Sixty five pre cent of the mentioned funds are distributed propor tionately to brought to corresponding subjects of the budget plan ning (federal services and agencies) marginal expenditure volume for 2005;
Thirty five per cent of the mentioned funds are distributed in pro portion to the results of the application evaluation presented by corresponding subjects of the budget planning (federal services and agencies).
Budget reports revised during the experiment were submitted to the Finance Ministry by 30 September. Nine federal government bodies took part in the experiment. Six of them were considered to be winners (including the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Min istry of Economic Development and Trade and the Federal Employment Service).
Next version of the reports drafted by the subjects of the budget planning, which took into account experts’ remarks, and the draft Pro gram of socio economic development of the Russian Federation for medium term perspective (2005–2008) were submitted by the federal government bodies to the Government Commission by 20 December 2004. From the end of February 2005 a follow up discussion of the re ports drafted by the subjects of the budget planning at the Government Commission on improving budget expenditure efficiency. In addition the finding of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade was examined regarding each of the reports. The new version of the reports of the next budget process (for 2006–2008) must be submitted by the subjects of the budget planning with the remarks examined at the meet ing of the Commission, which took place on 1 April 2005.
2. Principal issues discovered in the process of budget reports preparation In the course of implementation of the first stage of preparation of the reports on the results and main performance directions of the sub jects of the budget planning a number of preconditions required for the transition to the real mechanism of targeted budgeting were created. In particular, major share of the expenses was distributed within frame work of the departmental target programs.
Although formally the institute of departmental target programs (hereinafter DTP) is not written into the Russian legislation104, a wide definition of DTP, which is given in the Rules on the reports (for exam ple, under DTP we can understand “a complex of measures aimed at analytical purposes and directed to the solution of one tactical objec tive”105) allowed to distribute between so far “virtual” departmental tar get programs a considerable share of previously considered non target expenses, thus guaranteeing creation of preconditions required for speeding up of formation on their basis of already formalized depart mental target programs after the official approval of the procedure for their preparation.
In accordance with the Governmental Decree of 22 May, No. 249 draft Governmental Decree, which defines the order of development, approval and realization of the depart mental target programs has to be developed in the first quarter of 2005.
In accordance with Statute on reports, which was adopted by the RF Governmental Decree No. 249 of 22 May 2004, interdepartmental target program represents an adopted (planned to be adopted) by the subject of strategic planning or developed by it a set of analytical measures (aimed at spending budget funds), which are directed at the resolution of a specific tactical goals (including at the execution of valid federal laws and other normative legal acts).
A considerable step forward became formalization of goals and ob jectives of the subjects of the budget planning, performance efficiency indicators, which created preconditions for the more efficient and sen sible distribution of expenditures of the subjects of the budget planning between the budget target programs. It should be noted that according to the order of the Government of Russia in the process of revising the reports on results and main performance directions the subjects of the budget planning were proposed to take as an example the draft of the Program of the socio economic development of the Russian Federation for medium term perspective (2005–2008) developed by the RF Minis try for economic Development and Trade. It was considered that this would guarantee coordination of the budget plans of the subjects of the budget planning with the announced government policy priorities.
Moreover, a number of issues were revealed in the process of the budget reports preparation. Those issues were not successfully solved at the present stage.
а) In the sphere of development and monitoring of the per formance indicators of the subjects of budget planning 1. In the framework of compiled in August 2004 Government con solidated report, they failed to separate departmental goals and objec tives, for the solution of which coordination of departmental target pro grams would be expedient106. Was not found a clear cut approach, which would permit separating performance indicators if individual fed eral government bodies from the performance indicators, which are related to the Government performance in whole or to other federal government bodies.
2. They failed to fund a clear methodological approach, which would allow to determine it to what extent these or those tendencies in socio economic development are conditioned by the performance of the fed eral government bodies and to what extent – by the objective factors.
For example, it is not clear, to what extent present sustainable eco nomic growth in Russia is a result of the Government policy.
3. They failed to find a clear cut methodological approach regarding the introduction into the performance indicators of the federal govern Current institute of the federal target programs designed to guarantee financing, first of all, the activities aimed at resolving interdepartmental tasks does not embrace the whole list of interdepartmental tasks.
ment bodies’ final performance results of the regional and local authori ties in the sphere of responsibility of the federal ministries. For example, remained unclear whether efficiency indicators of the system of primary and secondary education, which is exclusively financed from the territo rial budgets, be included in the performance indicators of the federal Ministry of Education and Science, which is responsible for persuading educational policy in the country as a whole. The same is true of the performance indicators regarding the Ministry of Health Care and So cial Development and a number of others.
4. The budget reports insufficiently highlighted coordination of ex penditure volume (structure) indicators and the performance indicators of a subject of budget planning and to the creation of the system of regular risk evaluation of failing to achieve the goals under a chosen development option on the basis of monitoring findings.
5. Considerable number of indicators included in the reports require development of the evaluation methodology and initiation of monitoring, which is absent at present. There is not division of functions between the Federal State Statistics Service and subdivisions of sectoral bodies of the executive power regarding data collection, which serves as the basis for many performance indicators formulated in the budget re ports.
In the circumstances of scantiness of the available statistical basis the Methodological recommendations on the preparation of the budget reports require that each objective and task should correspond qualita tively measurable performance indicators. In this context one should consider two real dangers:
a) A wish to digitize indicators by applying the current statistical ba sis does not allow setting strategic goals because the available system of indicators is generally designed to the solution of tactical objectives;
b) Readjustment of the system of indicators, its departure from the current statistical basis will result in the loss of a basis for comparative analysis.
Inability to quickly collect the new statistical information makes the choice practically predetermined in favour of the first option. This means that the new performance based budgeting arrangement will transfer in the future current situation.
6. Well developed methodological approaches designed for creating projected values of the performance indicators. The reports submitted by the subjects of the budget planning were lacking justification of pro vided projected values of the performance indicators, which hampered their independent evaluation.
7. Methodological recommendations developed for compiling re ports do not envisage introduction in the reports drafted by the subjects of budget planning description of the type of activity (aimed at achiev ing objectives), which allows while planning to switch over from goals and objectives to the description of obtained results as well as to the evaluation of required resources (expenditures both on the current ac tivity and on the development). As a result the goals turned out to be aggregate to the maximum and rather vague (ideological but not stra tegic). That resulted in the fact that the replacement of both the target directives and objectives of each goal did not imply any change in the set of performance indicators. Lack of linkage of the performance indi cators to the types of activity led to the situation where the subjects of the budget planning were choosing only those indicators, which they could “digitize” regarding passed (reported) period and regarding next (planned) period.
8. There is no procedure for coordinating (consolidating) perform ance indicators of the subjects of budget planning, which are subordi nate to the President of the Russian Federation.
9. The issue of the types of expenditure, which are cannot be attrib uted to nonprogram ones. Some of the administrative bodies included costs on salaries and administrative and management costs in the tar get budgetary programs. Other administrative bodies included those costs in nonprogram expenditures. It is necessary to find a unified ap proach in this sphere.
10. Methodological differences applicable to the planning of activity of executive bodies, which render public services and the ministries, which pursue mainly regulatory and supervisory functions were not formulated. Methodology for performance efficiency evaluation and supervisory activity of the executive bodies was not developed.
b) In the sphere of implementation of the performance based budgeting arrangements on interdepartmental level All described above novations regarding the sphere of budget plan ning are implemented at the level of principal budgetary managers and do not apply the major part of the budget network, i.e. lower level man ager of budget funds and budget recipients. However, performance of the considerable number of the subjects of budget planning, first of all, of those, which render public services, is logically to evaluate by the performance of the subordinate budget network. This requires devel opment of a concept aimed at the budget process reform at the inter departmental level, including transformation mechanisms of the goals and objectives of the subjects of budget planning into the goals and objectives of budget recipients.
The concept of budget process reform at the departmental level should, in particular, define:
Order and procedures for developing and implementing depart mental target programs, including issues related to the public in stitutions’ participation in their implementation;
Evaluation methods of costs and benefits of target programs (in cluding budget efficiency);
Procedures of budget planning, distribution of allocations between subordinate to the ministries federal services, agencies, budget institutions taking into account their performance results;
The system of monitoring and control of performance efficiency of structural departments of the ministries, administrative bodies subordinate to them, budget institutions;
Norms of budget expenditure per a unit of outcome by each type of activity of ministries and departments;
Requirements to improve efficiency in the system of procurement of goods, works and services at the departmental level;
Tasks of development of the departmental system of finance man agement, improvement of responsiveness and informational con tent of financial accounting of departments and originating report ing system for achieved results;
Requirements set to the system organization of assets manage ment;
Requirements set to the provision of energy and resources;
Requirements set to the control system of information technolo gies;
Requirements set to the public resources system;
Requirements set to the risk management system;
Requirements set to the internal financial control (internal audit) arrangement.
The majority of activities in the sphere of improving budget expendi ture efficiency should be implemented by the federal executive bodies, which won in the budget experiment dedicated to the implementation of the performance based budgeting arrangements. However, the RF Ministry of Finance and the Ministry for Economic Development and Trade did not present any methodological recommendations in this sphere as of February 2005.
Lack of methodical approaches, which guarantee coordination of the performance based budgeting with the administrative reform repre sents a separate problem. In particular, the following issues are not re solved:
Development of the system for increasing incentives of the public servants based of the performance indicators included in the indi vidual contracts with key public servants and in official registers;
Development of mechanisms and habits of “planning manage ment”, i.e. organization of a complicated complex of intertwined measures oriented to the achievement of the final result;
Development of outsourcing mechanisms for the federal govern ment bodies activity, i.e. transfer of part of the functions, including connected with service delivery to the citizens and organizations and performance of jobs to outside organizations on a contractual basis.
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.