WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 5 | 6 || 8 | 9 |   ...   | 24 |

The variants chosen as the base ones foreach expenditure scenario were compared more thoroughly. For respective keycharacteristics see Table 7.13, and for results of calculations – Table7.14. Six indicators were used to evaluate the resultsof calculations. As concerns three of these indicators (ratio between themaximal and minimal share of expenditures covered at the expense of assignedrevenue source, overall deficit, and coefficient of variation of defrayal ofmunicipal expenditures), there were determined the average value of eachindicator across 12 regions and the number of regions where the values of theseindicators were the best out of the four compared variants. As concerns threeother indicators (the number of municipal entities with surplus, the number ofmunicipal entities with proficit exceeding 10 per cent, and the share ofmunicipal entities where less than 50 per cent of expenditures were compensatedat the expense of assigned revenue sources (i.e. the need for financial aid inorder to defray expenditures exceeded 50 per cent of revenues), for comparisonthere were used aggregate values across all 12 regions.

The conclusions arrived at in the course ofthe analysis on the whole correspond to the results of the study of largecities. All variants of assignment of revenue sources are sufficiently viable,although, naturally, their share in defrayal of municipal expenditures issignificantly below the respective indicator for large cities, and the averagesize of the deficit for the sample fluctuates from 49 to 63 per cent.

At the same time, the conclusion that theconditions of financing of expenditures borne by municipal entities deterioratein the case the evolutionary scenario is replaced with radical ones was on thewhole confirmed. For instance, the evolutionary and intermediate moderatescenarios lead across all analyzed criteria as concerns the regionalaverages. The situation is not so unambiguous as concerns the analysis of eachindividual region, although the overall trend remains the same. For instance,as concerns the coefficient of variation, the evolutionary and intermediatemoderate scenarios produce the best results in all regions, while the indicatorof overall deficit (i.e. necessary financial aid) is the best for 8 regions,while the radical scenario leads only in terms of ratio between the maximal andminimal share of expenditures covered by assigned revenues producing the bestresults in 7 regions.

As concerns municipal budgets where revenuesexceed expenditures, the total number of municipal entities, where surplus wasregistered in the framework of at least one variant of assignment of revenuesources, made 16 (4 per cent of the analyzed sample), surplus exceeding 10 percent occurred in 10 municipal entities (2.5 per cent). All these municipalentities are located in 5 out of 12 analyzed RF subjects: Rostov, Tver,Novosibirsk, Sverdlovsk, and Leningrad oblasts. These regions belong to thethird (2), fourth (1), and fifth (2) clusters.

Beside the number of municipal entitiesrunning surplus, there was analyzed the distribution of the whole sample ofmunicipalities depending on the shares of financial aid in revenues of localbudgets needed to completely cover expenditures. The results for the wholesample obtained in the framework of different scenarios are presented inTable 7.15. From theviewpoint of minimization of financial aid, the evolutionary and intermediatemoderate scenarios produce radically better results than the rest. In theframework of these scenarios 41 per cent of municipal entities form more than50 per cent of their own revenues at the expense of assigned sources. Thissituation is even somewhat better than in 2001, when the standards ofassignment of shared taxes might be differentiated depending on the specificsof each municipal entity, however, in only 37 per cent of municipalitiesfinancial aid made less than 50 per cent. As concerns the radical scenarios,the resulting situation is much worse: the share of municipal entities formingmore than 50 per cent of their own revenues at the expense of assigned revenuesources makes less than one fifth. It is necessary to note that the share ofheavily subsidized municipal entities exceeds 50 per cent across all analyzedvariants of assignment of revenue sources.

Table7.8

Changes in revenues of municipal entitiesacross regions

Potential of changes in municipal revenues

Additional shares of adapted municipal expenditures financed atthe expense
of growth in revenue sources in theregion at large (%)

YevreyskayaAO

Komi-PermyakAO

Amuroblast

Kabardian-Balkarian Republic

Rostovoblast

Tveroblast

ChuvashRepublic

Novosibirskoblast

Saratovoblast

Krasnoyarskkrai

Leningradoblast

Sverdlovskoblast

Sales tax is retained

4,7

5,9

13,2

11,6

19,8

15,7

15,0

21,1

20,9

11,0

18,0

25,1

Sales tax isabolished

4,0

3,5

11,9

8,9

15,0

8,8

2,8

12,7

10,7

11,0

18,0

17,7

Table 7.9

The ratio between factors of increase anddecrease in expenditures of municipal entities across regions

Factors behind increase / decrease in expenditures of municipalentities

Increase / decrease of financing in shares of defrayal of adaptedmunicipal expenditures in the region at large (%)

YevreyskayaAO

Komi-PermyakAO

Amuroblast

Kabardian-Balkarian Republic

Rostovoblast

Tveroblast

ChuvashRepublic

Novosibirskoblast

Saratovoblast

Krasnoyarskkrai

Leningradoblast

Sverdlovskoblast

Upwardreevaluation of expenditures

20,2

26,1

20,7

23,9

24,6

22,2

23,8

26,5

25,5

22,3

20,2

23,3

Funds for repayment ofaccounts payable and debt servicing

11,5

10,5

10,5

10,5

13,0

10,6

12,1

11,2

10,9

11,0

11,0

10,5

Remunerationof labor with payroll tax

8,7

15,5

10,2

13,4

11,7

11,6

11,7

15,2

14,6

11,3

9,3

12,7

Reserves ofcost entrenchment

-7,7

-4,7

-5,6

-16,4

-6,3

-24,5

-6,7

-19,0

-7,5

-6,6

-8,7

-7,5

Expendituresfor HUS

-6,6

-2,8

-3,9

-15,7

-8,8

-21,6

-6,3

-19,0

-7,9

-4,8

-7,1

-7,0

Housingallowances

4,8

3,4

3,6

4,6

9,0

2,4

5,7

5,6

5,9

3,7

3,9

4,7

Own municipal expendituresfor financing of federal mandates

-2,3

-2,1

-2,1

-2,1

-2,6

-2,1

-2,4

-2,2

-2,2

-2,2

-2,2

-2,1

Reserve ofshort term retrenchment

-3,5

-3,2

-3,2

-3,2

-3,9

-3,2

-3,6

-3,4

-3,3

-3,3

-3,3

-3,2

Total

12,5

21,4

15,2

7,4

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 5 | 6 || 8 | 9 |   ...   | 24 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .