Analysis of regional budget policy. Regional budget policy

Keywords

ECONOMIC SECURITY / BUDGETARY AND FINANCIAL SECURITY / BUDGET POLICY / TYPOLOGY OF REGIONS / BUDGET PROVISION/ ECONOMIC SECURITY / FISCAL SECURITY / FISCAL POLICY / TYPOLOGY OF REGIONS / FISCAL CAPACITY

annotation scientific article on economics and business, author of the scientific work - Zagarskikh V.V.

Item. The subject of the study is the methodological aspects of studying the economic crisis and the formation of a regional budget policy, meeting the requirements economic security as part of the national economic reform strategy. The article presents the main results of the analysis of Russian regions. Objectives. Consideration economic security in the context of indicators characterizing regions. In accordance with this goal, the following tasks were set in the work: to justify the need to study economic security regions from the point of view of economically efficient activities of government bodies; show the impact of socio-economic differentiation of Russian regions on economic security countries; determine the main indicators characterizing budgetary and financial security regions; analyze the factors that determine threats economic security region. Methodology. The principles of a systematic approach to the study of socio-economic processes were mainly used as the methodological basis for the study; assessment methods economic security regions, including monitoring of key macroeconomic indicators and their comparison with threshold values, which are taken as the global average; methods for processing socio-economic data. Results. Based on interpretation economic security region, the regional crisis economic situation may threaten the national economic security. With the general trend of a decreasing role of the federal government in the economic processes of the regions of the Russian Federation, the regional system economic security is the basis for economic integration and, therefore, ensuring national economic security.Conclusions. Proposed indicators fiscal security region, as well as their threshold values can serve as the basis for developing forecasts for the socio-economic development of the region and budget projects for the constituent entities of the Federation. The analysis of the financial support of the regions can be used by executive authorities in order to ensure stable, sustainable and progressive development of the economy and society.

Analysis of regional economic crisis and regional fiscal policy formation

Importance The article addresses the methodology for economic crisis research and regional fiscal policy formation to meet the requirements of economic security within the national strategy of economic reforms.Objectives The main purpose of the study is to examine the economic security in the context of indicators characterizing the fiscal security of the region.Methods The methodological basis of the research is basic principles of systems approach to the study of socio-economic processes, methods for assessing the economic security of regions, including the monitoring of key macroeconomic indicators and their comparison with threshold values , methods of socio-economic data processing.Results Based on the interpretation of economic security of the region, a regional economic crisis is likely to endanger the national economic security. Under the general downward trend in reducing the role of the federal government in economic processes of the Russian Federation, the regional system of economic security acts as a basis for economic integration and, therefore, for ensuring the national economic security .Conclusions and Relevance The proposed indicators of fiscal security of the region, as well as their threshold values may be helpful for forecasts of socio-economic development of the region and budgetary estimates of the subjects of the Russian Federation. The analysis of financial support to regions can be used by executive authorities to ensure a stable, sustainable, and progressive development of the economy and society.

Text of scientific work on the topic “Analysis of the regional economic crisis and the formation of regional budget policy”

ISSN 2311-8725 (Online) Economic development

ISSN 2073-039X (Print)

ANALYSIS OF THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC CRISIS AND FORMATION OF REGIONAL BUDGET POLICY*

Vera Valerievna ZAGARSKIKH

Senior Lecturer, Department of Logistics and Financial Support of the Penitentiary System, Kirov Institute for Advanced Training of Employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service, Kirov, Russian Federation [email protected]

Article history:

Accepted 03/14/2016 Accepted in revised form 04/13/2016

Approved 11/23/2016 Available online 02/27/2017

UDC 338.246.87 JEL: N12, N72

Keywords:

economic security, budgetary and financial security, budget policy, typology of regions, budgetary security

annotation

Item. The subject of the study is the methodological aspects of studying the economic crisis and the formation of regional budget policy that meet the requirements of economic security within the framework of the national strategy of economic reforms. The article presents the main results of the analysis of the budgetary and financial security of Russian regions.

Goals. Consideration of economic security in the context of indicators characterizing the fiscal and financial security of the regions. In accordance with this goal, the following tasks were set in the work: to justify the need to study the economic security of regions from the point of view of economically efficient activities of government bodies; show the impact of socio-economic differentiation of Russian regions on the economic security of the country; determine the main indicators characterizing the budgetary and financial security of the regions; analyze the factors that determine threats to the economic security of the region.

Methodology. The principles of a systematic approach to the study of socio-economic processes were mainly used as the methodological basis for the study; methods for assessing the economic security of regions, including observation of main macroeconomic indicators and their comparison with threshold values, which are taken as the global average; methods for processing socio-economic data.

Results. Based on the interpretation of the economic security of the region, a regional crisis economic situation may threaten national economic security. With the general trend of a decreasing role of the federal government in the economic processes of the regions of the Russian Federation, the regional system of economic security is the basis of economic integration and, consequently, ensuring national economic security.

Conclusions. The proposed indicators of the budgetary and financial security of the region, as well as their threshold values, can serve as the basis for developing forecasts for the socio-economic development of the region and budget projects for the constituent entities of the Federation. The analysis of the financial support of the regions can be used by executive authorities in order to ensure stable, sustainable and progressive development of the economy and society.

One of the most important components of economic security is budgetary and financial security, without which it is almost impossible to solve any of the problems facing the state. The leading role in the process of socio-economic development of the region belongs to budgetary funds. The consolidated territorial budget accumulates the bulk of the region's income and, thus, is the main source of investment in the socio-economic development of any subject of the Russian Federation.

* The publication was prepared within the framework of scientific project No. 15-12-43008 supported by the Russian Humanitarian Foundation.

In 2008, the Security Council of the Russian Federation approved the list and threshold values of 36 economic security indicators developed by the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is by these indicators that the threshold values of economic security are calculated. They characterize the limit values, the excess of which impedes the normal development of the economy and social sphere, leading to devastating consequences in the field of production and the standard of living of the population.

By analyzing indicators of economic security, the region’s economy can be viewed from the perspective of compliance with its development trends (internally and in comparison

with other regions). In the economy, the innovative nature of activity and the interdependence of various factors are intensifying, therefore the risk of management errors and their cost are increasing. In order to reduce the risks of the region’s fiscal and financial security, it is necessary to analyze the existing system of relationships between economic security indicators, for example, the maximum possible limits of the budget deficit, the share of own funds in the consolidated budget revenues, the ratio of public debt to own income, etc.

For the effectiveness of public administration, threshold values of economic security must acquire the status of approved and approved at the state level, compliance with which must become a mandatory element of government economic programs.

Various aspects of regional economic security have been developed by scientists from the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Options for determining the rating assessment of the state of economic security are given by N. Dyuzhenkova, which provide for the derivation of an integral indicator from a system of blocks that characterize, among other things, the financial sector1. Scientists of Mordovian State University named after. N.P. Ogareva developed a method for assessing the economic security of a region using multivariate statistical methods2. A scoring methodology based on ten indicators for analyzing the level of economic security of regions was proposed by S. Volkov3. In turn, O. Taran and O. Kiseleva developed a system of indicators of economic security, including social (9 indicators) and economic (12 indicators) blocks. Of interest are the studies by I. Novikova and N. Krasnikov on the regional system of indicators of economic security in various areas of the regional economy. Works are devoted to determining indicators of economic security and their threshold values.

1 Dyuzhenkova N.V. System of criteria and indicators for assessing the state of economic security // Information business in Russia: collection of scientific papers based on materials from a scientific and practical seminar. Tambov, 2001. P. 42.

2 Filetkin O.S. Development of a system for monitoring the economic security of the region. URL:

http://www.msnauka.com/ONG/Economics/13_ffletkin%20o.s..doc.htm

3 Volkov S.P. Features of ensuring economic security of the national economic sector.

URL: http://www.cfin.ru/bandurin/article/sbm05/04.shtml

Despite the differences in indicators and their threshold values by region, there are also similarities in the research of scientists that determine the criteria for selecting these indicators. An analysis of the developed systems determined the feasibility of improving and unifying the groups, based on the availability of data from official sources and the limited number of indicators.

In the context of a shortage of budgetary resources and aggravation of threats to the budgetary and financial security of the country and the constituent entities of the Federation, the problems of scientific development of criteria for the rationality and security of budgetary policy become particularly relevant.

Let's consider three main indicators characterizing the fiscal and financial security of the regions.

The first indicator - the balance of the region's consolidated budget - demonstrates the level of budgetary security and changes as a percentage of GRP. The threshold value chosen is zero. A positive value corresponds to a budget surplus, a negative value to a deficit. Economically safe in this case is a deficit-free budget.

Based on the analysis of the structure of financial balance sheet items in recent years, it is possible to identify the most important patterns in the movement of financial resources - from their creation to use. The balance makes it possible to establish the amount of financial resources left at the disposal of enterprises and organizations, directed to local and higher budgets, as well as funds mobilized from sources external to the territory, mainly from the federal budget.

The multi-level and multi-channel structure of financing of the subjects of the Federation is reflected in the diagram of financial flows presented in Fig. 1.

Consideration of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation and the federal budget gives an idea of the context of the state’s social policy, and the study

consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation allows us to understand the scale and reasons for regional differences in financing the social sphere.

The main source of information for analyzing government spending in Russia is budget reporting data (Fig. 2).

The Federal Treasury publishes publicly available monthly, quarterly and annual reports on the execution of budgets at all levels of the Russian budget system. The most detailed information is provided in reports on the execution of the federal budget. In addition to the functional classification, its expenses are presented in the context of federal ministries and departments (the main managers of budget funds), all target items and types of expenses are listed. There is no such detail in the reporting on the execution of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation, and there cannot be - each regional budget has its own list of items (types) of expenses. To study expenditures in the field of social protection, budget reporting can be supplemented with statistical information at both the all-Russian and regional levels.

For the regions of Russia, it is important to establish inter-budgetary relations and coordinate the balance of mutual settlements with the federal financial system. To analyze interbudgetary settlements, you can use financial balance sheet data.

The financial balance can be represented by the following ratio:

SD + VD = SR + VR,

where CD is the territory’s own revenues, including collected customs payments;

VD - external income, which includes receipts from the federal financial system and other sources;

CP - own expenses, that is, carried out on the territory;

VR - external expenses, that is, transfers to the federal center.

If the volume of funds used by the region exceeds its own mobilization income (SR > SD), then the degree of federal financing of the region’s expenses is higher than the degree of centralization of the region’s revenue sources.

At the ratio CP< СД централизуемые доходы региона выше возвращенных в регион финансовых средств.

When analyzing counter financial flows between the center and the region, the concepts of “subsidized region” and “donor region” are often used. The basis for classifying a region as one or another type is the balance of the region’s consolidated budget. At the same time, it is rarely explained for which monetary flows the fact of a subsidized operating regime has been established.

Financial mutual settlements between the region and the center can be analyzed according to criteria, each of which will correspond to a certain type of subsidy or donation.

The most common type is the type of regions with budget subsidies, in which the negative balance of the consolidated budget is limited only by the budget slice. There are three types of budget subsidies, based on a comparison of the amount of taxes, payments and other revenues of the regional consolidated budget assigned to it by federal legislation:

1) conditionally normative;

2) unconditional;

3) budget subsidies for mutual settlements.

For the first type, the resulting deficit is then covered by special transfer support from the federal budget system. A characteristic feature of this type of subsidization is the high degree of artificial regulation of interbudgetary relations at two levels.

The degree of conditionally normative subsidization is calculated using the following formula:

D1 = (SDB - FN) / RB,

where SDB is the budget’s own revenues in the region in the total amount of taxes and payments collected by the budget system;

FN - federal taxes and payments transferred to the center;

RB - territorial budget expenses.

D1 ratio< 1 свидетельствует о наличии условно-нормативной дотационности, при этом остающихся на территории налогов достаточно для финансирования собственных бюджетных расходов после выполнения финансовых обязательств перед федеральным бюджетом.

Under the regime of unconditional budget subsidies, the entire volume of taxes, payments and other budget revenues, collected in the region, is not able to cover the minimum necessary expenses, and the region is allocated federal financial assistance.

Budget subsidies for mutual settlements are not associated with the revenue and expenditure bases, but are established by simply comparing the volumes of budget resources transferred to the center and those received back.

The degree of subsidization for mutual settlements is calculated using the following formula:

Dz = RFB / FN,

where RFB are federal budget resources (subsidies and transfers to the regional budget).

The criterion for the budgetary subsidization of a region for mutual settlements is the inequality Dz > 1.

Financial support for the regional economy can be provided not only through the budget, but also directly to those in need in the production and social spheres. And the sources of such support can be not only the federal budget and extra-budgetary funds, but also inter-industry funds, consortia, companies and various investment institutions located outside the region.

Thus, the second type of subsidization of the territorial economy can be budgetary-sectoral (economic) subsidization.

The degree of budgetary and sectoral (economic) subsidization of regions can be calculated using the following formula:

Dotr = (RFB - FPO) / FN,

where RFB - federal budget resources (subsidies and transfers to the regional budget);

FPO - financial support from the central line of industries and departments;

FN - federal taxes and payments transferred to the federal budget.

The criterion for classifying a region as a budgetary sectoral (economic)

subsidization is the fulfillment of inequality

Dotr > 1.

The most general characteristic of the subsidization regime is the measurement of flows between the region and the center in the context of national income produced and used in the territory (gross domestic product) - subsidization of the region by GDP.

With this approach, budget and industry subsidies and subsidies are added to the volume of direct financing of expenses of law enforcement agencies, the socio-cultural sphere, etc.

The degree of subsidization of regions in terms of GDP is determined by the ratio of the gross domestic product used in the territory and the final product produced. If the volume of the first exceeds the second, we can talk about the region being subsidized by GDP - the third type of subsidization.

The consolidated balance sheet allows you to solve many analytical problems, namely:

Compare the financial needs of the territory and the real possibilities for covering them;

Determine the average financial security of a specific territory;

Assess the interaction between the region and the federal financial system, their contributions to economic development;

Identify the potential of the local budget and extra-budgetary funds;

Track the processes of formation, accumulation, distribution and redistribution of financial resources.

The information base for compiling the consolidated balance sheet is:

Statistical data from reports of enterprises and organizations based on the results of financial and economic activities;

Reports on the use of budget funds;

Tax inspection data;

Reports on the formation and use of extra-budgetary funds;

Data from customs departments and other information.

To develop a forecast balance, it is necessary to take into account a number of features of the formation of the revenue and expenditure parts of the regional budget:

The starting materials are the financial balance sheet data for the reporting year, as well as the estimated parameters of the current year;

For the main industries, indicators of growth in prices for products are laid down, as well as consolidated price indices for consumer goods and services;

Indicators of the efficiency of the economy and its individual sectors are established for the next financial year (growth or decline in physical production volumes, level of profitability, investment plans of enterprises, etc.);

Key indicators of tax revenues are determined: profit, wage fund, added value taking into account inflation indices and wage growth;

All possible changes in the taxation system are taken into account;

The volumes of tax revenues, fees and other payments are calculated;

Other revenues from internal and external sources are forecast item by item.

Budget expenditure planning largely depends on possible budget revenues and other financial resources. First, the most necessary expenses are calculated related to mandatory payments of social benefits to the population, the maintenance of life support systems for public utilities in cities and towns, the work of law enforcement agencies, state and municipal authorities, and the current maintenance of the socio-cultural sphere.

The volume of capital investment should be based on the priorities identified in the development of individual industries, types of economic activity, as well as individual cities and towns. Priority sectors, as a rule, are the fuel and energy and agro-industrial complexes, transport infrastructure, etc. Local priorities may be given to areas affected by natural disasters and cities with a backward economy or experiencing

reconstruction of city-forming enterprises (for example, a city with a military-industrial complex carrying out conversion), etc.

After distributing projected financial income to priority areas, the remaining resources are allocated to current and long-term financing.

If there is a shortage of financial resources, measures must be developed to attract foreign funds, funds from the federal budget in the form of grants, subsidies, subsidies and subventions.

Currently, the risks of ensuring the sustainability of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets are associated with a significant amount of debt, especially in some constituent entities. The high level of debt (in 2013 - 44%, in some regions of Russia - more than 50% of tax and non-tax revenues excluding gratuitous revenues) are evidence of existing problems in the formation and execution of regional budgets, which can complicate further socio-economic development and modernization economies of these regions.

There is no real assessment of tax and non-tax revenues for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which creates a risk of distorting the current situation in the regions, as well as the volume of financial assistance from the federal budget in 2016-2018.

The increase in expenditures of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation is mainly due to an increase in current social expenditures while a simultaneous reduction in the amount of funds allocated for the renewal of fixed assets.

An increase in interbudgetary transfers is projected mainly due to an increase in subsidies to equalize the budgetary security of the regions and to compensate for the loss of reduced revenues from excise taxes on petroleum products. At the same time, the share of interbudgetary transfers in the income of consolidated regional budgets is decreasing. Thus, in 2015, it was envisaged to increase subsidies to equalize the budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by 10.9%.

The total number of subjects of the Russian Federation that received subsidies in 2015,

amounted to 71, including the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol (in 2014 - 72, in 2013 - 73). At the same time, the number of regions that did not receive subsidies to equalize budgetary provision increased from 11 in 2014 to 14 in 2015.

The number of interbudgetary subsidies, the volumes of which are distributed to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation in 2015, increased to 16 subsidies (in 2014 - 11 subsidies), and their share in the total volume of interbudgetary subsidies - from 16.1% in 2014 to 18.9 % in 2015. The total number of subsidies in 2015 was 81 (in 2014 - 80). At the same time, there is no provision for consolidation (enlargement) of subsidies within the framework of government programs, which does not correspond to the objectives set in the budget message of the President of the Russian Federation on the provision of interbudgetary subsidies in a consolidated form.

The total volume of subventions (this is government funding for a certain period for specific purposes, unlike subsidies that are subject to return in case of misuse or not used within the established time frame) amounted to only 3.2-3.4%.

The state of regional budgets depends on the level and dynamics of income and expenses, their balance. In 2008-2014 it was extremely unstable. The most prosperous year in terms of income in 2008 gave way to the crisis year of 2009. Then there was a fairly rapid improvement in 2010-2011. The problems have worsened since the end of 2012 due to the increase in regional budget expenditures for the implementation of decrees on increasing wages in the public sector, as well as economic stagnation and a slowdown in the growth of budget revenues. This led to an imbalance and deficit in consolidated regional and municipal budgets (Table 1).

The dynamics and structure of budget expenditures show political priorities

regional authorities, including in the social sphere. The main trend for the entire period under review is the rapid growth of social expenditures in the consolidated budgets of the regions. With all expenditures growing by 43% in nominal terms, expenditures on education, health care and social policy almost doubled. The increase in social spending slowed down only in 2014.

For comparison: expenditures of all regions on the national economy (supporting industry, transport and road infrastructure) after the crisis of 2009-2010. increased by 2014 to a level comparable to the dynamics of all budget expenditures. The main way to save for the regions was to reduce the cost of supporting housing and communal services. The increase in spending on physical culture and sports in 2011 is associated with preparation for the Olympics and other high-status competitions - more than 30% of total spending, in 2012 - 38%, in 2013 - 35%, and in 2014 - 39%. Carrying out Olympic Games in Sochi turned out to be extremely expensive, including due to the huge costs of infrastructure; mass and children's sports also suffered. Since 2013, support for the economy has declined sharply due to the dire situation of the budgets of most regions, growing deficits and debt. A significant increase in housing and communal services costs in 2011 was due to a sharp increase in tariffs of natural monopolies (Table 2).

The crisis in regional budgets became obvious in 2013, but despite the huge deficit and rapid growth of debt, the regions continued to increase spending, including social spending. Expenditures on education and healthcare remained the growth leaders, followed by culture and sports. Only the growth of social expenditures for the population is minimized. In 2014, despite attempts to optimize budget expenditures, it was not possible to maintain their growth in the regions (plus 4.6% by 2013, with the exception of Crimea).

The accelerated dynamics of healthcare expenditures, taking into account the expenditures of territorial compulsory health insurance funds, is largely due to increased funding for drug provision. The increase in spending on culture and social policy (social security) is associated with the implementation of presidential decrees and the indexation of benefits to the population. In 2014, the dynamics of non-social spending worsened most significantly - on housing and communal services and on the national economy. Opportunities for optimizing spending on these items have come close to exhaustion in most regions, with the exception of the rich. The next step was to reduce social spending.

In 2014, for the first time, a fairly large number of regions (17) reduced nominal budget expenditures. Most of these regions were found in the Central, Far Eastern, Southern

and Northwestern federal districts. Regions with large debts were forced to cut costs in order to obtain cheaper and longer-term loans from the Russian Ministry of Finance in order to replace loans from commercial banks. The tough policy of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation requires cutting expenses and budget deficits to provide loans.

To assess the dynamics of social spending in the near future, it is necessary to consider all possibilities for optimizing budget expenditures.

The first direction is to reduce spending on the national economy. So far, the regions of “new industrialization” - Kaluga, Kaliningrad and Leningrad regions - have not given up and are increasing spending on the economy.

The second direction - reducing housing and communal services costs - in half of the regions.

The third direction is to reduce expenses under the item “national issues,” but this path means lower costs for maintaining the state apparatus, which is much more difficult to ensure. This was done in 18 regions with minimal dynamics (1-5%).

The crisis that began in 2014 increased the need to support regional budgets from the federal budget. However, federal assistance to the regions was not aimed at alleviating the budget crisis; it reflected geopolitical priorities: support for the remote Far East bordering China, the troubled North Caucasus and annexed Crimea (Fig. 3).

From the end of March to December 2014, Crimea received 125 billion rubles. budget transfers (7.2% of all federal assistance to the regions). These funds could not be used - the Crimean budget surplus amounted to 13.4%. Transfers to the Far East in 2014 amounted to 210 billion rubles. All republics of the North Caucasus received 189 billion rubles. On a per capita basis, transfers to Crimea turned out to be twice as large as to the republics of the North Caucasus. Currently, the level of subsidies in Crimea (80%) is comparable only with Ingushetia (87%) and Chechnya (82%), and given that Crimea retains all the VAT, which by law must be transferred to the federal budget, the subsidization is approaching 85%. The level of subsidies in Sevastopol (70%) is comparable to Dagestan. Actually a priority

support for Crimea is currently carried out at the expense of other regions of Russia, which worsens the state of their budgetary and financial security in times of crisis.

In 45% of regions, a large debt is complemented by a budget deficit. The budget crisis is severe in moderately developed regions. The richest oil and gas regions and federal cities had the least amount of debt problems. The federal government, which actually provoked this crisis, is forcing the regions to save, but strict optimization of budget expenditures, especially social ones, is risky for governors who will be elected. Therefore, for many, it is easier to fall into large debts, hoping for help from the federal government in case of worsening debt problems and the burden of debt repayment.

The risks of the budget situation in the regions in the near future can be systematized using indicators of budgetary security and the state of the consolidated budgets of the regions in 2014. These indicators include:

Per capita budget income adjusted to the budget expenditure index, thousand rubles/person;

Total debt of regions and municipalities

to tax and non-tax budget revenues,

Budget deficit to income, %

The following are taken into account as additional indicators of the region’s fiscal security:

The level of subsidies characterizing dependence on federal assistance;

The real scale of debt (debt is measured relative to budgets’ own revenues without taking into account transfers);

The share of commercial bank loans in the debt structure, showing the degree of riskiness of commercial borrowing at higher interest rates and with stricter repayment terms (Table 3).

Using the above system of indicators of budgetary and financial security, we will divide the regions into five types.

Type I (rich) - 9 regions with the highest wealth, these are the leading

oil and gas producing regions and agglomerations of federal cities. Their budgets are the most balanced, debt problems are minimal, and there are no or small deficits.

Type II (more responsible) - 12 regions with average and reduced budgetary provision and a reduced share of transfers (with the exception of Yakutia). They have a lower level of debt burden, but a deficit budget, while in a third of the regions the deficit is large, which indicates an increase in problems.

Type III (middle peasants) is the largest group of 33 regions with median values of safety indicators, divided in a 2:1 proportion taking into account the settlement factor: into regions of the main settlement zone and sparsely populated ones. Almost all regions of this group have a reduced budgetary capacity, a significant debt burden exceeding the average level for Russian regions, and a medium or large budget deficit.

Type IV (default) - 20 regions with reduced budgetary capacity, high and ultra-high debt burden, medium or large budget deficit. Although regional default in Russia is impossible for political reasons, the characteristics of the regions correspond to it.

Type V (highly subsidized) - 9 economically underdeveloped republics with the maximum level of subsidies. The indicators of per capita budget income, debt and deficit in these subjects of the Federation are average and high, but the main factor is the dynamics of transfers from the federal budget.

Taking into account the developed typology, it is expected that in 20 regions (type IV) social budget expenditures will be reduced at an accelerated pace. In another 33 regions (type III), the situation will be problematic, but dependent on the actions of regional authorities. 12 regions (type II) will approach them due to an increase in the budget deficit, likely with a general deterioration in the budget situation. In regions most dependent on federal transfers (type V), the dynamics will be determined by the policies of the federal authorities. For 9 rich regions (type I) the risks are the smallest, but they will

gradually lose the benefits of higher per capita social costs. A population accustomed to these benefits may react to cuts more sharply than residents of regions who have never had them. Losing is always more painful than not having.

The current state of regional budgets is fundamentally different from the crisis situation of 2009. Firstly, Russian regions entered a new economic crisis, which began in 2014 with unbalanced budgets and huge debts. Secondly, the regions can no longer count on support from the federal budget in an amount comparable to 2009, when transfers to them were increased by a third. In 2015, federal budget revenues were reduced, and a decision was made to sequester expenses by 10%. Regions are forced to adapt to these changes and reduce budget expenditures, including in the social sphere and employment in the public sector. Transforming the existing cost structure and changing priorities are very difficult due to the high degree of inertia of the system: accepted public regulatory obligations of budgets are almost impossible to cancel without political risks.

Thus, for economic growth and increasing the tax potential of Russian regions and municipalities, reducing the level of their subsidies in the field of interbudgetary relations, it is necessary to continue working to achieve an optimal balance between the objectively necessary equalization of budgetary security and the creation of incentives for economic and social development.

The indicator of the share of own funds in consolidated budget revenues reflects the level of financial independence of an economic entity. The threshold value is set to 75%.

The main problem of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is the insufficiency of their own revenues. For most subjects of the Federation, the largest share of income comes from gratuitous transfers. The number of subsidized regions is 70 out of 85, that is, 82% of all Russian regions are in the unprofitable zone. 74.2% of the population live in them, they occupy 87% of the state’s territory. This situation has persisted for more than 10 years in a row. That is, most of the country's regions are in a state of

chronic unprofitability. In addition, in the Russian economy there are completely subsidized federal districts. Thus, all regions of the Southern, Siberian and Far Eastern federal districts receive federal subsidies. In general, the structure of distribution of subsidies among federal districts is as follows:

Ural Federal District - 2.6%;

Northwestern Federal District - 4.5%;

Volga Federal District - 10.1%;

Central Federal District - 13.3%;

Siberian Federal District - 18.2%;

Far Eastern Federal District - 25.1%;

Southern Federal District - 26.2%.

The loss-making nature of federal districts cannot be considered a normal phenomenon.

But in addition to subsidized entities, there are 13 donor regions in the Russian Federation. These include the Republic of Tatarstan, Vologda, Leningrad, Lipetsk, Samara, Sverdlovsk, Tyumen regions, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nenets, Khanty-Mansiysk, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Perm Territory.

According to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 66% of the country's total tax potential is concentrated in 13 constituent entities of the Federation.

The problem of the consolidated budget of a constituent entity of the Federation is the issue of ensuring its own revenue base. It is necessary to stimulate industry by reducing the tax burden, but regions are forced to develop methods to increase budget revenues while simultaneously optimizing costs in order to ensure the fulfillment of their budgetary obligations.

The indicator of the ratio of public debt to own income without taking into account gratuitous receipts shows the level of debt of the region to the state and the size of this debt. The threshold value for this indicator is 20%.

As of July 1, 2015, the number of regions in which the volume of public debt exceeded the volume of their own revenues increased to 14.

The regions with the highest level of debt burden, equal to the ratio of public debt to own budget revenues, include the Kostroma region (115.9%), Smolensk region (110.4%), the Republic of Karelia (108.9%), the Republic of Khakassia (108.9%), 1%), Karachay-Cherkess Republic (107%), Transbaikal Territory (105.6%), Astrakhan Region (105%), Udmurt Republic (101.4%), Belgorod Region (101.3%), Saratov Region ( 101.2%) and the Republic of Mari El (100.4%).

A low level of debt burden - below 10% of tax and non-tax revenues - is observed only in nine Russian regions. Their composition remains virtually unchanged. These are the Nenets Autonomous Okrug and the Sakhalin Region, which do not have public debt, the Tyumen Region, St. Petersburg, the Altai Territory, the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra and Moscow. They were joined by two new ones: Sevastopol, which has no public debt, and the Republic of Crimea, which has little debt.

In general, according to the Russian Ministry of Finance, the total volume of public debt of all regions of the Russian Federation as of July 1, 2015 amounted to 2.121 trillion rubles. (Table 4).

According to experts from the rating agency RIA Rating, in 2015, the growth rate of public debt in Russian regions accelerated against the backdrop of a stagnating economy and problems with the receipt of budget taxes. The structure of public debt will gradually change due to an increase in the share of budget loans and a decrease in borrowing through debt instruments and commercial loans. However, due to limited budgetary funding, it is unlikely to expect a complete replacement of commercial loans. RIA Rating experts expect that the total public debt may increase by 25-30% over the year. In some regions, the debt situation may worsen significantly. At the same time, it should be noted that the debt is distributed over time, and some regions in an emergency situation can always count on the support of the federal center.

Fiscal and financial security is crucial for the sustainable economic and social development of individual regions and the country as a whole. Analysis of socio-economic development

regions in 2015 shows the persistence of significant differences between the most and least economically developed regions in key socio-economic indicators. The differentiation between the 10 most and 10 least financially secure subjects of the Russian Federation in terms of budgetary capabilities (before inter-budgetary equalization) was 6.8 times in 2015 (in 2014 - 6.2 times, in 2013 - 6.7 times).

Differences among regions in per capita budget expenditures in 2015 changed slightly compared to previous periods. Per capita budget expenditures show that Russia is actually divided into two unequal groups - rich regions (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tyumen, Sakhalin regions and three oil and gas refining autonomous districts) and all the rest, which differ slightly in budgetary provision, since transfers to relatively undeveloped regions are increasing to their average level.

Thus, an analysis of the budgetary and financial support of the regions showed that at present the social orientation of regional budgets has increased to the extreme and has led to an imbalance of budget revenues and expenditures in most subjects of the Federation. An extensive increase in social obligations of regional budgets is not possible; the trend will change to the opposite.

Ensuring the state and territorial integrity of the country requires the consistent implementation of the constitutional principles of building federal relations in the economy and financial sector. The country's course aimed at modernizing the economy and reforming social policy can only become effective in combination with the effectiveness of budget policy at the level of the Federation and its constituent entities.

Budgetary policy consistent with the strategic goals of Russia’s territorial development should be aimed at creating

long-term institutional incentives for regional and local authorities and management in carrying out structural reforms, ensuring sustainable development, competitiveness and economic security. Public financial management at all levels must be based on a combination of the principles of economic efficiency, fiscal responsibility, social justice and political consolidation.

In order to achieve social consensus on the distribution of financial resources between the levels of the budget system and regions, creating conditions for the effective exercise by regional and local authorities of their powers within the framework of civil society, legal and financial and economic mechanisms must be involved that increase the responsibility of governing bodies for the results of their work. policies, ensuring equal competition between regions.

Despite significant progress towards creating an effective public financial management system, all its elements operate with an insufficiently high degree of efficiency. This also applies to inter-budgetary relations and to the entire budget process, including the stages of formation, execution, accounting and control, as well as the transparency of budgets and procedures for making budget decisions, debt and asset management. The general imbalance of the state's obligations and resources in relation to GDP determines the low efficiency of the budget system.

Recent years have become a period acute crisis interbudgetary relations and regional finances as a consequence of the disproportion between significant expenditure obligations and budgetary funds concentrated at the regional and local levels, on the one hand, and the lack of responsibility for their implementation and use, on the other.

Table 1

Income and expenses of consolidated regional budgets in 2008-2014.

Revenues and expenses of consolidated budgets of regions in 2008-2014

Indicator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Revenue volume, billion rubles. 6,196 5,924 6,537 7,644 8,064 8,165 8,747

Volume of expenses, billion rubles. 6,251 6,253 6,637 7,679 8,343 8,807 9,216

Deficit, billion rubles -55 -329 -100 -35 -279 -642 -469

Income dynamics 151.7 95.6 110.3 116.9 105.5 101.2 107.1

to the previous year, %

Expense dynamics 130.2 100 106.1 115.7 108.6 105.6 104.6

to the previous year, %

* Excluding the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol

Regional fiscal policy is a separate part of the state's fiscal system, including regional budgets, regional taxes, fees, benefits, subsidies and subventions, as well as regional financial and tax relations with the “center” and, less often, with other territorial levels.

The legislation of the Russian Federation uses the following terms:

- subsidies - funds provided to the budget of another level of the budget system of the Russian Federation on a gratuitous and irrevocable basis to cover current expenses;
- subventions - funds provided to the budget of another level of the budget system of the Russian Federation or legal entity on a free and irrevocable basis for the implementation of certain targeted expenses;
- subsidies - funds provided to the budget of another level of the budget system of the Russian Federation, to an individual or legal entity on the basis of shared financing of targeted expenses.

The budgetary and tax systems of the regions of the Russian Federation accumulate about half of all budgetary and tax flows of the state, with very noticeable fluctuations in terms of expenses and revenues.

In terms of their elemental composition, regional fiscal systems are similar to national ones, differing only in their relationships. For example: taxes and fees, subsidies and subventions are present in both cases, but the state assigns and establishes them, while the regions, with varying degrees of freedom, accept them for execution and use. Regional budgetary tax systems consist of several regional subsystems of different levels; with the hierarchical construction of the territorial organization of the state (for example: if a settlement is part of a district, a district is a region, etc.), budgetary and tax relations arise between these subsystems, during are in many ways similar to state-region type relationships.

Regional fiscal systems are created and reformed to perform several interrelated functions, including the following:

1. Consolidation of a certain order of movement of budgetary and tax flows, according to the levels of the territorial organization of the state (direction of these flows, proportions of their division, intended purpose, etc.) and adequate procedures for regulating the relations arising in this regard.
2. Accumulation and use for general regional purposes of funds generated in the territory itself and entering the regional budgetary tax systems in full and through one channel (this is the majority of local taxes, fines and other financial sanctions), similarly generated funds entering these systems partially, in accordance with the accepted procedure for their distribution between fiscal systems of different levels (for example, “oil money”). Part of the funds accumulated in the higher-level fiscal system is redistributed for one reason or another in favor of lower-level regional systems (grants and subventions, as well as part of the “local funds”, which were not transferred to them by permission of higher-level systems).
3. Exercising by regional authorities and management their representative and executive powers in compliance with the requirements of formal financial independence of their policies from higher levels.
4. Self-support of intraregional social programs, i.e. budgetary satisfaction of part of the population's needs for certain vital goods and the realization of its national-ethnic interests. Despite the increasing self-sufficiency of the population and the commercialization of the social sphere, the share of the cost of relevant services financed through the channels of regional budgetary and tax systems reaches a quarter of the total income of the Russian population (net of taxes).
5. Formation of the infrastructural framework of the territory (industry of “local economy”, local roads and transport, etc.) as the most important initial condition for the formation and maintenance of intraregional connections.
6. Regulation of the state and use of natural resource and environmental potential (land, subsoil, forests, water, flora and fauna, air basin) as the natural basis for the existence and development of the territory.
7. Stimulating certain regional value guidelines of the population, creating conditions for their business activity, for structural transformations, for investment attractiveness, etc. This is a question not only of the potential for territorial development, but also of future fiscal well-being.

The main requirement for the fiscal system is the requirement for a target regional orientation of the systems under consideration, without which they turn into the lower level of the totalitarian state budgetary and tax economy.

One of the significant directions of Russian reforms launched in 1993 is decentralization in the sphere of intrastate financial relations. The formation of a budget union of the Federation (its subjects and administrative-territorial units) based on qualitatively new principles has begun.

We are talking, first of all, about the fact that fiscal relations between the “center” and the regions increasingly began to be determined by law and further regulated through dialogue. The responsibility of regional authorities and management for the direction of spending financial resources (especially in the social sphere) is noticeably strengthened, new budgetary rights of these bodies are guaranteed, and new sources of revenue appear in regional budgets.

The problem of the relationship between multi-level fiscal systems in the Russian economy has two aspects. On the one hand, the relationship between the federal budget and the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation is considered. On the other hand, there are financial relations between government bodies of the Federation and local government structures.

In general, the organization in Russia of financial relationships between budgetary and tax systems at various levels requires the solution of three interrelated issues.

1 - on what principles should responsibility for the implementation of relevant expenses be distributed between different levels of government and management.
2 - how to distribute sources of income to cover these expenses.
3 - is due to the fact that budget expenditure items and financial revenues usually do not coincide in volume.

Traditionally, there are three main approaches to solving the problem of budget division. The first of them involves the introduction of differences in tax categories. Each of the three levels (Federation, regions, local authorities) collects its own basic taxes. This income delineation scheme minimizes redistribution processes in the fiscal system and creates stable and understandable “rules of the game” between the subjects of the Federation and the center. At the same time, this scheme can be effectively implemented only if the regions are relatively homogeneous in fiscal terms. Meanwhile, in Russia the regions are heterogeneous in this regard.

The second approach is to separate income and taxes. Within the framework of the fiscal system, interest rates are fixed, according to which revenues for certain types of taxes are distributed between federal bodies and territories.

At the same time, it is also possible to combine rates: at the federal level, their own rate is introduced, at the regional level, their own. This approach opens up broad opportunities for increasing the scale of redistribution of budget resources. This encourages regions to put as much pressure on the center as possible to obtain fiscal benefits by differentiating their respective contribution rates. It is clear that the success of one region here serves as an incentive for even greater activation of others. The result is a sharp strengthening of individual regional regulation of budgetary relations.

Under pressure from regional elites, the system of unified federal taxes is gradually collapsing and ceases to serve as an integrating factor within the Federation. The fiscal system is acquiring a contractual-regional character. With all this, it should be noted that, in principle, the implementation of the second approach makes it possible to take into account the specifics of Russian regions as much as possible.

The third principle approach to the division of budgets between federal bodies and territories involves determining the percentage of payments to the federal budget from the total amount of taxes actually collected in the region. However, it is often not specified whether each territory will introduce its own tax system or use unified system, agreed between regions at the federal level. Therefore, when implementing this approach, there is precisely a danger of maximum decentralization of the federal budget while simultaneously strengthening redistribution processes and centralizing budget funds at the regional level.

The very possibility of determining the interest rate of contributions to the federal budget agreed upon with the regions is also very problematic. Exporting regions will, understandably, insist on reducing it. Regions that are relatively resource-poor and characterized by a low level of fiscal security are interested in higher interest rates deductions in order to maintain and replenish regional equalization budgetary resources, from which the needy subjects of the Federation receive very tangible support.

An important function of self-government in the region is budget policy - the direction of activity of public authorities in drawing up and executing financial plans for the country and administrative-territorial entities that are self-governing.

An important function of self-government in the region is budgetary policy. The current legal framework for regulating budgetary relations does not fully meet the requirements of regional independence. There are significant contradictions in the economic basis of tax and credit policies at both the federal and regional levels. However, the proposals of a number of authors to transform the budgets of territories (down to a separate settlement) into the main budget level, where a significant part of the region’s budget revenues would be concentrated, seem untenable. It is known that both regions and territories within regions are heterogeneous in economic potential, some are donors, others are subsidized in nature. And this is a consequence of objective factors. Establishing standards for the formation of the budget of individual territories only depending on the level of their national wealth would mean preserving this heterogeneity.

The regional budget and tax system, like all tax policies, are now subject to the greatest criticism. The main requirement for it is a targeted regional orientation, without which it simply turns into the lower level of the state budgetary and tax system. Without this, it is impossible to ensure the independence of regional governance and maintain the region’s potential at the proper level. Other requirements for the fiscal system are simplicity (accessibility to implementation), clarity (validity of construction principles), fairness (taking into account regional and state interests).

Without going into the essence of the fiscal systems of various countries, we note the importance of the principle of equalization, i.e., redistribution of income in order to support individual regions. But for regions acting as donors, this means a reduction in fiscal capacity. Taking into account the objective need to support individual (poor, depressed) regions, as well as the existing structure of the economy of regions rich in natural resources and having a higher tax potential, it is necessary to build a fiscal system on the principle of fairness, especially since the income of rich regions is ensured, essentially, at the expense of the entire country.

The fundamental issue in this order of formation of fiscal policy is the justification of the share of tax revenues, which should be centralized at all levels of government. At the federal level, this is established by law, however, some regions are seeking preferential conditions. At the regional level, the determination of the regional budget fund requires mandatory planning of the necessary funds for carrying out regional programs and financing of regional cultural, scientific, and healthcare facilities. The remainder of the regional budget (as well as the federal budget) should be distributed in proportion to the population. This approach ensures a more equitable distribution of budget funds both between and within regions than the single-channel formation of budgets from the bottom up or top down.

The main task of regional budget policy (RBP) is to create equal competitive and socially fair conditions for all administrative-territorial units of Russia in order to expand their participation in the formation of a single market for goods and services in the country. This can be done, first of all, by increasing the share in budget expenditures of investments in fixed capital of processing industries, which in turn will affect the development of the domestic market and, accordingly, domestic consumption.

The identification of this task as the main one is associated with the solution of the strategic goal - reducing the level of the country’s dependence on the sale of energy resources, which can only be achieved by moving away from the raw material orientation of the national economy, diversifying it. This goal is quite achievable, taking into account the still fairly high intellectual potential of Russians and the skills of the country’s powerful engineering corps that have not been completely wasted in recent times.

The current state of the budget, the positive balance of which is mainly associated with rising world energy prices, is causing well-founded concern not only among economists, but also, as they say, among “broad sections of the population.” According to the widely known opinion of World Bank (WB) experts, the dependence of our entire economy on the fuel and energy complex is much higher than officially reflected statistics. Thus, according to the State Statistics Committee, the oil and gas industry accounts for 9% of total GDP, and according to expert estimates from World Bank specialists, 25%. Of course, one can dispute these data, but the above-mentioned task of economic diversification is undeniable.

Revenues from the raw materials sector will remain the main budget revenue item for a long time. In this regard, the widely discussed problem of confiscation of excess income (resource rent) from oil workers deserves special consideration. Without going into complex issues of ways and means of extracting natural rent, we emphasize that the country's largest oil companies earn about $70 billion a year, that is, excess income is obvious. However, they should be confiscated in such a way as not to undermine oil workers’ incentives for self-development and thereby put budget revenues themselves at risk. One thing is certain – additional budget revenues will be received and they will be used expediently, in particular, to reduce the budget’s dependence on the fuel and energy complex.

The second component of the BPR is the orientation towards achieving a balance between sectoral and territorial development.

It should be noted that interbudgetary relations, the adoption of a law on which was unjustifiably delayed, should be closely linked with the tax system. It is also necessary to eliminate as soon as possible the imbalance of regional budgets, which is also associated with their losses as a result of a number of well-known measures within the framework of tax reform. Moreover, it is advisable to compensate for the decreased budget revenues of the regions not only through direct subsidies, but also through loans, especially since there is now enough money in the “treasury”.

The mechanism for the redistribution of budget revenues between the federal center and the regions as a whole relates to the sphere of state regional policy, which will be determined, among other things, within the framework of administrative reform, in terms of the distribution of powers between levels of government. Moreover, the extremely complex task of distributing financial resources is being solved in the context of colossal differences in the financial condition of the regions. Along with the regions that transfer 60-65% of their income to the federal budget, there are regions that cover most of their expenses from the federal budget. The federal center (Moscow) stands apart, in which up to 80% of the capital of the entire country is concentrated. That is, one of the main goals of regional policy is to find an optimal balance of federal and regional interests. One of the most important tasks of the RBP is to stimulate the use of local natural and economic resources, which will, firstly, reduce the regions’ dependence on federal subsidies, and secondly, increase revenues to the federal budget. That is, BBP should be guided by a rather simple, but often difficult to understand idea: “The more we give, the more we receive.”

The mechanism for the redistribution of financial resources can be built taking into account territorial rent, if, of course, it is possible to rationally formalize it (the rent) so as not to slide into the vicious principle of taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor (in this case, we mean the regions). In the meantime, the only clear solution to reducing the number of depressed regions is to join them with successful ones while observing democratic principles, that is, through referendums. This process, as we know, has already begun (the Perm region and the Komi-Permyak district are being united) and, most likely, will continue.

The third most important task of the BPO is to help strengthen the competitiveness and investment attractiveness of Russian regions, and the latter task must be solved taking into account the changing geopolitical situation.

– overcoming poverty through the development of a competitive economy;

– development of healthcare based on improving the health insurance system, creating competition in the medical services market;

– improving the quality of education and achieving a balance between the training of specialists and the national economic needs for them;

– maintaining the normal condition of housing, eliminating its dilapidated part and increasing the volume of construction on the basis of long-term rent, mortgage lending and other progressive forms;

– modernization of transport, electric power and housing and communal services;

– an increase in the share of budget expenditures on science, especially in areas that determine scientific and technological progress.

An important factor in solving these and other socio-economic problems is the close relationship between tax and budget policies, which makes it possible, in particular, to compensate for lost revenues of regional and local budgets and to make additional investments in structural and other reforms. The main task remains to expand the tax base and increase the degree of tax collection.

Regarding the 2004 budget, first of all, it should be noted as a positive fact that it was adopted at the end of the reporting year, and not at the beginning of the current year, as has happened in the last five years. The budget was drawn up very professionally, as evidenced primarily by its good balance, despite the fact that it provides for a reduction in the overall tax burden by 1% of GDP.

However, according to many experts, this budget is not a development budget, since it actually preserves the current socio-economic situation and is compiled according to the principle “from what has been achieved”, which was set on edge in Soviet times. Thus, in 2004, GDP growth is projected to be only 5.2%, while for its declared doubling by 2010, the average annual rate must be no less than 8%. An integral indicator of the success of budgetary, as well as general socio-economic, policy is, in our perhaps unconventional opinion, the increase in life expectancy of Russians. It is characteristic that the last year when the Russian population reproduced itself was a turning point in many respects, 1991. So, when the demographic situation finally begins to improve, mainly due to a decrease in the mortality rate, since a radical increase in the birth rate cannot be counted on, this will indicate the end of the period of instability and the beginning of a qualitative increase in the standard of living of the population. Another integral indicator related to the above is the convergence of the level of average per capita incomes of the 10% of the most and least well-off citizens of the country. So far, this ratio is 30 and 2%, respectively, of the total monetary income of the population. This seems to provide some scope for the activities of, first of all, the tax authorities.

And finally, let’s decipher the title of the abstract. All government bodies in their activities must be guided by the main national idea of all peoples - the desire for a better life in their native land.

Analysis of regional budget policy. Regional budget policy

annotation scientific article on economics and business, author of the scientific work - Zagarskikh V.V.

Related topics scientific works on economics and business, the author of the scientific work is Zagarskikh V.V.

Analysis of regional economic crisis and regional fiscal policy formation

Text of scientific work on the topic “Analysis of the regional economic crisis and the formation of regional budget policy”