensure balanced budgets and subsidies to budgets to encourage the achievement of the best performance indicators of local self-government bodies.
Vladimir Evgenievich YUDIN, Minister of Finance of the Tula Region: the topic of efficiency assessment can be considered in relation to all areas of spending budget funds, including the provision of interbudgetary transfers. It is important both at the stage of expenditure planning - for assessing expected results, and at the stage of reporting.
Frequency, parameters, calculations
In the Tula region, interbudgetary transfers account for about a quarter of regional budget expenditures, and the largest share in them is occupied by subventions and subsidies. Since 2011, after changes budget classification expenses, most of the interbudgetary transfers are distributed among the relevant sectoral sections. In such conditions, it is especially important for the regional Ministry of Finance to have a mechanism for assessing the work of sectoral executive bodies in planning and spending interbudgetary transfers assigned to them. In the Tula region, the development of a methodology for assessing the efficiency of providing interbudgetary transfers was provided for by the long-term regional target program “Increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures in the Tula region for the period until 2013.” The corresponding procedure was developed and approved by Decree of the Government of the Tula Region dated December 19, 2012 No. 728 “On assessing the effectiveness of providing interbudgetary transfers from the budget of the Tula Region to the budgets of municipalities.”
The frequency of the assessment is once a year at the end of the reporting financial year, since a number of resulting indicators are best observed with an annual frequency. In the first quarter of this year, the approved methodology was tested - the effectiveness of providing interbudgetary transfers in 2012 was assessed. It represents a comprehensive assessment of the organization of the provision and results of the provision of all types of interbudgetary transfers from the regional budget, carried out both in relation to the executive authorities of the Tula region, distributing interbudgetary transfers as GRBS, and in relation to each individual type of interbudgetary transfers.
The parameters by which the effectiveness of providing interbudgetary transfers is assessed include:
· efficiency of organizing the provision of interbudgetary transfers to the GRBS;
· the efficiency of organizing the expenditure of received interbudgetary transfers by municipal authorities;
· results of spending interbudgetary transfers.
For each form of interbudgetary transfers, the assessment was carried out taking into account the achievement of the goals of their provision:
· the purpose of subsidies to equalize budgetary security is to smooth out differences between municipalities in budgetary security, including through the provision of subsidies, to stimulate the development of tax potential;
· the purpose of subsidies is to ensure the targeted nature of a comprehensive impact on the solution of specific issues, which can partly be achieved through well-developed procedures for the distribution and provision of subsidies, subject to timely and targeted use of budget funds;
· the purpose of subventions is the high-quality implementation of transferred state powers;
· for other interbudgetary transfers - achieving the goals for which they are provided, with the optimal organization of their distribution.
Based on the results of the assessment, the following were calculated:
· a comprehensive indicator for assessing the effectiveness of providing interbudgetary transfers (every year the value of this indicator will be compared with similar data for previous years, as a result of which it will become clear whether the situation has been improved);
· indicators of the effectiveness of providing each of the forms of interbudgetary transfers (subsidies for equalizing budgetary security, subsidies, subventions, other interbudgetary transfers);
· indicators of the performance of each of the GRBS, through which the distribution of interbudgetary transfers to local budgets is carried out (it includes information on the work of the GRBS with all forms and types of interbudgetary transfers).
Based on the calculated indicators, the following ratings were formed:
We believe that in order to improve the efficiency of the GRBS and local governments, the assessment results should be posted publicly. Then the authorities will be able to independently compare their results with the results of colleagues from other municipalities, thanks to which they will be additionally stimulated to better organize their work and to more correctly plan the resulting indicators. The information collection system itself is organized in such a way that the regional Ministry of Finance constructs GRBS ratings for relevant interbudgetary transfers. In turn, the main managers have the necessary information in order to form ratings of local governments. Currently, information on the results of assessing the effectiveness of providing interbudgetary transfers is posted on the website of the Ministry of Finance of the Tula Region www.dfto.ru.
Evaluation results
The results of assessing the effectiveness of providing interbudgetary transfers to municipalities in 2012 are shown in rice. 1. The highest efficiency is observed when providing subsidies, and the lowest when providing subventions (which is largely due to difficulties with planning and the still low prevalence of assessing the opinions of service consumers).
As for the activities of the GRBS, the ministry received the highest marks Agriculture, Ministry of Transport and Road Facilities, Tula Region Committee on Entrepreneurship and Consumer Market ( rice. 2). The Ministry of Health and social development areas. At the same time, it cannot be said that executive authorities that administer the provision of a larger number of types of interbudgetary transfers receive poor results due to large volumes of work and greater workload on staff. For example, through the Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the region, 14 different types of interbudgetary transfers are distributed, but according to the ranking results it managed to take second place.
Load minimization
The assessment is carried out by specialists from the regional Ministry of Finance, which is an additional burden. Understanding this, we tried to make the data presented by GRBS as convenient as possible for processing. For this purpose, a number of tables were prepared to be filled out by the main managers, where actual data and necessary explanations would be provided for each of the assessed indicators. We also took care of the format of the summary data in advance, which made it possible, if not to completely eliminate, then at least to minimize the increase in the workload on the ministry’s specialists.
As often happens when introducing something new, after the first assessment we realized that it would be desirable to adjust a number of points in the existing methodology. For example, it turned out that the main managers who receive subsidies and subventions from the federal budget and depend on the timing of creation were not assessed correctly enough legal regulation and transfer of funds to the regional budget. The same can be said about those GRBS that administered inter-budgetary transfers included in the budget law during the fiscal year. Therefore, the immediate plans include clarifying the provisions of the methodology so that they create more incentives for our executive authorities to increase the efficiency of spending interbudgetary transfers and take into account all the latest trends in the organization of public financial management.
After assessing the effectiveness of providing interbudgetary transfers, the Ministry of Finance of the Tula Region recommended that the State Budgetary Inspectorate pay attention to the accuracy of planning subventions and the timely approval of procedures for the provision and distribution of subsidies between municipalities. In the future, this will have a positive impact on the execution of the region’s consolidated budget.
