Finance in Rodionova. V.M.'s view
n1.docx
Topic 1. Finance as an economic category.1. The economic essence of finance. Functions of finance.
2. Features of the formation of financial relations in Russia in the 90s.
3. Causes and consequences of the financial crisis in Russia in August 1998.
4. Foreign experience of anti-inflationary regulation and the possibility of its application in
Russia.
5. Monetary and non-monetary factors of financial stabilization.
Literature:
1997. - 336 p.
UNITY, 1995. -256 p.
6. Simanovsky A.Yu. Financial and banking sector of the Russian economy: issues
Topic 2. Budgetary system of Russia.
1. Principles of constructing the budget system of Russia. The concept of consolidated
budget.
2. Budget process and budget device.
3. Interbudgetary relations, problems of fiscal federalism.
4. Budget Code of the Russian Federation, its assessment.
Literature:
1. Budget Code of the Russian Federation. - M.: Association of Authors and Publishers
"TANDEM". Publishing house EKMOS. - 1998. - 128 p.
2. Law of the Russian Federation “On the fundamentals of the budget structure and budget process in the RSFSR” dated
17.10.91.
3. Budget process in the Russian Federation: Textbook / L.G. Baranova, O.V. Vrublevskaya and others - M.:
INFRA-M, 1998. - 222 p.
4. Assessment of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation // Questions of Economics. -1998. - No. 10.
5. Vavilov Yu.Ya. Issues of public debt in the Budget Code of the Russian Federation // Finance. -
1999. - No. 7. - p.23-26.
6. Bolshakov N.S. The need to improve the budget system // Finance. -
1999. - No. 7. - p.19-21.
7. Romanenko A.I. Implementation of the principles of fiscal federalism by authorities
Federal Treasury // Finance. - 1998. - No. 10. - p.16-19.
8. Maksimova N.S. On reforming interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation
// Finance. - 1998. - No. 6.
9. Ulyukaev A.V. System of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation // Finance. -
1998. - No. 2. - p.13-16.
10. Igudin A.G., Poponova N.A. Some_______________problems of interbudgetary relations in Germany
and Russia// Finance. - 1999. - No. 4. - p.49-53.
11. Chichelev M.E. On the restructuring of the budget system // Finance. - 1999. - No. 5. - p.21-24.
Topic 3. State budget.
1. State budget, its economic nature.
2. Budget classification, concept, composition.
3. Revenues and expenses of the Federal budget of the Russian Federation, their structure, social orientation.
4. Sources of financing the federal budget deficit.
5. Budget sequestration, concept, implementation mechanism (Russian and world experience).
Literature:
1. Federal Law on the Federal Budget for 1999 // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. - 02.25.99.
2. Federal Law on Budget Classification, 1996.
3. Federal Law on the financial foundations of local self-government in the Russian Federation // Economics
and life. - 1997.- No. 41.
4. Pankin M.A. Does Russia need sequestration? // Finance. - 1998. - No. 11. - p.12-15
5. Rodionova V.M. Modern requirements for budget legislation // Finance. -
1998. - № 7.
6. Rodionova V.M. Problems of improving budget legislation
Russian Federation // Finance. - 1997. - No. 4.
Topic 4. Organization of public finances: management and
control.
1. Financial management.
2. Financial policy of the state. Types of financial policies.
3. Financial control.
Literature:
1. Finance. Money turnover. Credit: Textbook / Ed. L.A. Drobozina. – M.:
Finance. IO "UNITY", 1997. -477 p.
2. Finance: Textbook / Ed. V.M. Rodionova. – M.: Finance and Statistics, 1995. - 431 p.
3. Dadashev A.Z., Chernik D.G. Financial system of Russia: Textbook. – M.: Infra-M,
4. Finance: Textbook / Ed. prof. A.M. Kovaleva. - M.: Finance and Statistics,
1997. - 336 p.
5. General Theory of Finance: Textbook / Ed. L.A. Drobozina. – M.: Banks and exchanges:
UNITY, 1995. -256 p.
Topic 5. Financial foundations of local government in the Russian Federation.
1. Local finance, concept, principles of formation and use.
2. Income and expenses of local budgets.
3. Basics of the formation and functioning of the FFPMO (financial support fund
municipalities in a subject of the Russian Federation).
4. Municipal loans.
Literature:
1. Federal Law on the financial foundations of local self-government in the Russian Federation // Economics
and life. - 1997.- No. 41.
2. Pronina L.I. Legislative basis of local finance // Finance. - 1998. - No. 1.
3. Pronina L.I. On local finances in the draft Budget Code // Finance. - 1998. - No.
4. A.D. Barsky., A.N. Dankov. Municipal credit in pre-revolutionary Russia // Money and
credit. - 1997. - No. 6.
5. Lvov N.V., Trunov S.A. Local finances and formation of municipal budgets
formations // Finance. - 1997. - No. 11.
6. Panskov V.G. On some problems of local financial independence
self-government // Finance. - 1999. - No. 3. - p.5-10.
7. Khristenko V.B. Problems and prospects for reforming interbudgetary relations //
Finance. - 1999. - No. 5. - p.12-17.
Topic 6. State credit.
1. The concept of state credit, essence and economic functions.
2. Forms of government credit. Classification of loans.
3. Public debt and its management.
Literature:
1. International monetary, credit and financial relations / Textbook under
ed. L.N. Krasavina. - M., 1994.
2. L. Chepurina. External log of Russia // Finance and credit. - 1998. - No. 8. - c. 5-8.
3. Volozhinskaya M.O. On the issue of Russia’s external debt // Finance. - 1999. - No. 4.
4. Kheifets B.A. Russia's external debt // Finance. - 1999. - No. 2. - p.22-25.
Topic 7. Ruble exchange rate in the formation of export
import policy of Russia.
1. Regulation of the ruble exchange rate. Domestic and foreign experience.
2. The practice of insuring currency risks in export-import transactions.
3. Inflation and exchange rate of the ruble.
Literature:
formation and use. - M., 1995.
Topic 8. Taxes in the public finance system.
1. Economic content of taxes, functions, classification.
2. Tax system of the Russian Federation, principles_______________its construction.
3. Tax systems of foreign countries.
Literature:
1. Law on the fundamentals of the tax system in the Russian Federation dated July 16, 1992. with change and additional
2. Chernik D. Taxes in a market economy. - M.: Finance, 1997.
3. Taxes: Textbook / Ed. D.G. Blueberry. – M.: Finance and Statistics, 1997. –
4. Panskov V.G. Tax burden in the Russian tax system // Finance. - 1998. - No. 11.
- c. 18-24.
Topic 9. Financial markets.
1. Financial market, concept, structure.
2. Financial instruments on stock markets (government securities,
corporate, municipal, derivative securities).
3. Professional participants at the RCB in Russia.
4. Objects of taxation on the stock market.
5. Foreign experience in regulating financial markets.
Literature:
1. Federal Law On the Securities Market dated April 22, 1996.
2. Regulations on the procedure for licensing professional activities at the Securities Market //
Economics and life - 1997.- No. 41.
3. Economics: Textbook / Ed. Assoc. A.S. Bulatova. 2nd ed. - M.: Publishing house BEK, 1997. - 816 p.
4. Feldman A. B. State securities: Educational and reference manual - M.:
Infra-M, 1995. - 240 p.
5. Feldman A.B. On derivative financial instruments // Finance. - 1998. - No. 11. - c.
6. Serebryakova L.A. World experience in regulating the securities market // Finance. - 1996. -
№1. - c. 10-17.
7. Chaldaeva L.A., Kilyachkov A.A. Financial instruments of the Russian stock market //
Finance and credit. - 1998. - No. 1. - c. 8-15.
Topic 10. Insurance in the system of financial relations.
1. The economic essence of insurance. Contents of basic concepts of insurance business.
2. Industries and types of insurance. Insurance forms.
3. Legal regulation of insurance in Russia.
4. Insurance market of the Primorsky Territory.
5. Insurance fraud.
Literature:
1. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Chapter 48).
2. Federal Law "On the organization of insurance business in Russia", 1992, as amended. and additional
3. Magazines "Insurance Business", "Insurance Review".
Topic 11. Extra-budgetary funds.
1. The economic nature of extra-budgetary funds.
2. Social_______________and economic extra-budgetary funds.
3. Income and expenses of social extra-budgetary funds:
3.1. Pension Fund.
3.2. Social Insurance Fund.
3.3. Employment Fund.
3.4. Compulsory health insurance fund.
Literature:
1. Law of the Russian Federation “On the fundamentals of the budget structure and budget process in the RSFSR” dated
17.10.91.
2. Finance: Textbook / Ed. prof. A.M. Kovaleva. - M.: Finance and Statistics,
1997. - 336 p.
3. Finance. Money turnover. Credit: Textbook / Ed. L.A. Drobozina. – M.:
Finance. IO "UNITY", 1997. -477 p.
Topic 13. Overcoming the liquidity crisis of enterprises..
1. Reasons for non-payments in the Russian economy in the late 80s and early 90s.
2. Prospects for overcoming budget debt to enterprises for payment
products and services/
3. Destabilizing actions of the management of enterprises and government bodies.
4. Criminalization of the financial and banking sectors in Russia in the 90s.
Literature:
1. Simanovsky A.Yu. Financial and banking sector of the Russian economy: issues
formation and use. - M., 1995.
2. magazines "Finance and Credit", "Money and Credit", "SOCIS".
Topic 12. International finance.
1. International finance as an economic category.
2. World monetary system.
3. World market for loan capital.
4. Supranational regulation of financial and credit relations.
Literature:
1. International monetary, credit and financial relations / Proc. manual edited by
L.N. Krasavina. - M., 1994.
2. Finance: Textbook / Ed. V.M. Rodionova. – M.: Finance and Statistics, 1995. - 431 p.
Application1.
Civil Code of the Russian Federation (part two) dated January 26, 1996 No. 14-FZ (ed.
Federal Law dated October 24, 1997 No. 133-FZ).
Chapter 48. Insurance
Article 927. Voluntary and compulsory insurance.
1. Insurance is carried out on the basis of property or personal contracts
insurance concluded by a citizen or legal entity (policyholder) with
insurance organization (insurer).
A personal insurance contract is a public contract (Article 426).
2. In cases where the law imposes an obligation on the persons specified therein to insure
as insurers of the life, health or property of others or their own
civil liability to other persons at your own expense or at the expense of
interested parties (compulsory insurance), insurance is carried out by
concluding contracts in accordance with the rules of this chapter.
For insurers, concluding insurance contracts based on those proposed by the insured
conditions is not mandatory.
3. The law may provide for cases of compulsory life insurance,
health and property of citizens at the expense of funds provided from the appropriate
budget (compulsory state insurance).
Article 928. Interests the insurance of which is not permitted.
1. Insurance of illegal interests is not allowed.
2. Insurance of losses from participation in games, lotteries and bets is not allowed.
3. Insurance of expenses to which a person may be forced for the purpose of
release of hostages.
4. The terms of insurance contracts that contradict paragraphs 1-3 of this article,
insignificant.
Article 929. Property insurance contract
1. Under a property insurance contract, one party (the insurer) undertakes to
payment stipulated by the contract (insurance premium) upon the occurrence of the stipulated
in the contract of an event (insured event) to compensate the other party (the policyholder) or
to another person in whose favor the contract was concluded (the beneficiary), caused
as a result of this event, losses in the insured property or losses in connection with
other property interests of the policyholder (pay insurance compensation) in
within the amount specified in the contract (sum insured).
2. Under a property insurance contract, they can, in particular, be insured
the following property interests:
1) the risk of loss (destruction), shortage or damage to certain property (Article
2) the risk of liability for obligations arising from causing harm
life, health or property of other persons, and in cases provided for by law,
also liability under contracts - the risk of civil liability (Articles 931 and
3) the risk of losses from business activities due to violation of their
obligations of the entrepreneur's counterparties or changes in the conditions of this activity
due to circumstances beyond the control of the entrepreneur, including the risk of non-receipt
expected income - business risk (Article 933).
Article 930. Property insurance.
1. Property may be insured under an insurance contract in favor of a person
(the policyholder or beneficiary) having based on law, other
legal act or contract, interest in preserving this property.
2. Property insurance contract concluded in the absence of the policyholder or
beneficiary's interest in preserving the insured property,
not valid.
3. A property insurance contract in favor of the beneficiary may be concluded
without indicating the name or designation of the beneficiary (insurance "at the expense of whom
follows").
Upon conclusion of such a contract, the policyholder is issued an insurance policy for
bearer. When the policyholder or beneficiary exercises the rights under
such a contract requires the submission of this policy to the insurer.
Article 931. Insurance of liability for causing harm.
1. Under the contract of insurance of the risk of liability for obligations arising
due to harm to the life, health or property of others, may be
the risk of liability of the policyholder himself or another person to whom such
liability may be assigned.
2. The person whose risk of liability for damage is insured must be
named in the insurance contract. If this person is not named in the contract, it is considered
the insured risk of liability of the policyholder himself.
3. An insurance contract for the risk of liability for causing harm is considered
concluded in favor of persons who may be harmed (beneficiaries),
even if the contract is concluded in favor of the policyholder or another person responsible for
causing harm, or the contract does not say in whose favor it was concluded.
4. In the case where liability for damage is insured due to the fact that it
insurance is mandatory, as well as in other cases provided for by law or
insurance contract for such liability, the person in whose favor it is considered
concluded an insurance contract, has the right to present directly to the insurer
claim for damages within the limits of the insured amount.
Article 932. Liability insurance under the contract.
1.Insurance of the risk of liability for breach of contract is permitted in cases where
provided by law.
2. Under an insurance contract, the risk of liability for violation of the contract may be
Only the risk of liability of the policyholder is insured. Insurance contract, not
corresponding to this requirement is negligible.
3. The risk of liability for breach of contract is considered insured in favor of
the party to whom, under the terms of this contract, the insured must bear
corresponding liability of the beneficiary, even if the contract
insurance is concluded in favor of another person or it does not indicate in whose favor it
concluded
Article 933. Business risk insurance.
Under a business risk insurance contract, it can be insured
entrepreneurial risk only for the policyholder himself and only for his benefit.
Business risk insurance contract for a person who is not the policyholder,
insignificant.
Business risk insurance contract in favor of a person other than
by the policyholder is considered to be concluded in favor of the policyholder.
Article 934. Personal insurance contract.
1. Under a personal insurance contract, one party (the insurer) undertakes to
contractual payment (insurance premium) paid by the other party
(by the policyholder), pay in one lump sum or pay periodically
the amount stipulated by the contract (insurance amount) in case of harm to life
or the health of the policyholder himself or another citizen named in the contract
(the insured person), reaching a certain age or reaching his
life of another event stipulated by the contract (insured event).
The right to receive the insurance amount belongs to the person in whose favor the contract was concluded
contract
2. The personal insurance contract is considered concluded in favor of the insured person,
if the contract does not name another person as a beneficiary. When
death of a person insured under a contract that does not specify otherwise
beneficiary, beneficiaries are the heirs of the insured
faces. Personal insurance contract in favor of a person who is not the insured
by a person, including in favor of a policyholder who is not an insured person,
can only be concluded with the written consent of the insured person. At
In the absence of such consent, the contract may be declared invalid in a lawsuit
the insured person, and in the event of the death of this person - at the claim of his heirs.
Article 935. Compulsory insurance.
1. The law may impose on the persons specified therein the obligation to insure:
life, health or property of other persons specified by law in case of harm
harm to their life, health or property;
the risk of their civil liability, which may arise as a result of
causing harm to the life, health or property of others or violation of contracts
with other persons.
2. The obligation to insure one’s life or health cannot be assigned to
citizen by law.
3. In cases provided for by law or in the manner established by it, on legal
persons who have property under economic control or operational management,
being state or municipal property, may be
is obliged to insure this property.
4. In cases where the obligation to insurance does not arise from the law, but is based on
agreement, including the obligation to insure property - under an agreement with the owner
property or on the constituent documents of a legal entity that is
owner of the property, such insurance is not mandatory in the sense
of this article and does not entail the consequences provided for in Article 937 of this
Code.
Article 936. Implementation of compulsory insurance.
1. Compulsory insurance is carried out by concluding an insurance contract
the person charged with such insurance (the policyholder), with
insurer.
2. Compulsory insurance is carried out at the expense of the policyholder, with the exception of
compulsory insurance of passengers, which in cases provided for by law
may be carried out at their expense.
3. Objects subject to compulsory insurance, risks against which they must
be insured, and the minimum amounts of insurance are determined by law, and in
in the case provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 935 of this Code, by law or in
the order established by him.
Article 937. Consequences of violating the rules on compulsory insurance.
1. A person in whose favor, according to the law, a mandatory obligation must be carried out
insurance, has the right, if he knows that insurance has not been carried out, to demand
in a judicial manner, its implementation by the person entrusted with the duty
insurance.
2. If the person entrusted with the obligation of insurance has not carried it out or
entered into an insurance contract on terms that worsen the situation
beneficiary in comparison with the conditions determined by law, it is
upon the occurrence of an insured event, is liable to the beneficiary for
the same conditions under which the insurance compensation should have been paid in case of
proper insurance.
3. Amounts unjustifiably saved by the person charged with responsibility
insurance, due to the fact that it did not fulfill this obligation or fulfilled it
improperly, are recovered at the request of the state insurance authorities
supervision into the income of the Russian Federation with the accrual of interest on these amounts in
in accordance with Article 395 of this Code.
Article 938. Insurer.
Legal entities may enter into insurance contracts as insurers,
having permits (licenses) to carry out insurance of the relevant type.
Requirements that insurance organizations must meet, licensing procedures
their activities and the implementation of state supervision over these activities
determined by insurance laws.
Article 939. Fulfillment of obligations under the insurance contract by the insured and
beneficiary.
1. Conclusion of an insurance contract in favor of the beneficiary, including when
when it is the insured person, does not relieve the policyholder from fulfilling
obligations under this agreement, unless otherwise provided by the agreement or
the obligations of the policyholder are fulfilled by the person in whose favor the contract is concluded.
2. The insurer has the right to demand from the beneficiary, including when
the beneficiary is the insured person who fulfills his obligations under
insurance contract, including the responsibilities of the policyholder, but not
fulfilled by him, upon presentation by the beneficiary of a demand for payment
insurance compensation under a property insurance contract or the insured amount
under a personal insurance contract. Risk of consequences of non-compliance or
failure to timely perform duties that should have been performed
earlier, is borne by the beneficiary.
Article 940. Form of insurance contract.
1. The insurance contract must be concluded in writing. Non-compliance
written form entails the invalidity of the insurance contract, with the exception of
compulsory state insurance agreement (Article 969).
2.An insurance contract can be concluded by drawing up one document
(clause 2 of Article 434) or delivery by the insurer to the insured on the basis of his
written or oral statement of the insurance policy (certificate,
receipt) signed by the insurer.
In the latter case, the consent of the policyholder to enter into an agreement on the proposed
the insurer's conditions are confirmed by acceptance from the insurer specified in paragraph
the first of this paragraph of documents.
3. When concluding an insurance contract, the insurer has the right to apply the developed
them or an association of insurers standard forms of agreement (insurance policy)
for certain types of insurance.
Article 941. Insurance under a general policy.
1.Systematic insurance of different consignments of homogeneous property (goods, cargo
etc.) on similar conditions for a certain period may, by agreement
the policyholder and the insurer shall be carried out on the basis of one contract
insurance - general policy.
2. The policyholder is obliged in relation to each batch of property falling under
the validity of the general policy, inform the insurer of the conditions stipulated by such policy
information within the period specified by him, and if it is not provided, immediately upon their
receiving. The policyholder is not released from this obligation, even if by the time
obtaining such information the possibility of damages subject to compensation
insurer has already passed.
3. At the request of the policyholder, the insurer is obliged to issue insurance policies according to
individual lots of property covered by the general policy. IN
in case of discrepancy between the contents of the insurance policy and the general policy
preference is given to an insurance policy.
Article 942. Essential terms of the insurance contract
1. When concluding a property insurance contract between the policyholder and
The insurer must reach an agreement:
1) about certain property or other property interest that is
object of insurance;
2) about the nature of the event for the occurrence of which insurance is provided
(insured event);
3) about the amount of the insured amount;
4) about the duration of the contract.
2. When concluding a personal insurance contract between the policyholder and the insurer
an agreement must be reached:
1) about the insured person;
2) about the nature of the event, in case of occurrence of which in the life of the insured person
insurance is carried out (insured event);
3) about the amount of the insured amount;
4) about the duration of the contract.
Article 943. Determination of the terms of the insurance contract in the insurance rules.
1.The conditions under which the insurance contract is concluded may be determined in
standard rules of insurance of the relevant type, adopted, approved or
the composition of finance is the entire set of monetary distribution relations that arise at all stages of the reproduction process.
The main argument of supporters of the reproductive concept is that without finance the production process itself cannot be carried out and therefore it is incorrect to classify finance as a distribution category. But supporters of the distribution concept do not at all deny the fact that finance actively influences the entire reproduction process. Moreover, one of the most prominent supporters of the distribution concept V.M. Rodionova writes that finance is a category of reproduction, and the statement about the emergence and functioning of finance is intended only to emphasize the place and boundaries of the action of financial relations, their specificity in the system of economic relations, and not the area and directions of their influence.9 It is difficult to disagree with this statement, since since the distribution stage has an active influence on all other stages of the reproduction process, then finance, being a distribution category, cannot but influence and actively influence the entire reproduction process.
Questions about the boundaries of financial relations that determine the internal content of this category are controversial. Some authors limit finance only to redistribution relations, equating financial relations mainly with budgetary ones. Such a point of view could have the right to exist only in the first stages of the emergence of finance, when there was no finance for enterprises, extra-budgetary funds, government credit and other parts of the financial system. Currently, it is thanks to finance that the primary distribution of the social product is carried out and monetary funds are formed, without which the reproduction process is impossible.
There is also an opinion that credit relations are part of financial relations. However, despite the similarity of these two categories and their related economic nature, credit is still an independent economic category and has a different essence and performs other functions. Credit, like finance, operates at the distribution stage, and the condition for its existence is
9 Finance. Textbook ed. prof. V.M. Rodionova. M.: Finance and Statistics, 1992. P.26.
is the presence of commodity-money relations in society. But the main principles of lending are repayment, urgency and payment, while finance generally operates on the opposite principles (excluding budget lending). With the help of finance, the total social product and national income are distributed, and with the help of credit, temporarily free funds are redistributed on the principles of lending.
The issue of classifying financial relations related to the formation, issuance and use of wages is also discussed. For example, Rodionova V.M. believes that the main difference between the relations associated with the formation, issuance and use of wages and financial relations is the two-way nature of the movement of value. First, the employee gives his labor, and then receives wages in equal amounts.10 According to Sabanti B.M., “Finance is always a monetary relationship in which the state is one of the subjects. … When a worker receives payment for his work, then this relationship between the worker and the employer is not financial.”11 At the same time, P.I. Vakhrin, A.S. Neshitoy, N.P. Barannikova, N.I. Strokova and other authors, considering groups of financial relations, identify as a separate group the relations between enterprises and employees when paying wages
boards.12 The next group of discussions are discussions about the functions
finance. In the literature, you can count more than ten functions of finance. The most common functions are distribution, control, reproduction, stimulation, formation of funds of funds, redistribution, maintenance of the circulation of funds, formation of cash income and savings, use of funds of funds, regulatory, stabilization and others.
Most economists, among other functions, name two functions of finance: distribution and control. For example, Rodionova V.M. highlights only these functions. Drobozina L.A. In addition to them, he also calls regulating and stabilizing. Arkhipov A.I. and Senchagov V.K. add the stimulating function of finance. However
10 Finance. Textbook ed. prof. V.M. Rodionova. M.: Finance and Statistics, 1992, p. 14
11 Sabanti B.M. Theory of finance. Tutorial. M.: Manager. 2000, pp. 5.
12 Vakhrin P.I., Neshitoy A.S. Finance. Textbook. M.: ICC “Marketing”. 2000, p. 15.
there are other approaches. So, for example, A.I. Balabanov and I.T. Balabanov believe that in a market economy, finance has lost its distribution purpose. Their purpose was the impact of the financial mechanism on the efficiency of the economic process. In their opinion: “To consider that finance in a market economy performs a distribution function is the same as believing that the salary that a person spends on various needs performs a distribution function.”13 Lavrushin O.I. denies the control function of finance, believing that “the control point in financial relations cannot claim specificity, since control (or rather stimulating) motives are characteristic of all economic relations...Financial control is rather the role of a financial institution, rather than the function of finance as an economic
“Not only finance, but also almost all other categories – price, wages, profit, etc. – have a stimulating, distribution function. The social purpose of finance as an economic category is expressed in three functions: the formation of monetary funds (income), the use of monetary funds, control (with known
reservations)"15 However, when studying the question of the functions of finance, it is quite
often the functions of finance are replaced by their role in social reproduction. This interpretation distorts the meaning of the concept “function”. Since the function of an economic category reflects the essence of this category in action, expresses its social purpose, the function must reflect the specificity of this category and reveal its economic nature. From this point of view, finance performs two functions: distribution and control. Both of these functions reflect the essence of finance and the direction of its action in practice within the framework of financial relations. As for other functions, we can say that finance really actively influences reproduction; with their help it is possible to stimulate development or collapse
13 Balabanov A., Balabanov I. Finance. Saint Petersburg. 2000, p. 14.
14 Questions of the essence and functions of finance in the system of industrial relations of socialism. M.: 1988, p. 38.
15 Finance, money circulation and credit. Textbook ed. M.V. Romanovsky, O.V. Vrublevskaya. M.: Jurayt. 2001 P. 56.
economic processes, without finance it is impossible to form monetary income and savings, etc., but all these processes are connected with finance through distribution and control functions. For example, cash income and savings are only the material embodiment of finance, realized through the action of the distribution function of finance.
The third group of discussions covers issues of subjectivity (objectivity) of finance and the influence of the state on financial relations. For example, Voznesensky E.A. writes about the imperativeness of finance, understanding imperativeness as the unilateral expression of the will of the state. Sabanti B.M. considers finance as a system of monetary relations that are imperative in nature and express the process of redistribution of income and funds of participants in reproduction in accordance with the social policy of the state. A similar position is taken by Vrublevskaya O.V., Romanovsky M.V. Lavrushin O.I. believes that the position of imperativeness of finance is vulnerable and that finance is obligatory (mandatory), indispensable in nature. However, the obligatory nature of finance, according to O.I. Lavrushina, this is more than a form; these features relate to their deep qualities, to the essence of financial relations.16 All of the above terms (imperative, obligatory, indispensable) mean a certain degree of influence and role of the state in organizing financial relations.
Some publications emphasize that the direct cause of the emergence of finance is the activity of the state and its bodies and that it is the state that creates new distributive financial relations. It is difficult to agree with this position. Of course, the state has an active influence on finances and their emergence is associated with the emergence and development of statehood. But the state influences only the forms of manifestation of finance; this category itself is objective and exists regardless of the will of the state. The existence of finance is explained by the objective needs of society in this category.
16 Lavrushin O.I. On the essence of finance in a socialist society. Finances of the USSR. 1987 No. 3. P. 53-59.
A schematic grouping of controversial issues in the theory of finance is shown in Table 2.
table 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discussion groups on the economic nature of finance |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. The essence of finance and the boundaries of financial relations |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.1 Concepts of the essence of finance |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution |
Reproductive |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Finance arises at the second stage of the reproduction process - when |
The composition of finance includes the entire set of monetary |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
distribution of the value of the total social product. |
distribution relations arising at all stages |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
reproductive process. (the exchange stage is mainly discussed) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.2. Discussions regarding groups (borders) of financial relations |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Finance is limited only to redistribution |
Credit relations are part |
Relationships associated with the formation, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
relationships (financial relationships are equivalent to |
financial relations |
issuance and use of wages |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mainly for budget ones) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2. Functions of finance |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vakhrin P.I., Molyakov D.S. |
Distribution |
Control |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rodionova V.M., |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zlobin I.T. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drobozina L.A. |
Distribution |
Control |
Regulatory |
Stabilization |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arkhipov A.I. And |
Distribution |
Control |
Stimulating |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senchagov V.K. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Romanovsky M.V. And |
Formation of monetary funds |
Use of funds |
Control (with known reservations) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vrublevskaya O.V. |
(income) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balabanov A.I. And |
They believe that in a market economy, finance has lost its distributional significance; they highlight the same functions as |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balabanov I.T. |
as Romanovsky M.V. and Vrublevskaya O.V. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lavrushin O.I. |
Denies the control function of finance, believing that “the control point in financial relations cannot |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
claim specificity, since control motives are characteristic of all economic relations... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial control is more of a financial institution’s role.” |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reproductive |
Redistributive |
Service |
Money education |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
circulation of funds |
income and savings |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3. Subjectivity of finance and the influence of the state on financial relations |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Voznesensky E.A. |
Finance is imperative. Imperativeness is a unilateral expression of the will of the state. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sabanti B.M. |
Finance is a system of monetary relations that are imperative in nature and express the process of redistribution of income and |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
funds of reproduction participants in accordance with the social policy of the state. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lavrushin O.I. |
The position of imperativeness of finance is vulnerable, finance is obligatory (obligatory, indemnified in nature.) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rodionova V.M. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Samsonov N.F. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5. The role of finance in the socio-economic development of society
The role and importance of finance changed at different stages of the development of society. The importance of finance increases many times during the transition from command-administrative to market economic conditions. Excessive regulation of the financial and economic activities of enterprises disappears, freedom appears to choose the directions of use of funds, the proportions of their distribution, forms of payment for supplied inventory and products sold. Business entities, the population and the state can become participants in the financial market with the right to choose a counterparty. The scope of financial relations is significantly expanding, new financial instruments are appearing.
IN market conditions, enterprises are endowed with greater independence in the distribution of sales proceeds and the use of financial resources. During primary distribution, with the help of finance, funds are created to compensate for the means of production consumed in the production process. In this case, enterprises can choose one of several methods for calculating depreciation, a form of non-cash payments when paying for raw materials, calculate the optimal working capital reserve, choose a strategy for financing core activities, and use other financial methods and instruments that ultimately influence the results of the enterprise’s economic activities.
After deducting the expense reimbursement fund from cash proceeds and paying certain tax payments, enterprises create a wage fund, and the remainder of the proceeds represents the net income (profit) of the enterprise. After paying tax payments levied on profits to the budget, enterprises can distribute the remaining net profit at their discretion. With the help of finance, enterprises create trust funds of funds used for social and economic development.
IN In the course of secondary distribution or redistribution, the state budget and extra-budgetary funds are formed, which are certainly of no small importance for the country’s economy. With the help of these funds, financial regulation and stimulation of production are carried out, national programs, maintenance of the non-production sphere, defense and management are financed, and the concentration of financial resources is achieved in the main areas scientific and technological progress.
Serving the process of national income distribution, finance
act as an important economic lever for improvement
proportions between the accumulation fund and the consumption fund, as well as within them. With the help of finance, financial resources are redistributed between the territories of the country, sectors of the economy, divisions I and II of social production. By redistributing between sectors of production, finance contributes to the accelerated development of priority sectors, which, in turn, ensure the development of scientific and technological progress; the redistribution of funds between territories helps to equalize their economic and social development.
Without the participation of finance, social development of society is impossible, since funds to finance all social activities are obtained through the distribution of national income through the budget and social extra-budgetary funds. The entire non-production sphere is financed from the budget, and funds are allocated for social security.
In modern conditions, the role of finance in the socio-economic development of society is manifested in the following main areas:
- activation of the policy of accumulation of domestic capital;
- using budget and tax policies to strengthen the economy and its development;
- state support for industrial investments and financing of investment programs that ensure the preservation
and development of the country's scientific and technical potential;
- use of financial market opportunities for production investment purposes;
- strengthening the social orientation of the state budget;
- achieving social justice in relation to various categories, layers and social groups of citizens.
6. Finance in foreign economic theories
The genesis of the science of finance goes back several centuries. The topics of work by foreign authors in the field of finance are devoted mainly to public finance. The finances of business entities, or more precisely, the finances of corporations, are considered in such a science as financial management. In modern foreign financial literature, as a rule, questions of the essence and functions of finance as an economic category are not considered; only aspects of the practical application of finance, financial policy and its implementation through the financial mechanism are studied.
However, some works discuss theoretical aspects of the essence and functions of finance. Among the discussions of Western economists on the problems of the essence of finance, two can be distinguished:
the most general concepts: supporters of the first consider finance as an element of the basis; supporters of the second consider finance to be an element of the superstructure. The main issue of discussion is the question of the objectivity or subjectivity of finance and its role in the creation and functioning of the state.
Foreign authors name various functions of finance, for example, just like in domestic literature, the distribution and control functions are often mentioned. In addition, foreign authors highlight such a function of finance as ensuring the existence of the state. This function serves to fulfill the state’s functions and is implemented through the financial system by creating centralized funds of funds, their distribution and use.
A. Smith, D. Ricardo, J. Keynes, A. Lerner, E. Hansen, F. Hayek, J. Schumpeter, R. Harrod, P. Samuelson, G. Myrdal, M. paid great attention to financial issues in their works. Friedman, R. Lucas, et al.
From the middle to almost the end of the 19th century, financial science was influenced by Marxist teachings. K. Marx and F. Engels do not have large special works devoted to state finances, but many financial problems of capitalism are reflected in a number of major works and numerous articles devoted to the characteristics of English, Prussian and French budgets. K. Marx denied the ability of the state and its finances to change the relationship between profit, interest, rent and wages. When analyzing cyclical crises of overproduction, K. Marx did not allow them to be weakened with the help of economic, including financial, policy of the state.
K. Marx and F. Engels also studied Russian finances. Scientists paid special attention to the financial state of the country after the abolition of serfdom. They noted that the financial state of the country in the second half of the 19th century reminded them of pre-revolutionary France. K. Marx called members of the Russian government “alchemists of Russian finance,” and F. Engels wrote: “Russian budgets are not worth the paper on which they are written.”17
The late 19th and early 20th centuries are characterized by the spread of marginal utility theory as a reaction to Marxist teaching. It also affected the financial sector. Its representatives, despite the wide variety in assessments, opposed the labor theory of value, replacing it with an analysis of price determined by buyer preferences.
17 Marx K., Engels F. Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 36. P. 316.
The most important financial categories - government spending and taxes - were viewed by them as numerous individual transactions between the state and private individuals. In this case, the marginal utility of government services must be combined with the marginal utility of taxes.
Before the First World War, economic science, generally adhering to the principle of free enterprise, opposed the intervention of the state and its finances in the country's economy. Regulation of production and distribution began to be carried out already during the First World War. This process intensified during the years of the global economic crisis of 1929-1933. The need of capitalist production for state regulation was the impetus for the emergence of the economic theory of the English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). J. Keynes developed a fundamentally new theory of finance aimed at regulating the economy in conditions of monopolization of production. The followers of J. Keynes in the 50s and 60s introduced a dynamic element into his theory, which made it possible to create a theory of economic growth.
Simultaneously with the theories of neo-Keynesians, in the post-war years (especially from the mid-50s), neoclassical theories were revived, promoting the ideas of free enterprise with limited government regulation.
As reproduction conditions deteriorate and inflationary trends intensify, criticism of the Keynesian and neo-Keynesian movements, which were held responsible for economic difficulties, increases. Given such a difficult economic situation, a neoconservative movement emerged from the neoclassical school, which develops the theory of “supply-side economics.” Its financial concept is based on the fact that economic growth is determined by savings and savings.
Questions for self-control:
1. In what socio-economic formations does finance exist and why?
2. Name the specific features of finance as an economic category.
3. What groups of financial relations do you know?
4. Name the conditions for the existence of finance.
5. What is the need for the existence of finance?
6. What centralized and decentralized funds of funds are created through finance?
7. Name the functions of finance and describe them.
8. What is the essence of the distributive concept of the essence of finance?
9. What is the essence of the reproductive concept of the essence of finance?
10. What functions can be identified in finance, in your opinion? Why?
11. Justify the classification of finances into the objective (subjective) category.
12. Which groups of monetary relations do you consider financial?
13. Compare economic, monetary and financial relations. Give examples for each group of relationships.
14. Compare several definitions of finance and present your own position.
15. Justify the role of finance in the economic and social development of society and its increase in a market economy.
16. Compare the interpretation of financial issues in various foreign economic theories.
Each new step in understanding the essence of any scientific concept, including the concept of “finance,” necessitates theoretical research, the absence of which leads to stagnation in the relevant branch of knowledge.
According to V.M. Rodionova, Honored Worker of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Economic Sciences, the development of the essence of finance remained at the level of understanding characteristic of domestic science in the 80s of the last century. It was then that certain progress was achieved in understanding the essence of finance, for example, finance was no longer considered as money, but was defined as economic monetary relations. But there was no consensus on the economic nature of the category of finance and its essential features.
V.M. Rodionova devoted the article “The Essence of Finance and Their Role in a Market Economy” to the problem of studying the essence of finance, which was published in the magazine “Finance” No. 6 for 2010. In his article, the author also agrees with economists that finance and money are not identical, but have a common origin. She notes that the monetary nature of finance in itself is not sufficient to characterize the essence of the economic category and reveal its specifics. Other features are also needed that reflect the specifics of finance and allow one to isolate financial relations from the entire set of monetary relations.
One of these signs is the distributive nature of finance, because financial relations, unlike other monetary ones, appear only at the second stage of the reproduction process, or rather during the distribution of value in its monetary form. Such a special place is given to the second stage because at the first and last stages (production and consumption) of this process there is no real movement of funds, therefore, they cannot be the place where financial relations arise. At the production stage, a real movement of value occurs - its sequential transition from the commodity form to the productive form, and then again to the commodity form. There is a transfer of cost to finished goods, but no real cash flow occurs. We can observe the same situation at the last stage of the reproduction process, when value is consumed in its natural material form. Following this concept, V.M. Rodionova argues that there is an inappropriateness in the statement that the essence of finance is represented as economic relations associated with the creation, distribution and redistribution of a social product.
The real movement of funds occurs at the second and third stages of the reproduction process, i.e. in distribution and exchange. At these stages, the distribution of the social product is carried out in two forms: commodity and value. Moreover, the distribution of the commodity form of the social product, which occurs in the third form of this process, is mediated by the distribution of the monetary form of value, which occurs in the second stage. The distribution of the monetary form of value precedes the distribution of the commodity form of the product, creating the necessary conditions and prerequisites for the movement of goods. But it can also be noted that it is impossible to attribute both stages to the sphere of the emergence of finance, because The nature of the movement of the monetary form of value at stages is different.
An important feature of finance, which distinguishes it from other distribution categories, and at the same time is a specific essential feature, is that financial relations are always associated with the formation in the hands of business entities and authorities of monetary income and savings, used for the formation of monetary funds or for expenses in non-fund form based on one-way movement of value.
The distribution and redistribution of value with the help of finance is necessarily accompanied by the movement of funds, which take the specific form of financial resources, and trade turnover is mediated by funds. Financial resources are generated by business entities and government entities through various types of cash income, deductions and receipts, and are used for expanded reproduction, material incentives for workers, and satisfaction of social and other needs of society.
The real formation of financial resources begins at the distribution stage, when the value is realized and specific economic forms of the realized value are identified as part of the proceeds.
The connection between cash and financial resources is similar to that between monetary and financial relations: the latter are always part of the former.
Finance actively influences the production process due to the fact that “distribution is a method, a tool, a means for increasing production” Lenin V.I. Full Collection. Soch., vol. 43, p. 359.. The influence of finance can be both quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative influence is characterized by the proportions of mobilized and used financial resources, the scale of the generated monetary funds. By changing the size of monetary funds, it is possible to influence production in the desired direction: to accelerate the development of individual structural divisions of the economy by creating the most favorable financial conditions, and also to somewhat slow down the rate of this growth by diverting financial resources for other purposes.
The qualitative side of the influence of finance on production is associated with the transformation of forms of mobilization of financial resources, mechanisms for the formation and use of monetary funds into incentives for economic development and increasing its efficiency. An example is the establishment of the size of economic incentive funds depending on the fulfillment of municipal orders; it is possible to stimulate the production of products needed by the population. The redistribution of resources in sectoral and territorial terms creates conditions for progressive changes in the structure of production, increased investment, innovation, and increased production efficiency. This is also the influence of finance on production.
The impact of finance on social production can be carried out in three main areas, which include:
- · Financial support for the needs of expanded reproduction;
- · Financial regulation of economic and social processes;
- · Financial incentives for better performance.
Within the framework of these areas, it is necessary to determine and evaluate the results obtained; they reflect the role of finance in social production. This role may vary depending on changes in the real conditions in which finance operates, the directions of its impact on social production, the linkage of finance with other distribution categories, etc.
The presence of debatable problems and “blank spots” in the study of basic issues of financial science necessitate further development of theoretical problems of the essence and functions of finance. A deeper study of the economic nature of finance and its corresponding properties will allow us to more actively develop ways to better use this category in practice.
FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL OF FINANCE
V.m. RODIONOVA
Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Economics, Professor,
director of the center for the study of financial problems
Institute of Financial Markets and Applied Economics of the Financial Academy
A scientific school is an established form of joint scientific activity of a team of researchers of different ages and qualifications, united by a common direction of work and led by a recognized leader who has not only scientific, but also personal authority. Of utmost importance for the formation of a scientific school is the scientific idea put forward by the leader and receiving implementation and further development in relevant research programs.
There are three types of scientific schools in the system of higher professional education; In the real life of universities, as a rule, a type of scientific school is formed that represents at the same time a scientific direction, a research team, and a scientific and educational unit. It is no coincidence that many university scientific schools were initially formed within the framework of departments (as the main scientific and educational unit of the system of higher professional education), and then “grew” with laboratories, research centers, temporary creative teams and other organizational structures. A scientific school of a modern type can also include those scientists who are not full-time employees of the corresponding university, but continue to maintain informal connections with their “alma mater” and the scientific school that nurtured them;
acting as active disseminators of the ideas of their scientific school, they continue to develop these ideas and implement them.
The history of the emergence and process of functioning of each scientific school is unique and unique, just as the conditions for creating a large, especially leading university and its structural divisions (departments, laboratories, research centers, etc.) are specific and unique. At the same time, the formation of any scientific school is closely connected with the state and development of the corresponding branch of science. It is the state of science that predetermines the theoretical basis of research carried out by a particular scientific school; at the same time, the level of development of current problems by the school affects the emergence of new scientific ideas, their justification and the speed of dissemination.
The formation of a scientific school of finance within the framework of MFEI - MFI - FA1 took place synchronously with the development of domestic financial science; At the same time, four successive stages2 can be distinguished in the development of the scientific school, each of which is marked by its own discoveries and achievements, in-depth and original research into current theoretical and practical problems.
The first stage covers the period from the creation of the scientific school of finance to the end of the 40s of the twentieth century. The beginning of the formation of a scientific school dates back to
1 The history of the current Financial Academy begins in 1919, when the Moscow Financial and Economic Institute (MFEI) was created; in 1946, two universities merged - MFEI and the Moscow Credit and Economic Institute - and the Moscow Financial Institute (MFI) was formed, subsequently transformed into the Financial Academy (FA).
2 It was not the author’s task to accurately reproduce the stages of development of financial science in Russia over the entire period of its existence as an independent state. The author was only interested in the time period that determined the emergence and development of the scientific school of finance within the framework of the MFEI-MFI-FA.
This is the period of the 30s of the twentieth century, when such prominent scientists with extensive practical experience as Boldyrev G.I., Lyubimov N.N., Plotnikov K.N., came to the university and formed the core of its teaching staff, Rovinsky N.N. and others. They became not only brilliant teachers, but also major scientists and researchers, whom the state actively involved in expert and analytical work.
Prof. is rightfully considered the founder of the scientific school of finance. Rovinsky N.N. - professional, erudite, leader of scientific developments, who in 1940 successfully defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economic Sciences on problems of the state budget. It was he who became the first director of the Moscow Financial Institute (after the merger of MFEI and MKEI); under him, MFI turned into a leading university for training highly qualified financiers. Complex of works of Rovinsky N.N. formed the core of the scientific school of finance and served as a theoretical basis for further research in the field of the state budget.
The first stage in the evolution of the scientific school of finance at IFIs corresponds to the period of formation of Soviet financial science. At this time, the dominant view was of finance as funds mobilized and used by the state. This view was reflected in the definitions given to finance in encyclopedic publications1 and educational literature of those years2.
The second stage in the history of the formation of the scientific school of IFI finance covers the period from the late 40s to the early 60s of the last century. At this stage, the interpretation of finance as economic relations is gradually gaining general recognition. For the first time such a view on the essence of finance was expressed by V.P. Dyachenko. in 1946 in the work “General Teaching on Soviet Finance”; Later, in the articles “On the nature and functions of Soviet finance” and “On the question of the essence and functions of Soviet finance,” he justifiably criticized the position according to which finance is a collection of funds.
And although the ideas put forward by V.P. Dyachenko did not immediately win, nevertheless, the view of finance as economic monetary relations gradually gained recognition from the scientific community, and by the beginning of the 60s this interpretation of finance became generally accepted.
The view of finance as economic monetary relations was a great step forward not only in the development of financial science; it also affected the scientific school of the IFI, which began to occupy a leading position among researchers of problems in the theory of finance and the practice of their use. It was during this period that Prof. Rovinsky N.N., who headed the Moscow Financial Institute (1946-1953), publishes the largest of his works on the country’s financial system, financial control, financial law, and the state budget. Scientific developments and publications of prof. Rovinsky N.N., his associates and followers brought the scientific school of IFI finance to the forefront of economic science.
A new look at the essence of finance allowed us to begin extensive research into the specifics of this category, identifying its properties that would allow us to distinguish finance from other monetary relations. After all, according to V.P. Dyachenko, “classifying finance to the area of monetary relations does not mean that all monetary relations constitute finance...”^ V.P. Dyachenko himself. clearly distinguished between financial and other monetary relations proper, and clearly saw the boundaries of finance in the sphere of commodity-money relations.
The intensification of scientific research based on the theoretical principles put forward by V.P. Dyachenko led to the appearance of a number of large monographic works by both representatives of the IFI scientific school and other scientific schools. In the period of the 50-60s, such famous scientists as Aleksandrov A.M., Allahverdyan D.A., Birman A.M., Voznesensky E.A. published their works on theoretical problems of finance. etc. They cover a wide range of issues: the boundaries of financial relations, the place of finance in the economic structure of society, the specific (distinctive) features of finance as an economic category, the functions performed by finance, etc.
Despite theoretical discussions that took place widely in printed publications and at scientific conferences, the fundamental issues of finance theory in the 60s of the last century remained not fully resolved. The main object of debate remained the question of what is the economic nature of finance, what types of monetary relations should be classified in this category. Depending on the answers, the essence of finance began to be interpreted differently; This is how the emergence of two theoretical con-
1 Small Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: 1932, vol. 9, p. 320 - 321; M., 1947, t. 11, p. 200; and etc.
2 Aleksandrova A.M. : Finance and credit in the USSR. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1948, p.38; and etc.
3 Dyachenko V.P., Commodity-money relations and finance under socialism. - M.: Nauka, 1974, p.126.
concepts - distribution and reproduction, which received their design and development at the third stage, in the period of the 60-80s.
The third stage in the history of the development of the IFI scientific school, reflecting the corresponding stage in the development of financial science, lasted until the early 90s of the twentieth century, i.e. before the start of market reforms. This period was marked by the appearance of a large number of publications in which the authors of two theoretical concepts tried to develop and substantiate their positions.
The author of the distributive interpretation of the essence of finance is Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences V.P. Dyachenko. defined finance as “...the area of distribution relations that mediate the movement of value”1. His followers, who developed this scientific direction, were such representatives of the scientific school of IFI finance as prof. Allahverdyan D.A., prof. Garetovskiy N.V., prof. Zlobin I.D., prof. Shermenev M.K., prof. Rodionova V.M. and etc.; All of them in their works proved that finance arises at the second stage of social reproduction - in the process of distributing the value of the social product (in its monetary form), that it is the distributive nature of finance that reflects its place and role in a number of other value categories of commodity production.
In textbooks on finance prepared by MFI author teams under the guidance of prof. Allahverdyan D.A. (1963), prof. Zlobina I.D. (1967, 1971, 1975), prof. Shermeneva M.K. (1977), prof. Garetovsky N.V. (1985), in the textbooks “Debatable issues of the essence and functions of Soviet finance” (1984) and “Questions of the essence and functions of Soviet finance” (1987). it was emphasized that on the surface of economic processes, finance manifests itself as monetary relations associated with the movement of funds. However, the monetary nature of financial relations, being a generic feature of finance, is insufficient to characterize the essence of this economic category and reveal its specificity in relation to other, related categories.
Representatives of the IFI scientific school, sharing the views of other supporters of the distribution concept2, consistently argued that although finance is derived from money, which is a prerequisite for its existence,
less, they are not identical to money; Therefore, finance is necessarily monetary relations, but by no means all and not any monetary relations. It follows from this, IFI scientists argued, that the generic feature of finance - its monetary nature - is not enough to characterize the essence of this economic category; other signs are needed that reflect the specific properties of finance, which would make it possible to isolate finance from the entirety of monetary relations.
In their works, representatives of the scientific school of finance tried to convincingly prove that finance does not arise either at the production stage or at the consumption stage of the reproduction process; they are not present in exchange either, since the exchange operations themselves (T-M and M-T) are carried out thanks to an intermediary other than finance - money, which, as a universal equivalent, serves the process of circulation of goods. Only at one of the stages of the reproduction process - the stage of cost distribution - does a special type of monetary relations appear that have specific properties: these monetary relations are necessarily accompanied by real cash flows (in cash or non-cash form).
To prove the correctness of this view of the economic essence of finance, one can cite the statement of Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences S.A. Sitaryan, who wrote about it this way: “In the process of reproduction between the initial stage of the movement of the total social product - production - and its final stage - use - a special, intermediate stage is formed, within which various forms of monetary income are formed and regrouped with the goal of ultimately linking the natural material and value elements of social production. At this stage, distribution relations seem to branch off from production and acquire relatively independent movement... It is here, at this stage. relationships called finances are formed.”3.
From all of the above, it follows that finance is a monetary relationship of a distributive nature, and the system of corresponding views of scientists on the nature of finance constitutes the content of the distributive concept of the essence of this category. At the same time, supporters of the distributive interpretation of the essence of finance
1 Dyachenko V.P. Commodity-money relations and finance under socialism. - M.: Nauka, 1974, p.126.
3 These authors undoubtedly include such prominent scientists who made a huge contribution to the development of Soviet financial science as prof. Bogolepov M.I., Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences Sitaryan S.A., Academician of the Georgian Academy of Sciences Chantladze V.G. and etc.
3 See: Finance of the USSR, 1983, No. 5, pp. 7-8.
emphasize that finance is a distribution-cost category of commodity production, which is by no means identical to the administrative-distribution mechanism for managing the national economy, that this value category, based on its distribution nature, can be used in different ways: either as part of administrative-command management levers national economy; or, taking into account the objective properties of this category, as a cost instrument for regulating the economy, ensuring its balance and increasing efficiency. Thus, the forms of using finance as an economic tool depend on the economic model adopted by the political leadership of the country.
Convincing opponents of the distributive nature of finance, scientists from the IFI scientific school simultaneously argued that finance does not exhaust all distribution relations: the latter vary in their social form. The variety of distribution relations, due to the complexity and versatility of the very process of distributing the monetary form of the value of a social product, leads to the fact that at the second stage of the reproduction process there are different distribution categories: finance, wages, price. An important feature of finance, which distinguishes it from other distribution categories, is that financial relations are always associated with the formation of monetary income and savings, the formation and use of monetary funds based on the unilateral movement of value. None of the distribution categories, except finance, has such a specific feature.
The reproductive concept of the essence of finance was defended by prof. Voznesensky E.A., prof. Zhevtyak P.N., prof. Senchagov V.K., prof. Sychev N.G. and etc; Some provisions of this concept were also substantiated in their works by prof. Alexandrov A.M., prof. Birman A.M., prof. Molyakov D.S. Although there were different nuances in the interpretation of the essence of finance by representatives of the reproduction concept, they all considered finance as a category of reproduction as a whole. They considered it unlawful to limit finance to economic relations related only to the distribution of the value of the social product.
The parallel existence of two concepts has led to the fact that in scientific and educational literature questions about the composition of financial relations and their place in the sphere of commodity-money relations, about the specific features of finance and the functions they perform, about the material carriers of financial relations, about the nature of such concepts as working capital, financial resources, etc. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that even within the same concept, numerous shades appeared, which complicated its general perception and gave rise to additional discussions.
For example, prof. Voznesensky E.A. and prof. Sa-banti B.M., characterizing monetary relations at the stage of value distribution, believed that only those monetary relations that arise in the process of redistributing the value of the social product should be classified as finance. In their opinion, in the primary distribution of value, it is not finance that is used, but price, with the help of which its main parts are isolated from the value of the manufactured product. Prof. did not agree with such a limitation on the scope of finance. Shermenev M.K., prof. Rodionova V.M. and their followers, who pointed out the theoretical inconsistency and practical harm of excluding a significant part of financial relations from the finances of enterprises and other business entities.
Criticism from Shermenev M.K. and V.M. Rodionova1 was also subject to another position of E.A. Voznesensky, who believed that the essence of finance is characterized by such a specific feature as state regulation of monetary relations2, subsequently transformed into the imperative, state-imperious nature of finance. Representatives of the MFI scientific school in their publications3 tried to show the fallacy of this position of E.A. Voznesensky. In their opinion, neither the regulation of financial relations by the state itself, nor the imperative state-authoritative nature of finance can be considered an essential feature of this economic category. The evidence of the arguments of the representatives of the IFI scientific school served as the basis for clarification by E.A. Voznesensky. his position regarding the specific feature of finance that he put forward: in a journal article in 1983
1 Rodionova V.M., Shermenev M.K. On the question of the essence of finance. - M.: Finance of the USSR, 1970, No. 9, pp. 89-92.
3 Voznesensky E.A. Discussion issues in the theory of socialist finance. - L. ed. Leningrad State University, 1969, pp. 16,21,100.
3 Rodionova V.M., Shermenev M.K. On the question of the essence of finance. - M.: Finance of the USSR, 1970, No. 9; Finances of the USSR. Textbook for universities, ed. Shermenev M.K. - M.: Finance, 1977; and etc.
he wrote that there is “no basis for the assertion that finance is characterized by a “state power” character”1.
In his works of the 80s, Voznesensky E.A. (in contrast to his own position in the 60s) drew the attention of readers to the fact that imperativeness refers to the form of manifestation of finance. However, in this capacity, imperativeness, as IFI scientists believed, does not add anything new or specific to the characterization of the essence of finance, since it is a feature that distinguishes the form of manifestation (i.e., the form of organization) from the essence of the economic category.
The reproductive interpretation of the essence of finance was analyzed in detail in two textbooks2 devoted to controversial issues in the theory of finance. They consistently examined all the arguments put forward by supporters of the reproduction concept to justify the fact that finance is a category of any of the four stages of the reproduction process. During the analysis, it was found that most of the arguments cited by opponents are based on consideration of the role and significance of finance, and not at all on their essence. Meanwhile, it is precisely the clarification of the economic essence of finance that makes it possible to establish the place (sphere) of its occurrence in social production.
If, when analyzing the category of finance, we are guided by their role in social production, then it certainly goes beyond the scope of the distribution stage itself. By the way, supporters of the distributive interpretation of the essence of finance, pointing to its distributive nature, never argued that the role of finance in reproduction is limited only to the processes of value distribution. On the contrary, both in the course of scientific discussions and in published works it has always been emphasized that finance, being by its economic nature a category of one stage of social production - the stage of value distribution, plays an active role at other stages of the reproduction process.
This approach to the study of the essence of finance, which by no means excludes its important role in social reproduction, served as the basis for a more complete description of finance as an economic instrument actively used by the state in business practice. It is precisely because of its distributive nature that finance can actively influence production,
both on exchange and on consumption, and this impact can be both quantitative and qualitative.
Representatives of the scientific school of finance made a major contribution not only to the development of theoretical problems of financial science. Their contribution to solving current problems of financial practice is significant. The successes in this area of activity of IFI scientists were largely due to the fact that scientific developments, starting from the 60s of the last century, began to be comprehensive: to develop the topic, the efforts of scientists from different departments of the IFI were combined, researchers from research institutes, and teachers from other universities were involved , specialists - practitioners.
A special place in research work aimed at solving current financial problems was given to the participation of leading IFI scientists in the development of the main directions of economic and financial policy of the state, in the formation of the main parameters of the state budget of the USSR, improvement of planning systems and economic incentives for the best performance in specific industries national economy of the country, etc. When solving important government issues, leading IFI scientists were involved in advising government officials. Among them were representatives of the scientific school of finance: Allahverdyan D.A., Azarkh M.R., Vinokur R.D., Zlobin I.D., Sher I.D. and etc.
An analysis of research work carried out by IFI scientists shows that long before Russia’s transition to market economics, the university staff was actively developing a theoretical foundation for future economic transformations that explained the functioning of cost categories in the conditions of commodity production, as well as ways of better, more efficient use of them in real economic practice of the Soviet state.
Of course, the specifics of the administrative-command system of managing the national economy of the country with its limitations in the field of commodity production left its mark on the list of economic (including financial) problems being studied and ways to solve them; however, the theoretical developments of the 70-80s of the last century could undoubtedly serve as a guide for consistent changes in the then economic model. Unfortunately, they were not sufficiently
1 Voznesensky E.A. Some questions of the theory of finance. - M.: Finance of the USSR, 1983, No. 3, p. 43.
3 Rodionova V.M. Discussive issues of the essence and functions of Soviet finance. - M.: MFI, 1984; Questions of the essence and functions of Soviet finance. - M.: MFI, 1987
taken into account, and therefore the actual practice of transferring the country's economy to market economic principles during the 90s demonstrated a number of significant miscalculations made in the economic and financial activities of government bodies, which did not allow obtaining the expected results from the ongoing economic (including financial) transformations.
The fourth stage in the history of the development of domestic financial science began in the 90s of the last century and continues to this day. It is associated with the transfer of the country's economy to market principles and the rapid development of many market instruments, including financial ones, which were not fully used in the administrative-command management system of the former USSR.
A radical change in the country's economic model required intensification of scientific research designed to promote the development of the domestic economy. However, the systemic crisis that accompanied market transformations led to the fact that funding for fundamental science (including university science) was almost stopped in the 90s. This was a serious test for many scientific schools. Fortunately, IFI's scientific schools, including the school of finance, continued to function and develop, fueled by new ideas and new scientific directions. The preservation of the scientific school of finance was largely due to the fact that in the 60-80s of the last century the theoretical foundations for the active use of financial instruments in market conditions were laid. After all, finance was considered as a cost category of commodity production, which has enormous potential to influence the economy and social sphere of the country.
Despite the widespread and mostly fair criticism of the distribution tools used in the practice of administrative-command management of social production in the former USSR, representatives of the scientific school of finance did not change the theoretical foundations that were laid in the foundation of financial science by the “founding fathers” MFI scientific school. Such adherence to the theoretical developments of previous years was by no means a reflection of conservative views on finance and financial science. It only confirmed the correctness of the previously developed position regarding the essence of finance as an objective economic category of commodity production, which, with a skillful approach, can be successfully used in the practice of market management.
As a category of distribution, finance has enormous potential for market influence on social production. The market economic model made it possible to move from administrative-distributive financial instruments used in the Soviet administrative-command management system to market-distributive ones based on objective economic prerequisites. Representatives of the IFI scientific school believed that the rejection of the Soviet administrative-command management system with its administrative and distribution management tools should not at all serve as a basis for a departure from recognizing the deep features that express the essence of finance as an economic category of commodity production.
Emphasizing the distributive nature of finance, representatives of the IFI scientific school constantly pointed out the need to maintain active participation of the state in the targeted regulation of the economy. For the beginning of the 90s, this was bold material, which sometimes went against the generally accepted position that all economic problems could be solved by the market without the help and participation of the state in regulating the economy.
Already at the first stage of the functioning of the scientific school of finance, through the efforts of its leader, prof. Rovinsky N.N. Active research into budgetary issues began. Protected by Rovinsky N.N. in 1940, a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economics on the topic “Main problems of the state budget of the USSR” laid the foundation for scientific developments in this area and helped the formation of a new scientific direction, which formed the core of the scientific school of finance. The enormous contribution of N.N. Rovinsky himself. and his followers - prof. Azarha M.R., prof. Allahverdyana D.A., prof. Vinokur R.D., prof. Zlobina I.D., prof. Rodionova V.M., prof. Shera I.D., prof. Shermeneva M.K. and others in the development of budgetary issues allows us to rightly assert that the scientific school of the state budget was created at the IFI, and then successfully functioned, reflecting the evolution of scientific views on the budget and its economic essence.
Initially, the state budget was considered from the perspective of a planning and financial document, which reflected the amount of funds ensuring the functioning of the Soviet state. The interpretation of the state budget only in terms of the financial plan was widespread in Soviet educational and scientific literature until the end of the 40s.
In the works of Aleksandrov A.M., Bogolepov M.I., Zverev A.G. and even Plotnikov K.N. and Rovinsky N.N., as well as other authors, in encyclopedic publications, textbooks and teaching aids of those years, a detailed description of the state budget was given as the main financial plan for education and the use of the centralized fund of state funds. However, such an interpretation, although it revealed the role of the budget in the country’s economy, nevertheless did not reflect the economic nature of the state budget or its place in the system of monetary relations. It remained unclear what place the budget occupies in the system of social relations, whether it refers to phenomena of the base or superstructure, etc.
The answers to these questions were found in the late 50s and 60s, when financial science made a major step forward and finance began to be viewed as economic, distribution relations, and the state budget as one of the spheres of these relations. Revealing the economic nature of the budget, Bachurin A.V. emphasized: “Often in economic literature, the essence of the state budget is reduced only to its role in financial planning. The budget is defined as the main financial plan of the state. This characterization of the budget does not fully reveal its material content and the economic relations it expresses”; it “characterizes only its organizational and legal side”1.
A major contribution to the development of the idea of the economic nature of the state budget and its place in the system of distribution relations was made primarily by representatives of the scientific school of finance at the Moscow Financial Institute. In the 50-60s of the last century, in the works of Rovinsky N.N., Allahverdyan D.A., Vinokur R.D., Zlobin I.D., Plotnikov K.N. etc., educational and scientific literature has already given a comprehensive description of the state budget: both as a system of economic distribution relations
tions, both as a centralized fund of state funds, and as the main financial plan of the country. At the same time, a number of publications, at first timidly, and then more and more confidently, put forward and substantiate the position that the state budget can be considered as an economic category.
The first to put forward this idea were N.N. Rovinsky. and Plotnikov K.N., and it was substantiated by Allah-verdyan D.A.2; the latter argued that “the budget of a socialist state must be considered as an economic category expressing certain economic connections and relationships...”3. The specificity of this category is that it “expresses economic relations associated with the formation and distribution of a centralized state fund of funds.”
The recognition of the budget as a “rank” of an economic category by the main researchers of budget theory did not immediately find understanding among broad sections of the scientific community. Adherents of the idea of considering the budget only from the standpoint of a financial document for a long time did not agree to consider the budget as an economic category. Stubborn discussions on this issue took place in the 60s and 70s, without leading to a clear opinion. Due to the conservatism of the position of some scientists, the period of the 60-70s of the last century in the development of domestic financial science was characterized by the presence of two theoretical concepts at once. Supporters of one considered the state budget both as an economic category and as the main financial plan of the country4; representatives of the other considered it possible to talk about the state budget only as a financial document5.
The ideas of the IFI scientific school, which interpreted the budget as an economic category and the main financial plan of the country, were further developed in the 80s of the last century, when at the Department of Finance in collaboration with employees of the USSR Ministry of Finance (Dundukov G.F., Shekhov-
1 Bachurin A.V. Economic content of the budget under socialism. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1957, p. 7-8.
2 Allahverdyan D.A. State budget as an economic category. - Finance of the USSR, 1957, No. 2; Allahverdyan D.A. Economic content of the expenses of the Soviet state, - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1958, p. 6; Allahverdyan D.A. Finances of a socialist state. - M.: Sotsekgiz, 1961, p. 111-115.
3 Allahverdyan D.A. . The economic content of the expenses of the Soviet state. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1958, p. 6.
4 Allahverdyan D.A. The economic content of the expenses of the Soviet state. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1958; Allahverdyan D.A. Finance and socialist reproduction. - M.: Finance, 1971, ch. VI, § I; Bachurin A.V. Economic content of the budget under socialism. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1957; Vinokur R.D. The state budget of the USSR and its role in expanded socialist reproduction. - Finances of the USSR. 1970. No. 9, p. 21-33; Voznesensky E.A. Methodological aspects of analyzing the essence of finance. - M.: Finance, 11974, p. 13, 20; KonnikI.I. Budget as an economic category of developed socialism. - Finance of the USSR, 1974, No. 4, p. 37-43.
5 Voluysky N.M. Consolidated financial plan.-M:. Finance, 1970, p. 108-111; Tochilnikov G.M. Socialist finance.-M.: Finance, 1974, p. 108-111.
Tsov G.K. etc.) and the Ministry of Finance of the RSFSR (Molchanov I.P. and others) began to actively develop theoretical and practical issues of the budget: its essence and functions, budget planning, budget mechanism for regulating the economy, more active use of budget instruments to stimulate socio-economic processes, etc. It was during this period that the department prepared and defended a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economics, dedicated to the budget1. The author's development brought clarity to the interpretation of fundamental budget concepts, contributed to deepening knowledge about their content, and revealed the potential and ways of more active use of the budget in the interests of the development of Soviet society.
In the 80s of the last century, a significant step forward in the development of budget science was that for the first time the specifics of the state budget as an economic category were revealed, it was shown that the emergence of the budget as an independent sphere of cost distribution of the social product was objectively predetermined by the needs of reproduction and the needs of political superstructure of society, requiring the centralization of part of the financial resources of society in the hands of the state. It was in the 80s that the functions of the budget were first thoroughly studied and it was proven that the budget, like finance, performs two functions - distribution and control; however, the functions of the budget differ in features determined by the scope, object and direction of action of this economic category.
Each economic category, when used correctly and purposefully, turns, as we know, into an effective management tool. It should be noted that by the beginning of the 80s, the question of the budget as an economic instrument of management from a theoretical point of view was not developed deeply enough: different opinions were expressed even on the question of which of the organizational and legal forms of the state budget acts as a link in the economic mechanism - specific types of budget relations, the centralized fund of funds of the state or the basic financial plan of the country. Therefore, in the scientific research of the Department of Finance, much attention was paid to clarifying the place and role of the state budget as part of the economic instruments of the economy.
education, research into specific forms of its use in the practice of managing the national economy of the country. This had not only purely theoretical, but also great practical significance.
An important indicator of any scientific school, reflecting its priority and importance within the entire scientific community, is the versatility of the research conducted by representatives of this particular school. Moreover, the diverse scientific research of representatives of the scientific school indicates the degree of development of the scientific school itself, i.e. about that stage of its functioning (formation, development, flourishing, stagnation and decline), which is assessed by the emergence (or absence) of new scientific ideas, interesting and deep publications, the influx of young scientists, etc.
When assessing the results of the functioning of the scientific school of finance, one cannot ignore its achievements, which reflected the emergence of new scientific directions in its development.
One of these scientific areas was insurance. This scientific direction was started by F.V. Konshin. A brilliant lecturer and extremely erudite practitioner, leader of an entire scientific field, prof. Konshin F.V. educated a huge number of students and followers of his ideas, among whom one cannot fail to mention such well-known scientists in the field of insurance as L.A. Motylev, L.I. Reitman, A.P. Pleshkov, E.V. Kolomin, Shakhov V.V. and others. It was Konshin F.V. The Moscow Financial Institute was responsible for the successful functioning of the insurance department within the framework of the specialty “Finance”, the preparation and publication of first-class textbooks on state insurance for universities, which were very popular not only among students and graduate students, but also among practical workers.
Within the framework of the insurance scientific direction in the 60-80s of the last century, a new scientific direction - personal insurance - received independent development at MFIs. New ideas in the field of personal insurance were actively put forward and defended by L.I. Reitman, who in 1980 became a Doctor of Economics after defending his dissertation. From the pen of Prof. Reitman L.I. Monographs, textbooks, and numerous articles were published that discussed topical issues in the theory and practice of insurance. It is Prof. Reitman L.I., who stood at the origins of the emerging insurance industry in Russia
1 Rodionova V.M. The state budget of the USSR and its role in accelerating the socio-economic development of society. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economics.
market, created the Department of Insurance Business at the MFI in the early 90s and laid the scientific foundations for its successful functioning.
In the context of the transition of the country's economy to a market economic model, within the framework of the scientific school of finance, another scientific direction is rapidly developing - taxation. The development of theoretical and practical problems in the field of taxes and taxation, the need to expand research objects and attract new scientific forces led to the fact that in the 90s of the 20th century a new department appeared as part of the Finance Academy - “Taxes and Taxation”. Its creation and rapid development was associated with the arrival of Prof. Pavlova L.P., who headed this department and rallied tax researchers around her.
Within the framework of the scientific school of finance, major developments are being carried out in the field of finance, budget, taxes, insurance, which result not only in new publications, adjustments to the content of educational programs, but also in the participation of its representatives in expert and analytical work carried out on behalf of the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Federal Meetings of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation, the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and other departments of the economic bloc. The history of the development of the scientific school of finance in the IFI - FA clearly shows that representatives of this school have always been at the forefront of financial science and practice, putting forward and substantiating new ideas that served to further deepen knowledge about the surrounding world and improve methods of managing the economy and social sphere of the country .
LITERATURE
1. Small Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: 1932, vol. 9, p. 320 - 321; M., 1947, t. 11, p. 200; and etc.
2. Alexandrova A.M. : Finance and credit in the USSR. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1948, p. 38; and etc.
3. Dyachenko V.P., Commodity-money relations and finance under socialism. - M.: Nauka, 1974, p. 126.
4. See: Finance of the USSR, 1983, No. 5, p. 7-8.
5. Rodionova V.M., Shermenev M.K. On the question of the essence of finance. - M.: Finance of the USSR, 1970, No. 9, p. 89-92.
6. Voznesensky E.A. Discussion issues in the theory of socialist finance. - L. ed. Leningrad State University, 1969, pp. 16,21,100.
7. Rodionova V.M., Shermenev M.K. On the question of the essence of finance. - M.: Finance of the USSR, 1970, No. 9; Finances of the USSR. Textbook for universities, ed. Shermenev M.K. - M.: Finance, 1977; and etc.
8. Voznesensky E.A. Some questions of the theory of finance. - M.: Finance of the USSR, 1983, No. 3, p. 43.
9. Rodionova V.M. Discussive issues of the essence and functions of Soviet finance. - M.: MFI, 1984; Questions of the essence and functions of Soviet finance. - M.: MFI, 1987
10. Bachurin A.V. Economic content of the budget under socialism. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1957, p. 7-8.
11. Allahverdyan D.A. State budget as an economic category. - Finance of the USSR, 1957, No. 2; Allahverdyan D.A. Economic content of the expenses of the Soviet state, - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1958, p. 6; Allahverdyan D.A. Finances of a socialist state. - M.: Sotsekgiz, 1961, p. 111-115.
12. Allahverdyan D.A. The economic content of the expenses of the Soviet state. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1958, p. 6.
13. Allahverdyan D.A. The economic content of the expenses of the Soviet state. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1958; Allahverdyan D.A. Finance and socialist reproduction. - M.: Finance, 1971, ch. VI, § I; Bachurin A.V. Economic content of the budget under socialism. - M.: Gosfinizdat, 1957; Vinokur R.D. The state budget of the USSR and its role in expanded socialist reproduction. -Finance of the USSR. 1970.No.9, p.21-33; Voznesensky E.A. Methodological aspects of the analysis of the essence of finance. - M.: Finance, 11974, p. 13, 20; KonnikI.I. Budget as an economic category of developed socialism. - Finance of the USSR, 1974, No. 4, p. 37-43.
14. Voluysky N.M. Consolidated financial plan.-M:. Finance, 1970, p. 108-111; Tochilnikov G.M. Socialist finance. - M.: Finance, 1974, p. 108-111.
15. Rodionova V.M. The state budget of the USSR and its role in accelerating the socio-economic development of society. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economics.