According to monitoring findings as of 1 January 2004, in the year 2003 the federal budget financed 3,700 managers of budget funds and budget recipients, which were not subordinate to principal budgetary managers. That constitutes 12 per cent of the overall number of man agers of budget funds and federal budget recipients. The biggest num ber of such managers of budget funds and federal budget recipients were financed by the Ministry of Education of Russia (2,870 managers of budget funds and budget recipients), State Construction Agency of Russia (284), the Ministry of Labour (97), the Ministry of Transport of Russia (88) and State Sports Committee of Russia (76).
In subordination of the federal managers of budget funds were 35,995 budget recipients (including managers of budget funds of the lower level), which constituted about 60 per cent of the overall number of the federal budget recipients.
Registers which include managers of budget funds and budget re cipients do not reflect whether managers of budget funds are structural subdivisions of the principal budgetary manager or not. On many occa sions, federal organizations, which, however, were not government bodies, exercised functions of the federal budget funds managers.
As of 1 July 2003 out of 100 principal budgetary managers thirty were not federal government bodies.
Twenty per cent of public institutions received budgetary financing simultaneously from more than three managers of budget funds (prin cipally they are law enforcement agencies).
Forty per cent of the federal budget recipients were in subordination of non federal budget recipients.
Let us analyze in detail principal features of the federal budget funds recipients.
Budget network incompatibility with the new system of distribution of expenditure powers between the levels of budgetary system Laws envisaging radical reform of the system of division of expendi ture powers between the levels of budgetary system were enacted in Russia in 2003–2004. This reform was aimed at drawing a clear sphere of responsibility of different budgets and resolution of an issue of un funded mandates. This reform, in particular, envisages putting institu tions network financed from the budgets of each level of the budgetary system in line with the new expenditure powers. In particular, subject to the devolution of responsibilities for public institutions from the federal government to the level of the constituent members of the Russian Federation are the following public institutions:
- Initial and secondary vocational education institutions (except fed eral institutions on a list approved by the RF Government);
- Museums (except federal museums on a list approved by the RF Government);
- Institutions of culture and arts (except federal institutions on a list approved by the RF Government);
- People’s artistic craftsmanship institutions (except federal institu tions on a list approved by the RF Government);
- Institutions of specialized (sanitary aviation) emergency aid; spe cialized medical institutions (dermatological and venereological, tuberculoses, narcological, oncological dispensaries and other specialized medical institutions) except federal institutions on a list approved by the RF Government86.
Article 2 of the Federal Low of 4 July 2003 No.95 FZ on introducing amendments and additions to the Federal Law “On General Principles of Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of Government of the Subjects of the Russian Federation” envisaged a need for approval by 1 July 2004 of a list of the federal educational es tablishments, federal public museums, federal public institutions of cul ture and arts, organizations of people’s artistic craftsmanship, federal specialized medical institutions. However, for June 1, 2005, such lists were not approved. Furthermore, clear cut criteria for division of re sponsibilities for institutions of the same type of activity between federal and regional institutions were not developed.
The process of transfer into regional ownership of federal institu tions designed to exercise powers by the subjects of the Russian Fed eration had to be finished by 31 December 200487. However, this proc ess has only stated now. Thereby, current federal budget network does not correspond to legislative requirements because it includes institu tions designed to exercise functions of the subjects of the Russian Fed eration.
Unjustified complexity and diversification of budget network Current budget network in many aspects has an unjustified and di versified structure. As was noted above, present legislation does not determine how many levels can budget network have. It is only obvious that it can have two (principal budgetary manager recipient) or three levels (principal budgetary manager manager of budget funds budget recipient). Moreover, present legislation does not preclude creation of longer hierarchical train when public funds recipient receives funds from two or more managers of budget funds.
As of July 1, 2003, budget network retained 445 recipients of budget funds of the fourth level, i.e. which were in subordination of two or more Article 2 of the Federal Law of July 4, 2003, No. 95 FZ on introducing amendments and changes in the federal law “On the General Principles of Organization of Legislative (Rep resentative) and Executive Government Bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federa tion”.
Item 11 Article 154 of the Federal Law of august 22, 2004, No. 122 FZ.
managers of budget funds. In particular, Federal Service of Railway Troops of the Russian Federation had 51 sub departmental budget re cipients of the fourth level, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation – 12 budget recipients of the fourth level, State Fishing Committee of the Russian Federation – 6 budget recipients of the fourth level, State Cus toms Committee of the Russian Federation – 3 budget recipients of the fourth level, Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation – budget recipients of the fourth level, Russian Academy of Agricultural Science – 8 budget recipients of the fourth level, Chancellery of the president of the Russian Federation – 4 budget recipients of the fourth level, Russian Academy of Medical Science – 8 budget recipients of the fourth level. The highest number of public funds recipients of the fifth and lower levels were in jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation (1,039 of institutions of which 933 are recipients of the fifth level, 106 – sixth level, and 3 – seventh level) and Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation (166 institutions of the fifth level).
According to monitoring findings as of January 1, 2004, by the end of 2003 budget network (without RF Ministry of Defence) comprised 545 budget recipients of the fourth and higher levels (including RF Min istry of Internal Affairs – 353, RF Ministry of Justice – 100, Federal Ser vice of Railways Troops – 51). At the same time, thirty seven principal budgetary managers comprised organizational structures, which had in subordination less than six budget recipients. The Russian Academy of Sciences stands apart. It had 88 per cent of managers of budget funds distributing funds between less than six recipients, including 48 per cent of managers of budget funds distributing funds for a recipient of public funds. Thus, in six months elapsed from the first monitoring the situation only deteriorated.
This situation only leads to the administrative costs growth due to many managers of budget funds, which do not provide state services and do not perform managerial functions due to insignificant number of institutions they have in subordination. In particular, as of July 1, 2003, overall number of managers of the federal budget funds having one re cipient of budget funds in their jurisdiction constituted 627.
In addition, present legislation does not prevent principal budgetary manager directly run institution in the presence of manager of budget funds to whose jurisdiction this institution belongs. For July 1, twenty per cent of the federal budgetary institutions received public funding from more than three managers of budget funds. Thus, many public institutions exist in conditions of multiple authority, which is in compatible with the principles of efficient management.
Possibility to distribute the federal budget funds by organizations, which are not federal government bodies As of July 1, 2003, out of 3,320 managers of budget funds of the federal budget funds 2,840 had their property in federal ownership, 225 – in ownership of the subjects of the Russian Federation, and 8 – in the ownership of municipalities and municipal authorities. Remaining managers of budget funds either did not belong to any form of owner ship or were private organizations, or were of mixed ownership. It is due to the fact that when a federal government body does not have an agency on the territory where their departmental institutions are lo cated, they devolve their responsibilities to regional and local authori ties for managing the federal budget funds allocated for financing of those institutions. For example, federal ministry of health can devolve to a regional health care administrative body its responsibilities to approve estimates for federal medical centres located of the territory of corre sponding regions. In addition, relation between administrative and fi nancial control breaks down and erodes responsibility for the public institutions performance results. In reality, budget funds are managed by the bodies, which are not responsible for the provision of corre sponding state services.
The same results are received from a situation where a public institu tion is in administrative subordination to one ministry but receives fund ing from a different one. For example, as of July 1, 2003, nineteen prin cipal budgetary managers financed activity of managers of budget funds and budget recipients, which were not in their administrative sub ordination. Among them: the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federa tion (127 managers of budget funds and budget recipients, which were not administratively subordinate to principal managers of budgetary managers), the RF Ministry of Education (2,870 managers of budget funds and budget recipients), the RF Ministry of Atomic Energy (managers of budget funds and budget recipients), the RF Ministry of Transport (88 managers of budget funds and budget recipients), the RF State Construction and Housing Utility Complex Committee (284 man agers of budget funds and budget recipients), the RF Ministry of Indus try, Science and Technology (31 managers of budget funds and budget recipients), the RF Ministry of Labour and Social Development (97 man agers of budget funds and budget recipients), the RF State Sports and Physical Culture Committee (76 managers of budget funds and budget recipients), Chancellery of the President of the Russian Federation (managers of budget funds and budget recipients), the RF Central Election Committee (89 managers of budget funds and budget re cipients).
Not infrequently responsibilities of principal managers of budget funds and managers of budget funds are delegated to organizations, which are not all government bodies and are not even budgetary institu tions. For example, as of July 1, 2003, out of 2,840 managers of budget funds whose property was in the federal ownership 74 were not even institutions according to their organizational and legal status.
Institutions of the same type of activity are subordinate to different ministries and agencies Duplicating public institutions with similar type of activity, which are in different administrative subordination and included in registers of public funds recipients of different principal managers of budget funds leads to duplication of public service delivery and as a result to ineffi ciency of the public funds spending. At present several ministries and agencies have in their subordination a considerable number of institu tions, which are engaged in unrelated activity. Mostly this is due to a wish to provide privileged medical services, sanatorium, educational services and cultural service delivery to employees of a ministry or agency. Such situation violates the principle of equal access of the citi zens to social services. Moreover, this situation results in unequal per formance and financing conditions for public institutions, which deliver homogeneous social services.
The structure of the federal budget funds’ recipients by principal managers of budget funds includes a considerable number of federal budget institutions, which do not belong to the same type of activity characteristic of principal managers of budget funds88. As of July 1, 2003, to there number belonged 1,800 educational establishments (out of the overall number of 5,273 only 3,473 belonged to the RF Ministry of Education jurisdiction), 176 rest homes and sanatoria (total number – 230, of which only 54 were included in the register of the RF Ministry of Health, 517 hospitals, clinics and military hospitals (total number – 685, of which 168 were included in the register of the RF Health Ministry), 286 kindergartens.
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.