WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 6 |

23%

35%

17%

22%

10%

20%

Loands reduced by repaying to other levels of government:

% of GDP

0,09%

0,03%

0,02%

0,04%

0,23%

0,64%

-0,03%

-0,28%

0,00%

% of financial aid

6%

1%

1%

2%

10%

25%

0%

0%

0%

Assignments underpaid by the RF Subjects budgets to budget funds created for special purpose

% of GDP

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,02%

0,05%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

% of financial aid

0%

0%

0%

1%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Total for funds transferred to budgets of other leveles of government

% of GDP

1,49%

2,70%

3,40%

1,80%

2,30%

2,50%

1,60%

1,37%

1,87%

% of Financial aid

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Source: RF Ministry of Finance; estimates by the authors.

The 1992 to 2000 dynamics of the key rates reflecting the budget financing of the RF Subjects via federal aid will be considered below. Table 2 represents the share values of the budget revenues by the Subjects of the Federation, generated by appropriations assigned by the federal budget throughout the whole observation period, as well as the respective budget expenditure share, financed by the federal financial aid. The table displays, that the combined dependency rate by the regional budgets on the federal support is the lowest one for the last two years since 1991 (For the Subjects of the Federation as a whole, the federal budget appropriations share of the budget revenues doesn't tend to exceed 9,6% for 1999/2000). Thereby, the regional budgets' dependence on the federal financial aid being rather low in 1992, it increased by a factor of 2 by 1994, while the federal funding share of both regional budgets' expenditures and revenues accounted for 19%-20%). Later on, in 1995, a drastic drop for the respective rates was observed (to 12,8% of the regional budgets' expenditures/revenues), which was determined by the implementation of FFSR transfer mechanism. In 1996/97, apart from the simultaneous increase of the unrepaid amount allocated between the Subjects of the Federation, there was, however, an increase of the federal financial aid share by the regions' expenditure and revenue rates. The consequent policy toughening towards the relations between the federal center and the regional budgets in 1998, and the outset of a new stage of reforming the interbudgetary relationships lead to a decline for the dependence by the RF Subjects on the federal financial aid as a whole. It is also notable, that the invariance of the federal support share of the regional budgets' revenues for 2000, against the absolute volumes growth by the federal budget funds, allocated among the Subjects of the Federation, is also accounted for by the budgets' own-source revenue increase.

Table 2. Share of federal financial aid of revenues and expenditures of RF Subjects’ budgets in 1992 to 2000.

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Share of federal financial aid of RF Subjects’ budget revenues

10,4%

15,2%

19,4%

12,8%

16,2%

16,1%

10,8%

9,6%

9,6%

Share of federal financial aid of RF Subjects budget expenditures

11,7%

15,9%

19,8%

12,8%

15,5%

15,2%

10,7%

9,7%

10,1%

Source: RF Ministry of Finance; estimates by the authors.

While analysing the federal support delivery to the RF Subjects by the federal budget, one should concentrate on the objectives of the above bankroll allocation as well as upon the way the federal grant-in-aid system happens to run its business. Thus, a major goal of financing regional expenditures by the federal budget is to reduce the degree of fiscal capacity differentiation between the regions, i.e. the capacity of the regions to produce public goods that could stand for the regional budgets' per capita revenue. The bankroll sharing system coping with its task, the dispersion of the regional budgets' per capita revenues, if calculated as before and after the federal aid delivery, shall be reduced, which would imply a lesser extent of interregional differentiation reached through the federal funds distribution.

The calculations made are explicit to show that the "Total for Revenues" rate per capita dispersion by the regional budget, calculated as prior to and after the federal aid acceptance tends to increase on receiving the federal aid. Besides, the budget receipts of the regions adjusted for the federal transfers tend to surpass the respective value unadjusted for the federal support by 10% to 140%, applied to a particular period. A similar result was acheived (although displaying lower values of the excess described) by regarding just one of the federal support varieties: that of the Fund for Financial Support to the Regions transfer (see Table3).

It would be fair to remark, that the above results, which frequently happen to be interpreted as proving the lack of equalization effect inherent in the federal finanial aid of the Russian Federation come to witness an inter-regional differentiation increase only by the absolute values of the regional budget revenues and expenditures. However, as was stated above, the major goal of interbudgetary levelling consists in balancing the levels of the state services, whereby a sheer comparison of the dispersion rates by the regional budgets' revenues, estimated as prior to and after the delivery of the federal support is inappropriate, which results from the fact that a region's specific conditions would account for different output per each rouble of the budget revenues in terms of financing the budget services. It is for the above reason, that the equalization capacity of the federal financial aid4 should be evaluated with regard to the state services per unit cost factors within the regions, that can be assessed by applying the interregional living-wage ratio, as well as by their need for financing the production of public goods, the latter being understood as the on-budget expenditure ratio involved in the FFSR funds distribution, nd also the standard expenditure needs of the RF subjects, calculated under CEPRA Estimating expenditure needs and fiscal capacity of the RF Subjects project.

To evaluate the equalization effect inherent in the federal financial aid from the perspective of fiscal capacity, the per capita dispersion dynamics was calculated for a number of regional budget revenues, adjusted for both an interregional living-wage ratio (which value is calculated as the relation of the average per capita living wage to the respective average for Russia as a whole) and for the budget expenditures rise ratio, associated with the changed cost of public goods or with the altered demand for them (calculated similarly to the living standard ratio)5.

Table 3. RF Subjects’ budget per capita revenue dispersion dynamics by granting financial aid to the regions

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

RF Subjects budget per capita revenue dispersion dynamics by granting financial aid to the regions

- nonstandardized budget revenue rates

127%

11%

17%

110%

88%

140%

89%

123%

49%

- standardized by living standard rates (price ratio)

39%

7%

9%

-24%

3%

-10%

-25%

-12%

-18%

- budget revenues standardized by expenditure needs guideline

41%

7%

10%

-29%

2%

-10%

-25%

-13%

-18%

- budget revenues standardized by budget expenditure needs ratio made use of in FFSR distribution for 2001

-6%

5%

7%

-23%

-17%

-18%

-22%

-23%

-15%

Regional budget revenues per capita dispersion dynamics at granting federal support from FFSR.

- unstandardized budget revenue ratio

Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 6 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .