“Interbudgetary relations, their development and improvement” is one of the important and relevant topics today.

The topic of the thesis is relevant because the relationship of fiscal federalism is one of the most dynamically developing areas.

The interrelations of the links of the budget system are realized through the mechanism of interbudgetary relations, the basis of which in federal states should be based on the principles of fiscal federalism.

The most important component of the budget reform carried out in the country is the improvement of inter-budgetary relations based on the principles of fiscal federalism in their new quality in relation to the specifics of the economic situation in Russia at the present time. Ensuring real financial stabilization in Russia is impossible without solving the problems of balancing budgets at different levels, leveling interregional differences in budgetary provision, and improving the regulation of regional and local budgets.

Over the past few years, the forms and methods of interbudgetary interaction in the Russian Federation have undergone significant changes. The proportions of distribution of resources between the levels of the budget system were clarified, adjustments were made to budgetary relationships, movements and directions of financial flows through the implementation in practice of new approaches to the differentiation of income and expenses, to the development of the mechanism of interbudgetary transfers. At the same time, an analysis of the development of the budget system of the Russian Federation demonstrates the incompleteness of the reform of interbudgetary relations. These transformations are not enough to bring budgetary relationships in accordance with the principles of fiscal federalism. This is evidenced by the continuing imbalance of the budget system, the increasing differentiation of the socio-economic situation of the subjects of the Federation, and the growth in the number of subsidized territories. At the regional level, the organization of interbudgetary relations generally does not have sufficient theoretical and methodological elaboration, taking into account municipal reform.

The problem of finding optimal financial and budgetary interaction is relevant not only for Russia, but also for almost all federal states. At the same time, global experience does not provide universal solutions - the distribution of tax and budget powers, and the methods of inter-budgetary interaction in each country are individual. At the same time, a number of individual problems covered by the research topic have solutions in world practice, so taking into account its achievements and lessons seems useful and allows us to determine the directions in which to develop.

In this regard, the issues of further improving the organization and regulation of interbudgetary relations, adequate to the goals and objectives of the socio-economic development of the country and its territories, and the development of an effective mechanism for realizing the potential of interbudgetary redistribution remain important.

An acute and intractable problem remains the optimization of the multi-level budget system, which combines the federal budget, the budgets of 89 constituent entities of the Federation and local budgets (city, rural, district, etc.). The fundamental principle of fiscal federalism is that each subject of the Russian Federation has its own budget and acts within the budgetary powers assigned to it in strict accordance with the law.

At the same time, firstly, all subjects of the Federation have equal rights in financial relations with the center, although the forms of these relations may differ by agreement. Secondly, the spheres of activity and responsibility between the center and the constituent entities of the Federation are delimited, the spheres of financing expenses from budgets of one level or another. Thirdly, the budget of each level has independent sources of financing, and the government has the right to independently make decisions on the directions of using these funds.

But this is ideal. In practice, the relationship between the federal budget and the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation, as well as between the latter and local (city, district) budgets, is vague and unstable. Contradictions arise constantly; no one really knows which level of government is responsible for spending taxes for certain purposes. The budget system is too complex and confusing.

Currently, it is almost impossible to present a single document at the federal, regional and municipal levels related to socio-economic development without mention or reference to the topic of interbudgetary relations.

It is increasingly obvious that the problems of interbudgetary relations have both political and economic components, but the question of which of them is prevalent is not always easy to answer.

The lack of a clear understanding of the essence and meaning of the term interbudgetary relations increasingly leads to its incorrect use in cases far removed from the real causes of a particular problem in a region or municipality.

The current level of development of interbudgetary relations makes it possible to adopt a strategy for the development of interbudgetary relations for the period until 2020, which will make it possible to form common principles and approaches to interbudgetary relations for this period and make changes as rarely as possible to the mechanisms for the distribution of transfers, securing income, and delimitation of powers. All of the above will create a stable system of interbudgetary relations, and, consequently, a stable basis for the formation of regional and local budgets.

This topic is covered in sufficient detail in the scientific works of the following authors: Somoev R.G., Seleznev A.Z., Leksin V.N., Shvetsov A.N., Kirpichnikov V.A., Danchenko E.G. and etc.

Thus, the relevance of the research topic is beyond doubt.

A mandatory element of this paragraph of the thesis is the formulation of the object and subject of research.

The object of the study is the rural settlement of Varzuga, Tersky district, Murmansk region.

The subject of the study is inter-budgetary relations.

The relevance of this study determined the purpose and objectives of the thesis:

The purpose of the thesis is to consider the essence of interbudgetary relations, their development and improvement.

To achieve the goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

1. Investigate the development of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation.

2. Based on a theoretical analysis of the study of the problem, systematize knowledge about the current state of interbudgetary relations in Russia.

3. Consider inter-budgetary relations using the example of the administrative municipality of the rural settlement of Varzuga, Tersky district, Murmansk region.

4. Systematize and summarize the scientific approaches to this problem existing in the specialized literature.

5. Offer your own vision of this problem and find ways to solve it.

The theoretical significance of the study is the generalization of scientific knowledge on this issue.

The practical significance of the study is that its results can be used in the study of interbudgetary relations at the regional level.

The success of completing the tasks of writing a thesis depends to the greatest extent on the chosen research methods.

The work used methods of both empirical research: comparative, observation, and those used at both the empirical and theoretical levels of research: abstraction, analysis, synthesis and deduction.

The structure of the thesis is expressed in its content.

To address the topic at hand, the following structure has been determined: the work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and an appendix. The title of the chapters reflects their content.

1. DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-BUDGETARY RELATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

1.1. Concept and principles of implementation of federal
and interbudgetary relations.

Interbudgetary relations are financial relations between government bodies of the Russian Federation, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments regarding the redistribution between levels of the budget system of revenue sources, spending powers and volumes of financial assistance to balance the budget system.

The implementation of interbudgetary relations is associated with the formation and execution of budgets at various levels of the budget system and the implementation of budget regulation.

Interbudgetary relations can also exist directly between budgets of the same level, for example, to pool financial resources in order to solve problems of mutual interest. In Russia they have not yet received widespread use. In rare cases, financial assistance is provided from lower to higher budgets.

In the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, various subjects of interbudgetary relations interact.

The specific nature of these inter-budgetary connections is expressed by the concept of fiscal federalism. In the most general, aggregated form, fiscal federalism should be understood as a form of budget structure in a federal state, which presupposes a set of relations between various levels of the budget system, independently functioning on the basis of budgetary rights and powers enshrined in the Constitution of the country.

The tool for implementing interbudgetary relations is budget regulation, which in the Russian Federation is carried out in the directions and forms presented in Figure 1 (See Appendix).

The set of components that interact in the process of exercising the powers enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation forms a system of budgetary federalism.

In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the budget system of the Russian Federation consists of the following levels:

The federal budget and the budgets of state extra-budgetary funds;

Budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (regional budgets) and budgets of territorial state extra-budgetary funds;

Local budgets;

Budgets of settlements (territories, regions).

All budgets included in the country's budget system are interconnected within the framework of inter-budgetary relations, which are currently the main problem not only in the relationship of the federal center with the constituent entities of the federation, but also between the constituent entities of the federation and their constituent municipalities.

The model of fiscal federalism includes 3 components:

The spending powers of levels of government are delineated;

Providing levels of government with sufficient fiscal resources to exercise powers;

Vertical and horizontal budgetary alignment using the mechanism of interbudgetary relations.

There are states in the world with different types of federal structures. Each type has its own model of fiscal federalism.

The American model is based on relatively large independence of individual states. The characteristic features of the system of intergovernmental fiscal relations in the United States are relative flexibility, strength and stability. In accordance with the government structure of the United States, the country's public finance system is divided into three levels: federal, state and local government levels. An important feature: most of the expenses at each level are financed from their own sources of revenue. At the same time, at the end of the 20th century, the federal budget provided a total of 60-65% of government spending at all levels.

The division of income and expenses by level does not always coincide with each other. 19-20% of GDP (about $2 trillion) is now redistributed through the federal budget, 30-32% through the consolidated budget, but federal tax benefits weigh another 12-13% of GDP. So the state at all levels directly influences the distribution of 43-44% of GDP.

The main share of budget revenues at each level comes from taxes. The types of taxes levied, their rates, and the amount of fees are distributed across levels so as to optimally meet the needs of the country and citizens, while at the same time avoiding excessive tax burdens. The structure and size of all income and expenses have evolved over decades. They are determined by economic and political goals, which are formed by the country's leadership on the basis of developed concepts of national interests.

The current system of interbudgetary relations in the United States is not ideal, it works under tension, and is subject to criticism. But overall it performs its tasks satisfactorily.

A characteristic feature of the German model of fiscal federalism is the increasing tendency towards a uniform distribution of resources among the states. Interbudgetary relations are based on “general” taxes, the revenues from which are distributed among all its levels, while their partial redistribution is carried out so as to reduce the gap between “rich” and “poor” lands. Direct financial assistance from higher budgets is relatively small, but there are numerous and very large federal and joint regional development programs.

Social justice is ensured, but somewhat to the detriment of economic efficiency. Many elements are close to the current Russian system (apparently, not by chance: Russia and Germany are former empires, federations formed “from above”).

In the Chinese model, taxes are collected by regional authorities, and the center determines (partly by formulas, but mainly by agreement) who gets how much. Tasks for transferring tax payments to the central budget are being completed. Nobody really interferes in the affairs of the provinces that are coping with the task; in fact, they are given over to the regional authorities. Governors who fail to comply with the tax “rent” are removed from their positions and even expelled from the Communist Party.

Canadian model. Canada does not have a unified tax collection system. Local governments have their own taxes. The country also has federal tax deductions. When dividing tax revenues, the method of “top-up” rates is widely used: provinces and municipalities have the right to add their rates to the basic federal rate.

At the same time, processes of widespread equalization of socio-economic living conditions of the population play an important role in this model.

Russia belongs to asymmetric federations. Its composition, as defined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, includes a total of 89 subjects: 21 republics, 10 autonomous okrugs, 6 territories, 1 autonomous region, 49 regions and 2 cities of federal significance - Moscow and St. Petersburg. According to Article 5 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, all subjects of the Russian Federation are equal to each other. The asymmetry of the federation is not a deviation from the principles of federalism. When it is caused by objective necessity, then this is a prerequisite for balancing the interests of its subjects, and, consequently, for maintaining the unity of the federal state.

The development of federalism in Russia involves taking into account regional characteristics in economic life when carrying out economic reforms and especially compliance with the federal laws of the Russian Federation, increasing executive discipline, and ensuring a unified legal space of the Russian Federation. One of the shortcomings in the implementation of federalism is the inconsistency of laws and decisions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the norms of federal legislation, non-compliance with federal laws in a number of regions.

It is customary to distinguish between unitary and federal budget systems.

Unitary budget systems provide for a high level of centralization of budget funds, the absence or insignificant amount of budgetary rights of lower authorities.

Federative budget systems are built on exactly the opposite principles. They are characterized by a high degree of independence of territorial budgets and respect for the unity of national interests.

There are the following principles of interbudgetary relations, regulated by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, which with a greater degree of confidence can be attributed to the principles of fiscal federalism:

Distribution and consolidation of budget expenditures at certain levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation;

Delimitation (consolidation) on a permanent basis and distribution according to temporary standards of regulatory revenues by levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation;

Equality of budgetary rights of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, equality of budgetary rights of municipalities;

Alignment of the levels of minimum budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities;

Equality of all budgets of the Russian Federation in relations with the federal budget;

Equality of local budgets in relations with the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The list of tools for interbudgetary relations includes the differentiation of revenue sources, expenditure obligations and financing, as well as the provision of financial assistance. It is important to note that the most “voluminous” area of ​​inter-budgetary relations remains the distribution (splitting) of regulatory revenues.

One of the areas of interbudgetary relations is the transfer of expenses and income from one level of the budget system to another. The Budget Code of the Russian Federation establishes that certain types of expenses can be transferred from the federal budget to the budgets of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation by including the relevant norms (provisions) in the federal law on the federal budget while simultaneously introducing amendments to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. Issues regarding the transfer of expenses from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to local budgets are resolved in a similar way.

Taking into account the theoretical aspects of interbudgetary relations, in our opinion, they can be defined as a set of interactions between government bodies of the Russian Federation, with government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government regarding the delimitation and consolidation of budgetary powers, compliance with the rights, duties and responsibilities of the authorities in the field of drawing up, approval and execution of budgets, ensuring that the relevant authorities and management carry out effective distribution and redistribution economic policies.

This definition of interbudgetary relations, reflecting their relationship with the organization of public administration and the achievement of the goals of the state’s economic policy, allows us to characterize them as an integral part of the mechanism of state financial policy.

1.2.Interbudgetary relations and interbudgetary transfers.

The main functions of interbudgetary relations are:

Equalizing the budgetary provision of territorial entities, where it is less than the minimum required level (ensuring compliance with constitutional and other state social guarantees throughout the country);

Stimulating the increase in tax potential, timely and complete collection of payments to the budget in the subordinate territory, as well as their rational and effective spending.

Both of these functions must be implemented in combination as a two-pronged process, therefore, when the equalizing function becomes predominant, conflicting with the stimulating function, adjustments are required to the current mechanism of interbudgetary relations.

The principle of fiscal federalism (the responsibility of the regions for ensuring the flow of revenues into the federal budget to solve common problems and the responsibility of the center for the implementation of its powers at the local level) is carried out through the development and implementation of income and expenditure policies, as well as on the basis of interbudgetary transfers.

Transfers are financial flows carried out free of charge from the federal budget to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation, as well as from the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation to local budgets. There are exceptions to this general rule.

A number of subjects of the Federation (Perm region, Arkhangelsk region, etc.) were not mono-subjects and included autonomous entities. In the Perm region there was the Komi-Permyak district, in the Arkhangelsk region there was the Nenets district. These districts had independent budgets. But due to the creation of the Perm Territory in early 2006, the district was abolished. The issue of the status of the Arkhangelsk region and the Nenets district was resolved in a similar way. Such districts, rich in exploitable mineral deposits (including the Taimyr and Evenki national autonomous districts that were part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, as well as the Khanty-Mansiysk and Yamalo-Nenets national autonomous districts that were still part of the Tyumen region) turned out to form the basis of the revenue base the entire region or region. In such cases, situations arise when the district, by agreement with the region, directs financial flows “upward”. This was the case in 2008 and early 2009, when the Nenets Okrug, under the main and additional agreements with the regional administration, sent 650 and 700 million rubles to the regional budget. respectively, in two tranches.

Such facts (the desire to eliminate national-autonomous entities and form a single budget for a region or region) indicate the conceptual immaturity of the Russian model of fiscal federalism. These questions do not have an adequate answer in the current budget legislation.

The legal basis for interbudgetary transfers practiced today is the constitutional and legislative assignment of certain powers to all levels of the budget system, as well as the financing of their implementation by each level of government. The economic basis of intergovernmental transfers is the economic unity of the country, state ownership of subsoil and other natural resources, as well as infrastructure, and in connection with this, the presence of a budget sector in the economy and social sphere.

Since historical, natural, climatic and other factors are at work, such as the location of production, it was and remains natural that there would be conditions that predetermine a significant and, at the same time, objectively determined differentiation of GDP per capita production by region of the country. In 2009, the gross regional product per capita ranged from 17 to 500 thousand rubles. in year . For this reason, there is an objective need to equalize the provision of regions with funds for their socio-economic development.

In Russian practice, interbudgetary transfers are carried out mainly vertically (i.e., from top to bottom), and therefore the federal budget annually provides for the allocation of funds to the subjects of the Federation under the section of the functional structure of budget expenditures “Interbudgetary transfers”. Until 2004 inclusive, this section was called “Interbudgetary relations”, and in the budget classification - “Financial assistance to budgets of other levels”. In the new edition of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the concept of “interbudgetary relations” is replaced by the concept of “interbudgetary transfers”. In this regard, interbudgetary loans are excluded from this section, since they are provided on a repayable basis, i.e. are not transfers. This more accurately reflects the essence of relations between the center and the regions. In fact, the concept of “transfers” emphasizes not the fact of very different relations between the center and the regions, but the fact of financial flows “from top to bottom.” There cannot be relations between budgets (these are just financial plans); financial relations can exist between government authorities at the federal, subfederal and municipal levels.

Tables 1 and 2 present data on the size of the corresponding financial flows (See Appendix).

Interbudgetary transfers also include transfers from the Federal budget to the budgets of state extra-budgetary funds, which is associated both with the lack of funds from the unified social tax to finance the needs of these funds, and with the need to transfer funds from the federal budget and other budgets to the budgets of extra-budgetary funds (for example, from local budgets to The health insurance budget funds are received to insure the non-working population).

The role of interbudgetary relations in the implementation of the principle of federalism is determined by the quality of these relations, their validity, taking into account the peculiarities of the state structure of Russia and the regional characteristics of the development of its economy. Currently, a lot of efforts are being made to substantiate various models of fiscal federalism, but a model whose parameters would satisfy both the federal center, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and municipalities has not yet been created. This is due to the extreme complexity of the mechanism for economic equalization of living conditions in the regions.

The most important feature of a federal state is the equality of its subjects, which has two aspects:

1. Subjects of the Federation are an equal party to the relationship, including budgetary ones, with the Federation. Unlike unitary states, in the Federation there is no administrative subordination of regional authorities to the central one: both are vested with powers directly by the population and therefore, within the framework of their competence, independently perform the functions assigned to them.

2. Subjects of the Federation have equal rights in relation to each other. This presupposes the use of uniform principles and mechanisms for delimiting areas of responsibility and authority in the fiscal sphere. Both the provision of benefits and privileges to individual subjects of the Federation on an individual basis, and discrimination against certain regions are unacceptable. This does not mean that certain exceptions cannot be made, but all of them must be based on compliance with criteria, conditions and procedures common to all regions.

Transfers from the federal budget are provided both without predetermined conditions and under certain conditions. For example, funds from the federal budget are provided without conditions for transfer to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation in connection with the performance of functions arising from the norms of federal laws (for example, targeted funds for social support for the disabled, as well as citizens injured during the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, etc. .P.).

Under certain conditions, transfers are allocated for other forms of financial assistance. For example, transfers to equalize budgetary security are provided subject to compliance by the subjects of the Federation with tax legislation.

Budget loans from the federal budget are provided to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation only if they have no overdue debt on loans previously received from the federal budget. If during two of the last three years subsidies and budget loans from the federal budget exceed 50% of the own incomes of the constituent entities of the Federation, then the authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation are obliged to enter into an agreement with the Ministry of Finance of Russia that they will take measures to increase the efficiency of budget expenditures, as well as measures to improve the administration of taxes and fees. For highly subsidized regions, the condition for receiving transfers from the federal budget is the transfer of these regions to cash services by the Federal Treasury.

The schematic diagram of interbudgetary transfers is presented in Table 3 (See Appendix).

The most pressing problem of inter-budgetary relations is the justified allocation of federal budget funds to all regions with profitability below the minimum budgetary provision. Financing within the framework of the minimum budgetary provision is carried out within the framework of standards for the provision of these services. Such flows of funds go to all regions with incomes below the minimum budgetary provision.

Regardless of profitability, all regions, including regions that have excess income compared to subsidized regions, receive funding from the federal budget to pay for the so-called federal mandates. For example, no matter in which region a citizen who was exposed to radiation during the Chernobyl disaster lives, this citizen will receive funds from the federal budget in his name in this or that region.

Forms of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation and directions of their development. State support for territories is currently provided in a variety of forms. Interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget are provided in the form of:

Financial assistance to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, including subsidies from the Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Russian Federation in accordance with Article 131 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and subsidies in accordance with Article 132 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation;

Subventions to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the Federal Compensation Fund in accordance with Article 133 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and other subventions;

Financial assistance to the budgets of individual municipalities, provided in cases and in the manner established by federal laws;

Other gratuitous and non-refundable transfers (See Appendix, Fig. 2).

Interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget (with the exception of subventions from the Federal Compensation Fund) are provided subject to compliance by government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local government bodies with the budget legislation of the Russian Federation and the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees.

Subsidies from the Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Russian Federation and budget loans from the federal budget to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, for which in two of the last three reporting years the share of these subsidies in the total volume of their own income exceeded 50%, for three financial years starting from the next financial years are provided subject to the signing and compliance with the terms of agreements with the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation on measures to improve the efficiency of using budget funds and increasing tax and non-tax revenues of the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. The procedure for concluding these agreements and monitoring their implementation is established by the Government of the Russian Federation.

1.3. Trends in the development of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation
Federation.

An analysis of the development of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation is presented on the basis of the relationship between the leveling and stimulating functions, taking into account redistribution and structural state financial support for regional development, as well as from the point of view of generalizing the problems and contradictions that have emerged in the process of implementing the current stage of reforming interbudgetary relations.

The current stage of development of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation is characterized by a number of trends that indicate the incompleteness of the reform of interbudgetary relations. The essence of these trends is as follows.

Firstly, the “framework” consolidation of the formal features of fiscal autonomy: the declaration of independence of territorial budgets, the delimitation of expenditure obligations and revenue sources by levels of the budget system is accompanied by a significant imbalance in the ability of subnational authorities to pursue an independent policy of territorial development, an increase in the dependence of territorial budgets on interbudgetary transfers (See Appendix, Table 4), the formation of a system of restrictions on the activities of government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities in the budget process.

Secondly, the formation of unified principles for building interbudgetary relations in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the presence of regionalization of methodological approaches to providing financial assistance to municipalities from the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation.

Thirdly, despite the process of formalizing the distribution of financial assistance, a significant part of it is still distributed without clear criteria and procedures. In accordance with the current edition of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the concept of “interbudgetary transfers” is defined as the transfer of funds from one budget to another. Here, special attention is paid to the changed approach to the list of forms of interbudgetary transfers: the list is open, since the presence of “other gratuitous and irrevocable transfers” is allowed. Interbudgetary transfers include: financial assistance to lower budgets, including subsidies from the budget financial support fund; subventions from the compensation fund; budget loans; financial assistance to the budgets of individual municipalities, etc.

Now the issue of “soft” budget constraints is being raised, and issues related to the effect of subsidies on the balance of lower-level budgets and their influence on the behavior of subnational authorities are being explored. It is emphasized that, on the one hand, this type of financial assistance has a number of properties that disincentivize the quality and independence of subnational finance management, and, on the other hand, it is becoming increasingly important in the structure of interbudgetary transfers.

The problems of formalizing the distribution of financial assistance also manifest themselves in the construction of unified interbudgetary relations at the regional level, which is associated with the peculiarities of the organization of interbudgetary regulation during the implementation of municipal reform in each individual subject of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the increasing importance of interbudgetary transfers for municipalities is obvious, which requires further improvement of their legislative support, administration and monitoring.

Fourthly, issues of improving the quality of management of regional and municipal finances are currently becoming basic in the process of increasing the efficiency of interbudgetary relations. The emerging tools for improving the quality of subnational financial management are based on “additional” and “hard” budget restrictions, which are designed to increase the responsibility of regional and local authorities for the results of their own activities.

2.CURRENT STATE OF INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS IN RUSSIA.

2.1.Rating of subsidization of regions of the Russian Federation.

The Russian Ministry of Regional Development presented a rating of regions according to the degree of subsidization of their budgets. The data were analyzed in anticipation of the discussion of the current policy of interbudgetary relations. According to the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation, the volume of financial assistance to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget in January-October 2010 reached almost 440 billion rubles. This amount on average across the country is 14.61% of the revenues of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

However, an analysis of socio-economic indicators this year shows that unevenness in the development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation continues to persist, and the current policy of inter-budgetary relations does not adequately reduce differentiation in the socio-economic development of regions.

Only 16 out of 87 constituent entities of the Russian Federation may in the near future move away from subsidies. These are Moscow and St. Petersburg, Yamalo-Nenets, Nenets and Agin Buryat, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrugs, Perm Territory, Komi Republic, Tyumen, Samara, Lipetsk, Vologda, Sverdlovsk, Leningrad, Yaroslavl, Chelyabinsk, Orenburg regions . In 2009, they had less than 10% of federal funds in their consolidated budget revenues.

Another 37 subjects received financial assistance in the form of subsidies from the federal budget, which ranged from 10% to 30%.

More than 30% was made up of federal budget funds in the consolidated budgets of the Primorsky and Stavropol Territories, the Chuvash Republic and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Pskov, Ulyanovsk, Amur, Ivanovo, Bryansk, Tambov regions.

In the Altai Territory, the Republics of Mari El and Buryatia, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Penza, Kurgan, Magadan, Chita regions and the Republic of Kalmykia, Kamchatka Region, Jewish Autonomous Okrug, financial assistance from the federal budget ranged from 40% to 60%.

In the Republics of North Ossetia-Alania, Adygea, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria and Koryak Autonomous Okrug - more than 60%.

More than 70% are in the Republic of Tyva, the Republic of Dagestan, the Altai Republic, and the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug.

In the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia, the volume of subsidies amounted to more than 80%.

For 10 months of 2010, interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget were provided both in the form of subsidies to equalize the level of budgetary security from the Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Russian Federation, and in the form of subsidies to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to ensure balanced budgets, etc.

The main form of providing financial assistance continues to be subsidies to equalize the level of budgetary security from the Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Russian Federation. This is the largest fund; According to the federal budget for 2010, the Financial Support Fund was approved in the amount of 228.2 billion rubles. During the period January-October 2010, subsidies in the amount of 201.7 billion rubles (88.4%) were transferred from this Fund to subjects.

At the same time, the largest subsidies (more than 80% of the total amount transferred by the Financial Support Fund) go to the budgets of the Republics of Sakha (Yakutia) and Tyva, the Kamchatka region, and the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug.

A significant amount of subsidies to equalize budgetary security is also present in the consolidated budget revenues of the Perm Territory (50.8%), the Chechen Republic (54.15%), the Altai Republic (54.74%), the Republic of Dagestan (59.41%), the Republic of Tyva (64.73%), Republic of Ingushetia (65.81%).

Donor regions do not receive assistance from this fund.

As noted by the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation, a high share of subsidies for equalizing budgetary security in the consolidated budget indicates a low tax potential and a high share of budget expenditures in the subject.

Meanwhile, the volume of interbudgetary transfers for 2011 increases compared to 2010 by 187.4 billion rubles (31.4%). For the first time, 9 billion rubles are allocated from the Federal Fund for Financial Support of Subjects of the Russian Federation to stimulate regions developing their own revenue base.

In order for the budget of the Russian Federation to become a real instrument of state policy for the implementation of the goals and objectives set by the state, a long-term strategy or program of socio-economic development is needed, with common priority and national goals, in accordance with which various departments will subsequently operate. Currently, individual departments formulate their own goals for their activities. The main managers of budget funds do not always understand and correctly assess the true task of their activities. Medium-term financial plans are drawn up by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation separately from their own socio-economic development strategies. There is also no example at the federal level that would show how this should be interconnected. This problem can be solved by establishing a minimum level of budgetary provision. In many countries, this level is the legislatively established goal of interbudgetary relations and interbudgetary transfers.

At the same time, it is extremely important to comply with the social guarantees provided for by the Constitution of Russia, which relate to the powers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The issue of interbudgetary relations is one of the most pressing today. It cannot be solved without taking into account and coordinating with the regions themselves, leading experts, businesses involved in this process, and all interested public groups.

2.2.Interbudgetary relations: optimization of financial assistance flows.

The main directions for increasing the efficiency of interbudgetary relations and the quality of state and municipal finance management for 2010-2012 were identified: strengthening the financial independence of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, creating incentives to increase revenue receipts to regional and local budgets and improving public finance management, increasing the transparency of regional and local budgets .

Just 3-4 years ago, there were fierce discussions about whether municipalities would even be able to have their own budgets and fulfill the powers that were defined by law for this level of government. Today we can say with confidence: yes, they could. The revenues of the budgets of local authorities, as well as the revenues of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, are growing at a rate significantly faster than inflation. Thus, in 2009, tax and non-tax revenues (excluding financial assistance) of regional budgets increased by 28.5%, local ones - by 28%.

The expenditure base of these budgets is growing at the same pace. And although the question of insufficient funds often still arises, especially when executing budgets at the municipal level, it is obvious that there has been a significant increase in financial resources allocated to the implementation of powers that were executed with much lower quality four years ago.

The main problem today is not so much the growth of the volume of financial resources, but rather the efficiency of spending budget funds, which is precisely the key to success in the execution of their powers by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities.

New methods of interbudgetary relations have created additional incentives to increase tax and non-tax revenues at the regional and municipal levels. For example: the methodology for distributing subsidies to equalize budgetary sufficiency has been clarified so that the volume of financial support does not decrease for those subjects of the Russian Federation whose level of budgetary sufficiency has increased due to the growth of their economic potential. All these measures have justified themselves, and the results of regional budget execution that are currently observed have been achieved.

At the same time, a number of measures have been adopted aimed at stimulating the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities to improve the quality of public financial management. Over the past four years, the list of participants in the competition for the title of a region that adheres to the best practices in financial management has been expanded. In addition, ten municipalities are included in the number of participants. Participants who received the highest marks received financial incentives.

Of course, over the years of reform to improve interbudgetary relations, the quality of regional financial management has improved significantly. However, there are still regions with low levels of financial management. There are about 10 such regions. Budgets there are adopted with unrealistic indicators. Expenditure obligations are not fulfilled in full, and accounts payable are allowed to grow. Obligations to citizens are fulfilled irregularly. But the number of such regions is decreasing.

Despite the significant increase in regional budget revenues in 2009, the volume of their surplus, compared to 2008, decreased by more than 70%, with the largest drop recorded in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in whose income assistance from the federal budget is less than 5%, that is, the strongest. The total number of surplus budgets decreased by 4%, while deficit budgets increased by 3%.

A more accurate indicator of the sufficiency of financial resources is the overfulfillment of the budget revenue plan and the reduction of accounts payable accumulated in previous years. The latter indicator suggests that the region, in addition to meeting current expenses, is paying off its debts. At the beginning of 2010, the volume of accounts payable of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation amounted to 41.6 billion rubles, or decreased by 14% over the year. In 11 regions it is completely absent, and in 52 it is an extremely insignificant value.

The fact that the number of surplus regional budgets has decreased does not indicate a decrease in the level of balance of regional budgets. It would be strange if, while receiving additional income, the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation did not make decisions on how to spend these funds.

Now there is a discussion in the media about how to eliminate such a phenomenon as subsidized regions. Some economists are in favor of retaining part of federal taxes for regional budgets, due to which these regions could quickly develop their own tax base.

According to current legislation, subsidies from the federal budget are provided to those regions whose level of budgetary security, that is, the level of budgetary income per capita, is below the Russian average. Considering the significant differentiation of the economic potentials of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which arose as a result of differences in the existing structure of the economy, the size of the living population and other very different objective and subjective reasons, it is, in my opinion, impossible to achieve the same level of income per capita. Therefore, the topic of equalizing budgetary security through the provision of subsidies from the federal budget will remain relevant for a long time. It does not at all follow from this that there is no need to create conditions for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to earn their own money. No one is eliminating the task of annually reducing the level of dependence of regional budgets on assistance from the federal center. It needs to be set and solved by developing the economic potential of the regions.

In this regard, we can cite the example of the Republic of Tyva, one of the highly subsidized subjects of the Russian Federation (in terms of budget revenues, financial assistance from the federal budget is close to 90%). In order to increase the republic’s own revenue base, it is planned to implement a number of investment projects using funds from the Investment Fund. These funds, in essence, are a catalyst for attracting investors to the region’s economy. Investors will come, the economic potential will increase, and, therefore, the revenue base of the region’s budget will increase.

The transfer of additional revenue sources to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation will only lead to an increase in the income of strong regions with already established economic and tax potential.

This situation is especially evident at the level of municipalities. For example, for a settlement that does not have its own revenue base, no matter how many taxes you transfer, the budget will not increase. And vice versa, even a small share, for example, of income tax, transferred to a region that is strong from an economic point of view, will only strengthen its position.

The Budget Code of the Russian Federation prohibits making decisions on the transfer of any powers from one level of the budget system of the Russian Federation to another without appropriate provision of financial resources. Recently, some regional leaders and heads of municipalities have appealed to the federal authorities with a request for permission to exercise a number of powers assigned to the federal level of government. Such permissions were given, while the laws state that a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipality “has the right” to exercise such and such authority. But “has the right” is not an obligation. The permission assumes that the relevant level of government has its own funds to exercise this authority.

As for the statement that the revenue base of local budgets has not been revised, this is also not entirely true. The new edition of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation provides for additional assignment to municipalities:

State fees for the performance of notarial acts by officials of local governments of settlements and urban districts (previously included in the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation);

Fees for the use of water bodies depending on ownership (previously the fee was credited to the federal budget, now - to the budgets of settlements, municipal districts, urban districts).

The standards for transferring income from the disposal of land plots to local budgets before delimiting state ownership of land have been increased: within the boundaries of urban districts - from 70% to 80% to the budgets of urban districts, within the boundaries of settlements - from 10% to 50% to the budgets of settlements, on inter-settlement territories - from 70% to 100% to the budgets of municipal districts.

In addition, the draft federal budget for 2011 does not provide funds for carrying out measures to describe the boundaries of municipalities in accordance with the requirements of urban planning and land legislation, compensation for the costs of municipalities associated with inventory, registration of land plots of other municipal property, carrying out measures to organizing training for local government officials, increasing wages for employees of municipal budget organizations, developing tax reporting systems for regional and municipal statistics indicators that meet the needs of forecasting and planning revenues of regional and local budgets, and other costs. The implementation of these issues of local importance requires additional expenditures from local budgets for their implementation, which serves as an additional factor in unbalancing the budgets of municipalities and limiting the ability of local governments to effectively resolve other issues of local importance.

Of course, the success of local government reform largely depends on the completeness of financial support for the powers of local governments to resolve issues of local importance. In this regard, the relevance of analyzing the execution of local budgets is obvious.

However, it can be noted that in 2008-2009. As a result of the positive dynamics of economic growth in the regions and municipalities, there was a significant increase in local budget revenues. If in 2008 the own revenues of local budgets (excluding subventions) amounted to 1084.2 billion rubles. and increased compared to 2007 by 235.4 billion rubles. (27.7%), then in 2009 their volume amounted to 1387.2 billion rubles. with an increase to the level of 2008 by 303.0 billion rubles. (27.9%).

In 55 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the growth of local budgets’ own revenues exceeded the national average. Thus, the highest growth rate is observed in the local budgets of the Sakhalin region (95.4%), the Astrakhan region (86.7%), the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic (79.2%), the Republic of Kalmykia (61.5%), the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (61.2%), Volgograd region (54.7%), Kursk region (53.7%), Chuvash Republic (52.4%), and Tula region (50.7%). A slight decrease in the growth rate of local budgets’ own revenues is observed in 4 constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

A significant increase in income during 2009 made it possible to exceed the initially planned indicators of local budgets for their own income by 20.9%.

For the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the implementation of the local budgets’ own revenue plan was as follows:

Revenues increased from 20.9% to 50% of the original plan in 44 constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Over 50% - in 3 constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Below 20.9% - in 39 constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In the total volume of local budgets’ own revenues received in 2009, tax and non-tax revenues amounted to 59.1% (819.2 billion rubles), interbudgetary transfers (excluding subventions from compensation funds) - 40.9% (568.0 billion rubles), in 2008 – 58.9% and 41.1%, respectively.

The question of strengthening the revenue, and, above all, tax base of local government, remains very relevant. Tax revenues from local budgets in 2009 amounted to 579.5 billion rubles. exceeding the original plan by 24.2%, or 62.5 billion rubles.

In the structure of local budgets' own revenues, on average in the Russian Federation, 41.8% (579.5 billion rubles) comes from tax revenues. In 36 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, their share in the total volume of their own income exceeded the above average value. The largest share of tax revenues is noted in the local budgets of the Tyumen region (78.0%), the Republic of Khakassia (56.9%), the Kaluga region (56.2%), the Primorsky Territory (56.0%), the Samara region (54.4 %), Kursk region (53.6%), Lipetsk region (53.5%), Arkhangelsk region (51.8%), Volgograd region (51.2%), Oryol region (51.2%).

Compared to 2008, the growth rate of tax revenues assigned to local budgets on a permanent basis by the Budget and Tax Codes of the Russian Federation, and additionally transferred by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation according to unified and differentiated standards from federal and regional taxes and fees within the framework of formalized methods for the distribution of subsidies from regional funds for financial support of settlements and municipal districts (city districts) is 24.2%.

The distribution of tax revenues by type of municipal formation is extremely uneven: 64.5% (373.5 billion rubles) of tax revenues are accumulated in the budgets of urban districts, 30.1% (174.5 billion rubles) are accumulated in the budgets of municipal districts. and only 5.4% (31.4 billion rubles) - in the budgets of settlements.

An analysis of the data presented in Table 5 (See Appendix) shows that in the structure of tax revenues in local budgets, the main budget-forming tax in 2009 continues to be the personal income tax, the share of which is 66.8% or 388.7 billion. rub. (in 2008 – 61.4% or 286.4 billion rubles).

In 2009, revenues to local budgets of personal income taxes as executed by constituent entities of the Russian Federation are estimated at 90.1 billion rubles.

The total amount of income received by local budgets in connection with the establishment of a subject of the Russian Federation on personal income tax (mandatory and additional in excess of that established by the Budget Code) amounted to 127.9 billion rubles.

The positive properties of this tax as an instrument of inter-budgetary regulation (the tax base is more evenly distributed compared to other taxes, immobility, accuracy of revenue calculations) make it advantageous for being assigned to local budgets on an ongoing basis.

At the same time, additional and unified standards for contributions in excess of the level of 40% established by the Budget Code are fixed only in 50 constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Revenues from taxes provided for by special tax regimes and assigned to the budgets of municipalities by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation amounted to 50 billion rubles, of which the tax on imputed income credited to the budgets of city districts and municipal districts amounted to 48.9 billion rubles, or 8.4% of tax revenues of local budgets, unified agricultural tax - 1.1 billion rubles, or 0.2%, respectively.

The total amount of income received from taxes, the standards for which are established at the federal level, is estimated at 489.1 billion rubles.

Tax revenues that were transferred to the municipal level in accordance with the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are estimated at 90.4 billion rubles, or 15.6% of total tax revenues.

In order to generate tax statistics necessary for the implementation of interbudgetary relations at the regional level, in 2009 the Russian Ministry of Finance prepared changes to the current procedure for interaction between government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments. Thus, in accordance with the resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation, tax authorities, in addition to 5 types of taxes, will begin generating reports on the tax base and structure of charges for another 16 types of taxes and fees, which, in accordance with the Budget Code, participate in the formation of budget revenues of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Additional assignment standards for local budgets led to changes (compared to 2008) in the structure of tax revenues of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Along with tax revenues, it should be noted that there has been a significant increase in non-tax revenues of local budgets, the receipts of which, unlike taxes and fees, largely depend on the effectiveness of the activities of local governments. Actual receipts of non-tax revenues in 2009 amounted to 239.7 billion rubles, which is higher than the level of 2008. by 39.4%, or by 67.7 billion rubles.

The distribution of non-tax revenues by type of municipality is extremely uneven. The bulk of non-tax revenues (69.5%) went to the budgets of urban districts, the share of non-tax municipal districts is 25.2%, settlements - 5.3%.

2.4.Prospects for the development of interbudgetary relations.

Prospects for the development of interbudgetary relations for the coming period will be determined by the Concept for the development of interbudgetary relations and improving the quality of budget process management in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities. Before proceeding to a direct consideration of the directions for the development of interbudgetary relations and improving the quality of management of the budget process, it is necessary to dwell on the prerequisites for the formation of policy in this area for the coming period.

Of course, the achieved level of development of interbudgetary relations should be taken into account. As is known, since 2000, three programs have been implemented in the country, which had different names, but were associated with the development of interbudgetary relations. As a result of the implementation of these programs, a system of interbudgetary relations has been formed in the Russian Federation, which provides a set of instruments for interbudgetary regulation that fully meets the needs of the federal state. Therefore, the proposed concept does not provide for major changes in the set of instruments and in the mechanisms of interbudgetary relations. The main emphasis is on preserving existing instruments and mechanisms, strengthening their regulatory and stimulating role. Some modern instruments do not always stimulate and effectively regulate the level of budgetary security.

The second factor that influenced the choice of directions for improving interbudgetary relations is the current economic situation: many innovations related to anti-crisis measures are being prepared. They involve the creation of a certain set of tools used in managing the budget process in a crisis.

The economic situation affects not only the federal and regional budgets, but also local budgets, although there are significantly fewer problems with their execution. This is primarily due to the set of taxes assigned to local budgets. Since the beginning of 2009, the decrease in tax and non-tax revenues of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation amounted to 17%. The largest decrease is in income tax: if in January - April there was a drop of 41%, then in May - by 68%. Since the beginning of the year, personal income tax has been received relatively stable: compared to 2008, there was no decrease, even an increase of 3% was recorded. But in May there was also a deterioration in the receipt of this tax.

Mineral income tax plays a significant role in the budgets of several dozen constituent entities of the Russian Federation. During January - April, there was a decrease in income from this source by 18%, but in May there was some growth. Unfortunately, a significant decrease is observed in non-tax revenues, which in some constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities are the main source of income. Perhaps the reason for this was the fall in profits of unitary enterprises, as well as the reduction in rental rates that were implemented as part of anti-crisis measures to support entrepreneurs.

In January - April, we observed the preservation of the levels of budget expenditures and even some increase in them, which was ensured by the presence of budget balances at the beginning of the year. However, in May there was a decrease in budget expenditures of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which is obviously due to the exhaustion of the possibility of using these balances. First of all, investment expenses are reduced (by almost 50% in May).

The overall budget deficit of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation has increased significantly compared to the corresponding period last year - three times. In the first quarter of 2008 it amounted to 8 billion rubles, and in the first quarter of this year it was already 24 billion rubles. At the same time, as predicted, the possibilities of attracting borrowings from commercial banks as a source of covering the deficit are limited. Therefore, in contrast to the same period in 2008, a situation has arisen where the amount of loans received is exactly equal to the amount of loans repaid. That is, all newly taken loans are associated with the repayment of previously received loans.

This situation was predicted, so the federal authorities made a decision according to which the volume of loans to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation from the federal budget was increased to 150 billion rubles. It is important that these loans will be issued for a period of three years, and not for a year, as provided for budget loans issued to cover the cash gap. Amendments have been made to the Budget Code, according to which the receipt of such loans will not affect restrictions regarding the establishment of the budget deficit and the level of the maximum volume of state and municipal debt. In addition, additional funds are provided to ensure the balance of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Methods related to the allocation of these funds are currently being developed.

Moving directly to the concept of development of interbudgetary relations, we will highlight several points regarding anti-crisis measures. The most significant is that the project provides for the mandatory formation of reserve funds in those constituent entities of the Russian Federation whose budgets depend on individual, export-oriented sectors of the economy or on large taxpayers. In subsequent years, these regions will be required to create such funds. All the practice of our work indicates that in difficult periods we optimize our expenses, and in prosperous times we forget that expenses should always be optimal - and we begin to spend all available funds. Therefore, we believe it is right for regions that are dependent on extractive industries, on exports and experience the greatest decline during crises to create appropriate reserves. During the period of economic recovery, these subjects of the Federation have significantly more income than subjects with an economic structure focused on meeting demand in the domestic market. It is no coincidence that in many regions of the Russian Federation, capital expenditures accounted for up to 50% of all budget expenditures. This means that there was an opportunity to create such reserves.

The second significant point is related to the strengthening of centralized financial administration mechanisms in cases of crisis situations in the economy of individual subjects of the Federation. If some constituent entities experience a serious drop in revenue during budget execution (this level of decline has so far been determined to be 30%), then the federal government will enter into agreements with them on the specifics of executing their budgets for the period until the rate of revenue receipts is restored.

Another measure included in the draft concept can also be classified as anti-crisis. We are talking about improving the mechanism for introducing a temporary financial administration. Currently, as is known, it is introduced in the case when the overdue debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation exceeds 30% of its income. This situation is already quite difficult, and it will be extremely difficult to bring the entity out of such deep insolvency. It is advisable to begin measures to restore solvency at earlier stages. The concept proposes to begin consideration of issues of restoring solvency in the event of overdue debt in the amount of 10% of the budget revenues of a constituent entity of the Federation. In this case, the entity must submit a program for restoring solvency to the Russian Ministry of Finance, which will monitor its implementation. If the restoration of solvency proceeds according to the program, then the introduction of a temporary administration is not envisaged. If non-payments increase, the question of its introduction is raised. In addition, it is proposed to reduce the current level of non-payments, at which the issue of introducing a temporary administration is being considered, from 30% to 20% of the volume of own income. At the same time, the very fact of overdue debt in the amount of 20% of one’s own income is not yet an unconditional basis for the introduction of external financial administration: it is introduced if within 90 days the level of debt, which has reached 20% or more, does not decrease.

As for improving the quality of organization of the budget process and inter-budgetary relations, the concept involves the introduction of a system for monitoring the quality of management of the budget process. The Ministry of Finance will develop indicators for this monitoring, and depending on the quality of management, the subjects of the Federation will be divided into three groups. If a region falls into the third group - with low quality of management - then it will have to develop an action plan to improve the quality of management and enter into an agreement on the specifics of the implementation of the budget process in the subject of the Federation with the Ministry of Finance. In addition, it is proposed to consider the issue of compliance of the head of the financial body of such an entity with the qualification requirements established by the Government of the Russian Federation for persons holding such positions. Now such a check is carried out upon appointment to a position, and now it is proposed to return to these issues if the quality of management of the budget process in a subject of the Federation turns out to be low.

The concept involves the formation of standards for state and municipal services and standards for financial costs for the provision of state and municipal services. Perhaps in the future, interbudgetary relations will be built on the basis of these standards and norms for financial costs. But at the initial stage, standards and standards will be used to determine the level of balance of budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities.

Another important direction in the development of interbudgetary relations is related to the improvement of the system of negative transfers. Today's negative transfer system is ineffective and does not perform either an equalizing or stimulating function. Therefore, it is proposed to establish a different scale for charging a negative transfer. Currently, the current system is being studied and proposals are being collected from the regions.

A large block of the concept is devoted to improving the subsidy system. Realizing that subsidies are a serious and important tool for both regulating the level of budgetary security and stimulating subjects, we still must recognize that they do not always pursue a specific goal and we cannot always manage the corresponding results. In this regard, it is expected to consider the issue of the number and volume of subsidies. Currently, we have more than 90 subsidies, the total volume of which is 470 billion rubles. Some of them raise serious doubts regarding their stimulating and leveling role. It must be recognized that the main financial assistance should be allocated to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the general equalization of budgetary security, that is, in the form of unconditional financial transfers with the simultaneous introduction of responsibility of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the quality of management of the budget process and for the efficiency of use of funds.

A large amount of financial support today is allocated to municipalities with special statuses - science cities and closed administrative-territorial entities (CATOs). An analysis of the use of these transfers shows that they are not always effective and sometimes contribute to the development of dependency. Therefore, some modernization is also necessary here. In particular, it is proposed to establish specific goals that must be achieved as a result of the allocation of financial assistance to a science city, as well as to change the criteria on the basis of which the status of a science city is assigned. As for closed cities, it is considered advisable to transition from a multi-channel system of support for closed cities to a single-channel one, which implies the allocation of a single transfer to them to compensate for the costs associated with special operating conditions. However, these transfers must be linked to the achievement of specific goals, which, unfortunately, is not the case at present.

3.INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS BY EXAMPLE
ADMINISTRATIVE MUNICIPALITY OF THE RURAL SETTLEMENT OF VARZUGA TERESK DISTRICT
MURMANSK REGION.

3.1. General characteristics of the settlement of Varzuga, Terek region
Murmansk region.

The official name of the municipality is the municipality of the rural settlement of Varzuga, Tersky district, Murmansk region.

The municipal formation of the rural settlement of Varzuga is endowed with the status of a rural settlement with the administrative center of the village of Varzuga by the Law of the Murmansk Region dated December 8, 2004 No. 545–01-ZMO “On the status, names and composition of the territories of the municipal formation Tersky District and the municipalities included in its composition.”

Varzuga is a village in the Tersky district of the Murmansk region. Population - 351 inhabitants. The distance from the district center is 140 km. The village is located on two banks of the Varzuge River, 22 km from its confluence with the White Sea. The left, more ancient side of the village is called Nikolskaya, and the right - Prechistenskaya, or Assumption side (after the names of the temples).

Varzuga was once the largest village on the Kola Peninsula. One of the first mentions of it is contained in a charter of 1466, when the Varzuzhan Timofey Ermolinich transferred his lands in the Varzuga River and along the seashore - traps and forests - to the Solovetsky Monastery.

In the early period of the existence of Varzuga, the Solovetsky Monastery played an important role in the life of the village, which built a farmstead in Varzuga, began fishing for salmon in the river, and in March 1491 the church was consecrated in the name of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, the patron saint of sailors.

After the fall of Novgorod's independence (1478), the Terek land came under the rule of Moscow. Varzuga is called a “volost” - a separate administrative unit subordinate to the Dvina governor of the Grand Duke with his residence in Kholmogory.

Detailed information about the Varzuga volost is contained in the inventory of 1563. In the sovereign village there were 167 families in 124 households. By the scale of the Russian North, this is a very populous village. Commercial and agricultural lands (bows and hay fields) in the volost were jointly owned by the local rural community, church (Solovetsky, Nikolo-Korelsky and Antoniev-Siysky monasteries) and secular owners.

In 1568, the villages of the Northwestern White Sea region were subjected to an oprichnina pogrom committed by Basarga Leontyev’s detachment; Varzuga also did not remain aloof. This event went down in history as “Basargin pravezh” (pravezh - collection of debts or taxes through torture). Reports of the crime have not been preserved, but the results and consequences of this atrocity are clearly visible in the inventory of the village carried out in May 1575. Seven years after “Basargin's Pravezh” in Varzuga there were 79 empty courtyards and 33 places overgrown with weeds, where peasant houses stood before the pogrom; no one used the 11 salmon tones, and the Assumption and St. Nicholas churches “stood without singing.”

In 1614-1619, the Varzuzhsky volost became the patrimony of the Solovetsky and Novospassky monasteries and the Patriarchal House. For the use of fields and mowing fields, Varzuga peasants paid their owners a quitrent tax. But in 1764, Catherine II, by her decree, liquidated spiritual estates, transferred monastic and patriarchal peasants to the category of state peasants, transferring to them all volost lands into communal ownership. The village became free and quickly became rich.

According to the 1897 census, there were 793 residents in Varzuga, and in 1910 there were already 1001 residents living in the village, there was a school of the Ministry of Public Education and a parish school.

The revolution of 1917 did not go unnoticed for Varzuga. Life began to be rebuilt and on May 1, 1930, fourteen Varzuzhan families united into a collective farm, which was called “Sprouts of Communism.” A rural settlement has the right to have official symbols reflecting historical, cultural, national and other local traditions, approved by the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement of Varzuga.

The procedure for using official symbols is established by a decision of the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement of Varzuga.

The economic basis of local self-government of a rural settlement consists of municipally owned property, funds from the local budget of the rural settlement of Varzuga, as well as the property rights of the rural settlement of Varzuga.

The structure of the administration of the municipal formation of the rural settlement of Varzuga, Tersky district is presented in Figure 3 (See Appendix).

Municipal property is recognized and protected by the state on an equal basis with other forms of property.

The rural settlement of Varzuga owns property intended for:

1) to resolve issues of local importance;

2) to exercise certain state powers delegated to local governments, in cases established by federal laws and the laws of the Murmansk region;

3) to ensure the activities of local government bodies and local government officials, municipal employees, employees of municipal enterprises and institutions in accordance with the regulatory legal acts of the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement of Varzuga.

The rural settlement of Varzuga may own:

1) objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments), regardless of the category of their historical and cultural significance, if such objects are necessary for the exercise of powers of local government bodies of a rural settlement, as well as in other cases established by federal law;

2) property necessary for the exercise of powers, the right to exercise which is granted to local governments by federal laws.

A rural settlement owns property intended to resolve issues of local importance:

1) property intended for electricity, heat, gas and water supply to the population, drainage, fuel supply to the population, for lighting the streets of populated areas;

2) public roads, bridges and other transport engineering structures within the boundaries of populated areas, with the exception of public roads, bridges and other transport engineering structures of federal and regional significance, as well as property intended for their maintenance;

3) housing stock for social use to provide low-income citizens living in a rural settlement and in need of improved housing conditions with residential premises under the terms of a social tenancy agreement, as well as property necessary to maintain the municipal housing stock;

4) passenger transport and other property intended for transport services to the population within the boundaries of the settlement;

5) property intended to prevent and eliminate the consequences of emergency situations within the boundaries of the settlement;

6) facilities, as well as fire-fighting equipment and equipment intended to provide primary fire extinguishing measures;

7) property of settlement libraries;

8) property intended for organizing leisure time and providing residents of the settlement with the services of cultural organizations;

9) objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) regardless of the category of their historical and cultural significance in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation;

10) property intended for the development of physical culture and mass sports on the territory of the settlement;

11) property intended for organizing the improvement and landscaping of the territory of the settlement, including for the arrangement of public places and places of mass recreation for the population;

12) property intended for the collection and removal of household waste and garbage;

13) property, including land plots intended for organizing funeral services and maintaining burial places;

14) property intended for the official promulgation (publication) of municipal legal acts and other official information;

15) land plots classified as municipal property of the settlement in accordance with federal laws;

16) separate water bodies on the territory of the settlement;

17) forests located within the boundaries of populated areas;

18) property intended for the creation, development and protection of medical and recreational areas and resorts of local importance on the territory of the settlement;

19) property intended for organizing the protection of the population and territory of the settlement from natural man-made emergencies;

20) property intended to ensure the safety of people on water bodies, protect their life and health.

The specifics of the emergence, implementation and termination of the right of municipal property, as well as the procedure for accounting for municipal property are established by federal law.

The rural settlement of Varzuga has its own budget (local budget).

The budget of a rural settlement is developed and approved in the form of a decision of the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement. As an integral part of the budget of a rural settlement, estimates of income and expenses of individual settlements of a rural settlement that are not settlements may be provided.

The procedure for the development, approval and execution of the local budget is determined by the Regulations on the budget structure and budget process in the rural settlement of Varzuga, approved by the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement of Varzuga.

3.2. Municipal budget of the village and state subsidies during the crisis.

The budget revenues of the rural settlement of Varzuga are generated from its own income and deductions from federal and regional regulatory taxes and fees, other income, gratuitously and irrevocably received in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the Murmansk region, decisions of the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement at the disposal of local government bodies .

The budget income of a rural settlement includes:

1) local taxes and fees;

2) deductions from federal and regional taxes and fees in accordance with the standards established by federal laws and the laws of the Murmansk region;

3) subventions provided to ensure the implementation by local government bodies of certain state powers transferred by federal laws and laws of the Murmansk region;

4) income in the form of gratuitous transfers from budgets of other levels, including subsidies for equalizing the budgetary provision of rural settlements, presented in accordance with federal legislation and the legislation of the Murmansk region;

5) other means of financial assistance from budgets of other levels for shared financing of investment programs and projects for the development of public infrastructure in rural settlements;

6) part of the profit of municipal enterprises remaining after paying taxes and fees and making other obligatory payments, in the amounts established by the decision of the Council of Deputies of a rural settlement, and part of the income from the provision of paid services by local government bodies and municipal institutions, remaining after paying taxes and fees;

7) fines, the establishment of which, in accordance with federal law, is within the competence of local government bodies;

8) income from property in municipal ownership;

9) income from paid services provided by budgetary institutions under the jurisdiction of local governments;

10) means of self-taxation of citizens;

11) voluntary donations;

12) other sources of income in accordance with federal laws, laws of the Murmansk region and decisions of local governments, established by the Council of Deputies of a rural settlement.

Expenditures of the budget of a rural settlement are carried out in the forms provided for by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation.

The administration of a rural settlement maintains a register of expenditure obligations of the rural settlement in the manner established by the decision of the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement.

The decision of the Council of Deputies determines the size and conditions of remuneration for deputies exercising their powers on a permanent basis, the head of a rural settlement, establishes municipal minimum social standards and other standards for local budget expenditures to resolve issues of local importance.

The amounts and conditions of remuneration for municipal employees, employees of municipal enterprises and institutions are established by a resolution of the head of the rural settlement.

The expenditure of funds from the budget of a rural settlement is carried out in areas according to the budget classification and within the limits established by the decision of the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement on the budget of the rural settlement for the next financial year.

The procedure for the implementation of local budget expenditures for the implementation of certain state powers delegated to local governments by federal laws and the laws of the Murmansk region is established, respectively, by the federal government authorities and the state authorities of the Murmansk region.

In cases and in the manner provided for by these laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the Murmansk region adopted in accordance with them, the implementation of local budget expenditures for the exercise by local government bodies of certain state powers delegated to them by federal laws and the laws of the Murmansk region may be regulated by regulatory legal acts of local government bodies.

Composition of the territory of the joint venture Varzuga

With. Varzuga (administrative center of the settlement),

n.p. Lighthouse Nikodimsky,

With. Kuzomen,

With. Kashkarans,

With. Tetrino,

With. Chavanga,

With. Hoop,

With. Chapoma

The population of the rural settlement is 0.9 thousand people.

Industry and transport SPK RK "Sunrises of Communism" (agricultural production cooperative fishing collective farm), SPK RK "Chapoma", RK "Belomorsky Fisherman".

There are no roads (except for the village of Olenitsa, the village of Kashkarantsy, the village of Varzuga).

Almost the entire economic life of the village is connected with the collective farm, which still bears the name “Sprouts of Communism.” The collective farm has the status of a fishing farm and is engaged in the production, processing, and marketing of agricultural and fishery products. The collective farm is part of the Union of Fishing Collective Farms of the Murmansk Region (Murmansk Fisherman Collective Farm Union), five of its fishing vessels are registered in the register of Murmansk vessels: Zhemchuzhina, Amethyst, Katrin, Tavrichesky, Usma, and three transport vessels: Katran, Loukhi, Smolninsky. They employ 300 sailors.

A new area of ​​activity for the collective farm in the 1990s was the development of fishing tourism. On the rivers Varzuga, Umba, Kitsa and others, 14 sports and tourist camps were built for Russian and foreign tourists. They are visited by tourists from 97 countries, mainly from Great Britain. One of the famous guests was Eric Clapton. There is a helicopter available to serve tourists. The collective farm is included in the unified federal register of tour operators of the Federal Tourism Agency of the Russian Federation (Certificate number MVT 002864).

In the late 2000s, the collective farm decided to expand the scope of recreational fishing and rented 12 lakes along the entire Tersky coast. Fishing vouchers are distributed mainly among residents of the Murmansk region; The most popular is winter ice fishing.

The collective farm is also engaged in livestock farming and processing of agricultural products. The village produces butter and sausage. In addition, he carries out housing construction in the village; his department runs two kindergartens and two secondary schools.

The settlement budget in 2009 amounted to 32,037.73 thousand rubles. Sources of income are presented in Table 6 (See Appendix).

Based on the data in Table 6, we will construct a diagram of the structure of budget revenues in 2009 (See Appendix, Fig. 4).

From this diagram we can conclude that the most significant share in the income of the settlement’s budget is occupied by subsidies to equalize the level of budgetary security from the FFPP GMR - 38%, the second place is occupied by the Personal Income Tax - 30%.

At the same time, the smallest shares have subventions from the budget of the State Property Management Agency for the exercise of part of the powers to dispose of land plots, less than 3 hectares - 0.33%, income from the rental of property under the operational management of state authorities, local governments and institutions created by them and under the economic management of MUP – 0.28%.

3.3.Improving the system of interbudgetary relations
in modern conditions.

The main reason for the chronic crisis of interbudgetary relations and regional finances in Russia is the sharp disproportion between the financial resources transferred to the regional level and the responsibility for their use. The official (legal) system of interbudgetary relations remains overly centralized even by the standards of unitary states; the deliberate impracticability (irrationality) of its requirements allows regional authorities to shift the main political and financial responsibility to the federal center, while retaining almost unlimited shadow powers.

Also, one of the main reasons is the insufficiently effective system for distributing interbudgetary transfers between regions, which does not encourage regions to work hard in terms of optimizing their financial and economic resources and encourages dependency. Of course, there are certain positive changes in this direction, but they are still not sufficient to significantly change the situation for the better in the near future.

Reform of interbudgetary relations in the next 3-4 years will go in the direction defined in the “Concept for increasing the efficiency of interbudgetary relations and the quality of management of state and municipal finances in the Russian Federation in 2009-2011.” and the budget message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of March 9, 2007, although not as quickly and effectively as we would like.

This Concept defines the following main objectives:

2) creating incentives to increase revenues to regional and local budgets;

3) creating incentives to improve the quality of regional and municipal financial management;

4) increasing the transparency of regional and municipal finances;

5) providing methodological and consulting assistance to the constituent entities of the Federation in order to improve the efficiency and quality of regional and municipal finance management, as well as for the implementation of local government reform.

The Budget Address identifies the following main tasks for 2009-2011:

Transformation of the federal budget into an effective instrument of macroeconomic regulation;

Ensuring long-term balance of budgets at all levels

Further lengthening of the budget planning horizon.

Conclusion. The main directions for improving interbudgetary relations in Russia should be:

1) strengthening the financial independence of the subjects of the Federation;

4) introduction of an effective differentiated system for allocating transfers to needy regions depending on the results of their financial and economic activities

5) providing certain financial benefits for donor regions, at the expense of which the regions receiving federal assistance live.

CONCLUSION

Summarizing the work, we can draw the following conclusions.

Interbudgetary relations are the relations between government bodies of the Russian Federation, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments related to the formation and execution of relevant budgets.

The implementation of political and economic transformations in Russia requires the formation of a qualitatively new model of the budget system, adequate to the federal structure of the state, capable of ensuring the effective distribution and redistribution of public financial resources at all levels of government. After all, in the end, not only the socio-economic development of the country, but also the relationship between the federal center and the regions depends on this.

The main directions for improving interbudgetary relations in Russia should be:

1) strengthening the financial independence of the subjects of the Federation;

2) consolidation of regions on a mutually beneficial, economically feasible basis;

3) creation of a clear regulatory framework that objectively evaluates the efforts of regions in need aimed at growing their socio-economic base;

4) introduction of an effective differentiated system for allocating transfers to needy regions depending on the results of their financial and economic activities;

5) providing certain financial benefits for donor regions, at the expense of which the regions receiving federal assistance live.

In its current form, the Russian budgetary system combines the features of a unitary, federal and even confederal state. The resources for its improvement are practically exhausted, the necessary reform of fiscal relations between federal, regional and local authorities, but the reform is not revolutionary, but evolutionary, involving a phased solution of specific tasks, such as:

– there is no economic efficiency in the use of budget resources, because regional and especially local authorities do not have stable income sources, and the distribution of financial assistance punishes regions that increase their own incomes and reduce irrational expenses;

– social justice is not achieved, since financial support for regions does not have a clear strategy of criteria for equalizing interregional differences;

– the delimitation of revenue sources between levels of the budget system is unstable. The possibility of annual changes in the standards for deductions from federal taxes disincentives regional and local authorities to develop the economic and tax base of the territories.

The solution to many priority tasks of budget policy largely depends on the modernization of interbudgetary relations, which are designed to stimulate regional authorities and local governments to increase the profitability of territories and more rational use of budget funds.

According to the concept of the federal law “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation,” the ongoing changes to the territorial foundations of local self-government are aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of the activities of municipalities in resolving issues of local importance and exercising certain state powers. In this regard, the requirements for the system of interbudgetary relations have also changed, which can be outlined as follows:

Formation of two levels of local budgets (district and settlement);

Determining the list of the authorities’ own powers;

Introduction of subventions for the delegation of state powers;

Long-term assignment of income to budgets of all levels;

Using the principle of objectivity in equalizing the budgetary provision of regions and municipalities; introduction of “negative transfers”;

Establishment of the institution of temporary financial administration.

The main instruments of interbudgetary regulation include:

Establishment of standards for deductions to local budgets from taxes subject to credit to a higher budget (budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or municipal district);

Subsidies to local budgets to equalize their budgetary security through financial support funds and other financial assistance;

Subventions from the budgets of the most income-rich municipalities to higher-level budgets (“negative transfers”).

Among the main measures to improve the efficiency of interbudgetary relations and the quality of public finance management, the following can be identified: improving the system of formation and distribution of interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget and other types of financial assistance; development of monitoring and control over the implementation of federal powers transferred to regional and municipal authorities; increasing the importance of incentive types of financial assistance; prevention and liquidation of consequences of emergency situations leading to an increase in budget expenditures; increasing the effectiveness of budget expenditures and improving medium-term planning; increasing the transparency of regional and municipal finances; expansion of audit of the public administration sector at the regional and municipal levels; improvement of legislation of the subjects of the Federation, etc.

At the same time, the reform of interbudgetary relations at this stage considers such fundamental blocks of the system of interbudgetary relations as the delimitation of expenses and revenues between levels of the budget system, the extension of the reform to the level of the subjects of the Federation (relationships between regional and local authorities), the development of the regulatory framework of the budget process on regional and local levels.

The main reason for the chronic crisis of interbudgetary relations and regional finances in Russia is the sharp disproportion between the financial resources transferred to the subnational level and the responsibility for their use. The official (legal) system of interbudgetary relations remains overly centralized even by the standards of unitary states; the deliberate impracticability (irrationality) of its requirements allows subnational authorities to shift the main political and financial responsibility to the federal center, while retaining almost unlimited shadow powers. The lack of legal authority to manage public finances means the lack of legal responsibility for its results, which results in decision-making based on the principle of political expediency and ineffective management of public finances.

Amendments to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation adopted in 2007 completed the assignment of revenues to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities on a long-term basis. Along with the incentives inherent in the methods for equalizing the budgetary provision of regions, this has become one of the factors in the sustainable growth of tax and non-tax revenues of the consolidated budgets of the Russian Federation.

In general, the mechanism of delegating the execution of federal powers to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the financial support of which is provided through subventions from the federal budget, also justifies itself.

The mechanism for promoting positive structural changes in the regions, providing for the provision of federal subsidies to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, has proven itself.

Since 2008, for the first time, incentives have been created at the legislative level to reduce the subsidization of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets by expanding the budgetary powers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities with a high degree of budgetary self-sufficiency.

State authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation do not always comply with the principles of financial relations with municipalities established by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, including assigning to local budgets on a long-term basis deductions from taxes subject to credit to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The traditions of “centralized regulation” of local budget revenues and expenditures are difficult to overcome.

The ongoing local government reform is one of the most dramatic in recent times. However, there are still a number of serious problems to be solved in the direction of improving inter-budgetary relations and increasing the quality and efficiency of regional and municipal financial management.

Federal Law “On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation”

Budget Code of the Russian Federation

Law of the Murmansk region “On the status, names and composition of the territories of the municipal formation Tersky district and the municipalities included in its composition”

The concept of increasing the efficiency of interbudgetary relations and the quality of management of state and municipal finances in the Russian Federation in 2009-2011.

Alexandrov I.M. Budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / I.M. Alexandrov. - M.: Dashkov and K, 2008.

Babich A.M., Pavlova L.N. State and municipal finances. M.: Finance UNITY, 2007.

Balashov D.M. Tales of the Tersky coast of the White Sea - M.: Nauka, 2005. P. 94.

Berlin S.I. Theory of finance: Textbook. allowance / S.I. Berlin. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2007.

Bogov Kh.M. Development of interbudgetary relations and prerequisites for economic growth [Text] / Kh.M. Bogov // Finance and credit. - 2009. - No. 28.

Budget system of Russia [Text]: textbook / edited by G.B. Pole. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2009.

Budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / O.V. Vrublevskaya [and others]; edited by O.V. Vrublevskaya, M.V. Romanovsky. - M.: Yurait-Izdat, 2008.

Budget system of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook. allowance / V.Yu. Nalivaisky, N.K. Dvoretskova, V.F. Kostyuchenko [and others]. - Rostov n/d.: RGEA, 2008.

Vakhrin P.I., Neshitoy A.S. Budget system of the Russian Federation: Textbook / P.I. Vakhrin, A.S. Unsewn. – 3rd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Publishing and trading corporation "Dashkov and Co", 2007.

Vyshegorodtsev M.M. Budget management [Text]: course of lectures / M.M. Vyshegorodtsev. - M.: Business and service, 2007.

Gardeev A.M. Budget management. Course of lectures, M.: Business and Service, 2007.

Gvozdikova A.V. Main directions of budget and tax policy during the period of reforming the budget process in the Russian Federation [Text] / A.V. Gvozdikova, E.G. Danchenko // Trends in the development of the financial and credit mechanism in the Russian Federation: materials of the Anniversary Interuniversity. scientific-practical conferences; Yuzhno-Ros. state University of Economics and Service. - Mines: YURGUES Publishing House, 2009.

Godin A. M., Podporina I. V. Budget and budgetary system of the Russian Federation. M.: Dashkov and K., 2008.

Godin A.M. Budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / A.M. Godin, N.S. Maksimova, I.V. Podporina. - M.: Dashkov and K, 2008.

Danchenko E.G. Some aspects of new interbudgetary relations [Text] / E.G. Danchenko // Bulletin of the Humanitarian Institute: scientific. magazine. - 2008.

Danchenko E.G. Formation of local budgets in the Russian Federation [Text]: monograph / E.G. Danchenko; Yuzhno-Ros. state University of Economics and Service. - Mines: YURGUES Publishing House, 2008.

Zhuravlev V.V., Savrukov N.T. State budget. Lecture notes. St. Petersburg: Politekhnika, 2008.

Ivanova O.B. Improving inter-budgetary relations in the conditions of the formation of budgetary federalism [Text]: scientific and practical. allowance / O.B. Ivanova, L.V. Bogoslavtseva, Yu.D. Dzhamurzaev. - Rostov n/d., 2007.

Igudin A.G. Why the severity of contradictions in interbudgetary relations is not decreasing [Text] / A.G. Igudin // Finance. - 2008. - No. 2.

Karchevskaya S.A., Khvorostukhina D.S. Financial support for local government reform / S.A. Karchevskaya, D.S. Khvorostukhina // Finance. – 2008. - No. 4.

Kachanova E.A. State and municipal finance // http://www.humanities.edu.ru

Kirillov A.P. Improving the quality of organizing the budget process // http://bujet.ru/

Kirpichnikov V.A. Budgetary federalism and local self-government [Text] / V.A. Kirpichnikov // Finance. - 2009. - No. 6.

Kovaleva T.M. Budget and fiscal policy in the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook. allowance / T.M. Kovaleva, S.V. Barulin. - M.: KNORUS, 2008.

Kostyuchenko V.F. Implementation of the principles of interbudgetary relations by regional bodies of the federal treasury [Text] / V.F. Kostyuchenko, N.V. Lazareva // Finance. - 2009. - No. 11.

Lavrov A.M. Transition to a new system of interbudgetary relations in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation [Text] / A.M. Lavrov // Finance. - 2007. - No. 9.

Leksin V. Stereotypes and realities of budgetary federalism [Text] / V. Leksin, A. Shvetsov // Questions of Economics. - 2009. - No. 1.

Leksin V.N., Shvetsov A.N. Budgetary relations in the Russian Federation. - M.: Formula of Law, 2007.

Interbudgetary relations: financial assistance flows will be optimized (Interview with Deputy Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation A.G. Siluanov) // Finance. – 2008. - No. 4.

Murmansk region. Guide/Publishers: Avangard, Le Petit Fute, - 2009, p. 21.

Ponamarev V.A. Prospects for the development of interbudgetary relations // http://bujet.ru/

Sazhina M.A. Budget policy of the state [Text] / M.A. Sazhina // Finance and credit. - 2008. - 27.

Seleznev A.Z. Budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook. allowance / A.Z. Seleznev; edited by prof. V.Yu. Katasonova. - M.: Master, 2007.

Siluanov A.G. Interbudgetary relations: directions for improvement [Text] / A.G. Siluanov // Finance. - 2008. - No. 6.

Somoev R.G. Budgetary federalism and the development of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation [Text] / R.G. Somoev. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Economics, 2009.

Somoev R.G. Budget deficit: principles, dynamics, regulation [Text] / R.G. Somoev. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Economics, 2009.

Federal budget and regions: experience in analyzing financial flows [Text] / Moscow. Center of the Institute "East-West". - M.: Dialog-MSU, 2009.

Fedotkin V. Federalism and local self-government [Text] / V. Fedotkin // Questions of Economics. - 2008. - No. 1.

Finance [Text]: textbook / edited by V.M. Rodionova. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2008.

Finance and credit: Textbook / Ed. prof. M.V. Romanovsky, prof. G.N. Beloglazova. – M.: Yurayt-Izdat, 2007.

Finance. Money turnover. Credit. Ed. Drobozina A. A. et al. M: Finance, UNITI, 2006.

Finance. Ed. M.V. Romanovsky, O.V. Vrublevskoy, B.M., Sabanti M.: Perspective Yurayt, 2007.

Khristenko V.B. Interbudgetary relations and regional finance management / V.B. Khristenko. – M.: University, 2008.

Khristenko V.B., Lavrov A.M.. New stage of reform of interbudgetary relations / V.B. Khristenko, A.M. Lavrov // Finance. - 2009. - No. 2.

Economic theory [Text]: textbook for students. higher textbook institutions / edited by V.D. Kamaeva. - M.: VLADOS, 2009.

Yurin A.V. On the concept of increasing the efficiency of interbudgetary relations in 2009-2011 / A.V. Yurin // Finance. – 2008. - No. 6.

APPLICATION

Rice. 1. Budget regulation

Table 1. Volume of financial assistance to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation from the federal budget in 2002-2009.

Table 2. Interbudgetary transfers compared to revenues
and expenses of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation in 2008-2009, billion rubles.

Indicators	Federal budget		Budgets territories		Consolidated budget
	2008	2009	2008	2009	2008	2009
Total income
Tax revenues
Non-tax revenues
Total expenses
Including: interbudgetary transfers
Surplus

Table 3. Ideas about interbudgetary transfers

Mandatory payments of the constituent entities of the Federation to the budget of the Russian Federation (taxes and fees)	All regions contribute in the form of obligatory payments to the budget
Part of the income, including our own, goes to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation	All regions receive income in accordance with the accepted procedure for securing income
All subjects of the Federation, within the framework of interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget, receive funds in accordance with federal legislation, if the federal center is obliged to finance the corresponding expenses	All regions, within the framework of federal obligations and in accordance with budgetary powers in terms of financing the socio-economic development of regions, have the right to count on subsidies and subventions from funds formed for financing under the section “interbudgetary transfers”, with the exception of the Fund for Financial Support of Regions (FFSR)
Some regions receive funds from the federal budget as part of interbudgetary transfers if they are insufficient to cover budget expenses at the standard level - the limits established by law	Financing is provided by FFPR funds

Rice. 2. Forms of financial assistance from the federal budget
budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation

Table 4. The ratio of expenditure obligations, taxes and revenues of the federal, regional and local budgets in the Russian Federation
Federation in 2009

No subsidies from compensation funds.

Table 5. Tax revenues of municipalities in 2009

Types of income

Urban districts

Municipal districts

Settlements

Total

% execution

execution

% execution

% execution

Tax revenues, total

of them:

Land tax

Fig. 3. Structure of the administration of the municipal formation of the rural settlement of Varzuga, Terek region

Table 6. Budget of the settlement of Varzuga, Murmansk region in 2009

Source of income	Amount, thousand rubles	Share, %
Personal income tax
Property tax for individuals
Land tax
Rent for lands owned by the state before the delimitation of state ownership of land and proceeds from the sale of the right to conclude lease agreements for these land plots
Income from the rental of property under the operational management of state authorities, local governments and institutions created by them and under the economic management of municipal unitary enterprises
Other income from the provision of paid services and compensation of state costs (Hiring)
Subsidies to equalize the level of budgetary security from the regional FFPP
Subsidies to equalize the level of budgetary security from the FFPP GMR
Subventions from the regional budget to fulfill part of the powers for primary military registration
Subventions from the GMR budget for the exercise of part of the powers to dispose of land plots, less than 3 hectares
Income from sales of services

Rice. 4. Structure of budget revenues p. Varzuga, Murmansk region in 2009

Budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / O.V. Vrublevskaya [and others]; edited by O.V. Vrublevskaya, M.V. Romanovsky. - M.: Yurait-Izdat, 2008. P. 54.

Kovaleva T.M. Budget and fiscal policy in the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook. allowance / T.M. Kovaleva, S.V. Barulin. - M.: KNORUS, 2008. P. 112.

Danchenko E.G. Some aspects of new interbudgetary relations [Text] / E.G. Danchenko // Bulletin of the Humanitarian Institute: scientific. magazine. - 2008. P. 61.

Gardeev A.M. Budget management. Course of lectures, M.: Business and Service, 2007. P. 132.

Somoev R.G. Budgetary federalism and the development of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation [Text] / R.G. Somoev. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Economics, 2009. P. 105-106.

Khristenko V.B., Lavrov A.M.. New stage of reform of interbudgetary relations / V.B. Khristenko, A.M. Lavrov // Finance. - 2009. - No. 2. P. 18.

Seleznev A.Z. Budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook. allowance / A.Z. Seleznev; edited by prof. V.Yu. Katasonova. - M.: Master, 2007. P. 151.

Zhuravlev V.V., Savrukov N.T. State budget. Lecture notes. St. Petersburg: Politekhnika, 2008. P. 178.

Danchenko E.G. Formation of local budgets in the Russian Federation [Text]: monograph / E.G. Danchenko; Yuzhno-Ros. state University of Economics and Service. - Mines: YURGUES Publishing House, 2008. P. 84.

Leksin V. Stereotypes and realities of budgetary federalism [Text] / V. Leksin, A. Shvetsov // Questions of Economics. - 2009. - No. 1. P. 27-28.

Kirillov A.P. Improving the quality of organizing the budget process // http://bujet.ru/

Interbudgetary relations: financial assistance flows will be optimized (Interview with Deputy Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation A.G. Siluanov) // Finance. – 2010. - No. 4. P. 19-20.

Godin A.M. Budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / A.M. Godin, N.S. Maksimova, I.V. Podporina. - M.: Dashkov and K, 2008. P. 194.

Kirpichnikov V.A. Budgetary federalism and local self-government [Text] / V.A. Kirpichnikov // Finance. - 2009. - No. 6. P. 52.

Kostyuchenko V.F. Implementation of the principles of interbudgetary relations by regional bodies of the federal treasury [Text] / V.F. Kostyuchenko, N.V. Lazareva // Finance. - 2009. - No. 11. P. 51-52.

Vakhrin P.I., Neshitoy A.S. Budget system of the Russian Federation: Textbook / P.I. Vakhrin, A.S. Unsewn. – 3rd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Publishing and trading corporation "Dashkov and Co", 2007.

Ivanova O.B. Improving inter-budgetary relations in the conditions of the formation of budgetary federalism [Text]: scientific and practical. allowance / O.B. Ivanova, L.V. Bogoslavtseva, Yu.D. Dzhamurzaev. - Rostov n/d., 2007. P. 168.

Vyshegorodtsev M.M. Budget management [Text]: course of lectures / M.M. Vyshegorodtsev. - M.: Business and Service, 2007. P. 92.

Balashov D.M. Tales of the Tersky coast of the White Sea - M.: Nauka, 2005. P. 94.

Siluanov A.G. Interbudgetary relations: directions for improvement [Text] / A.G. Siluanov // Finance. - 2008. - No. 6. P. 37.

Kachanova E.A. State and municipal finance // http://www.humanities.edu.ru

Somoev R.G. Budget deficit: principles, dynamics, regulation [Text] / R.G. Somoev. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Economics, 2009. P. 208.

Murmansk region. Guide/Publishers: Avangard, Le Petit Fute, - 2009, p. 28.

Murmansk region. Guide/Publishers: Avangard, Le Petit Fute, - 2009, p. 21.

Babich A.M., Pavlova L.N. State and municipal finances. M.: Finance UNITY, 2007.

Budget system of Russia [Text]: textbook / edited by G.B. Pole. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2009. P. 107.

Finance [Text]: textbook / edited by V.M. Rodionova. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2008. P. 224.

Interbudgetary relations– these are relations between government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities and local governments on issues of regulating budgetary legal relations, delimiting income and expenses and implementing the budget process.

Target– creation of initial conditions for balancing budgets at each level of government, taking into account the tasks and functions assigned to these government bodies.

Principles:

1. distribution and assignment of budget expenditures to certain levels of the budget system

2. delimitation and distribution of regulatory revenues by levels of the budget system (each level of the budget system is assigned its own revenues - the Tax Code assigns federal taxes to the federal budget, regional taxes to the budget of the subjects). Regulatory are incomes or taxes for which a higher authority establishes a standard of deductions as a percentage of its income for a lower level of government and budget on a temporary (at least 1 year) or long-term (at least 3 years) basis.

3. equality of budgetary rights of constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipalities

4. equalization of levels of minimum budgetary provision

5. equality of all budgets in relations with the federal budget, local – with the budget of the subject.

32. Assessments of the financial situation and quality of financial management of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation and municipalities

In accordance with the developments of NIFI in 2002, the Ministry of Finance uses a methodology for assessing the financial situation and quality of financial management of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and a municipal entity. The essence of this document is:

1. assessment of the subject’s own (fixed) income, based on the tax potential of the territory and non-tax income:

The amount received is compared with expenses according to social standards, based on the population of the corresponding category living in a given territory. If the share of these revenues is less than 64%, the territory has the right to apply to the federal budget for a subsidy.

Own income is compared not with expenses according to the social standard, but with expenses + budget debt

Own income is compared with all expenses of the subject or municipality. In the event that income is less than 30%, the financial position of the subject is unstable.

2. management

The quality of financial management at the level of a municipal entity or at the level of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is assessed depending on the stability and amount of own income separately from tax and non-tax sources for a number of years. At the same time, the tendency for sources to increase is a good sign of financial management. In addition, the quality of financial management is determined through the share of municipal and regional enterprises operating at losses.

Through the amount of extra-budgetary social funds formed on the territory of the municipality or subject. A positive trend is an increase in the size of funds.

Through the amount of loans and credits - the debt of the budget of a municipality or region to the population and legal entities. A good trend is a decrease in value.

Introduction

Interbudgetary relations arise and function in the public administration system vertically or horizontally and are regulated by the scope of functional responsibilities and tasks of each level of government, taking into account their financial capabilities.

financial resources budget system

Interbudgetary relations: concept, principles, goals, models, forms, methods, tools

Interbudgetary relations are understood as a set of economic and legal relations between state and local authorities during the budget process.

Interbudgetary relations are based on the principles:

• 1. Delineation and consolidation on a permanent basis or distribution according to temporary short-term (not less than for a financial year) or long-term standards of regulatory revenues by levels of the budget system;
• 2. Distribution and consolidation of budget expenditures at individual levels of the budget system;
• 3. Equality of budgetary rights in budgetary relations.

Equality of budgetary rights presupposes: the use of a unified methodology for calculating standards of financial costs for the services provided by state and local authorities, standards for calculating financial assistance to territorial budgets.

Interbudgetary relations include: division and legal assignment of responsibility for the performance of certain social and economic functions to the budgets of the budget system; determining the amount of expenses that ensure the implementation of the powers assigned to each level of the budget system; establishment and legal consolidation of sources of income for budgets of all levels; all forms of financial support for territories.

The goals of inter-budgetary relations are: the creation of a single economic space, financial provision of uniform minimum standards in the economic and social development of regions, ensuring equal social protection and guarantees of social rights of citizens, that is, ensuring favorable conditions for economic and social development throughout the country. Achieving goals is ensured by a mechanism that is a set of ways to organize interbudgetary relations and includes models (centralized, decentralized and cooperative), forms (deconcentration, delegation (transfer of powers), devolution, etc.), methods (regulation of income, expenses, transfers, budget loans, etc.) and instruments (redistribution of income, delimitation of spending powers), as well as institutional and legal structures for organizing interbudgetary relations.

Deconcentration involves the transfer of responsibilities from central government structures located in the capital to their regional branches. According to Rondinelli (1981), deconcentration is a system of local government in which all lower levels act as executors of the will of the central government and are appointed by or directly subordinate to the central government. This is the least developed version of administrative decentralization.

Delegation is the transfer of government power, administrative powers and (or) responsibility for the implementation of clearly defined tasks to structures and organizations that are either independent or under the indirect control of the central government. Typically, delegation of functions is carried out by central ministries to semi-autonomous organizations that are not fully controlled by the central government, but are still legally accountable to it (for example, state-owned enterprises, public utilities and regional planning and economic development organizations).

Decentralization. In a broad sense, the term covers all forms of division and delegation of responsibilities between different levels of government, including national government, regional authorities and local governments. In a narrower sense, decentralization refers to the delegation of certain functions (powers) to the local level.

Statutory decentralization is an extreme form of decentralization in which independently created local governments are responsible for the provision of a specific set of public services and also have the power to levy taxes and fees to finance such services. In such a system, local governments are empowered to independently collect their revenues and make investment decisions.

It is decentralization with legislative support that underlies decentralization in the political sphere.

Legislative decentralization is usually used as a synonym for fiscal decentralization, in which local governments have clear spending obligations, significant budgetary independence, and legislatively defined geographic boundaries within which they perform government functions. Although there may be a variety of forms of fiscal decentralization, which correspond to the degree of independence in decision-making at the subnational level. The general definition of the term “fiscal decentralization” includes the political, economic and institutional foundations of inter-budgetary relations and covers aspects from analyzing the effectiveness of government institutions and the formation of a sustainable infrastructure financing system to improving the mechanisms of budget transfers and supporting social security systems (Ebel and Hotra, 1997).

Devolution is the transfer of rights or responsibilities from one level of management or power to another.

The model of interbudgetary relations is understood as an institutional approach to determining the basis for organizing relationships in resolving the issue of distribution of income and expenses between levels of the budget system. The following models of interbudgetary relations are distinguished:

centralized, decentralized and cooperative.

The centralized model of interbudgetary relations is based on the following principles:

• 1. Limitation of the rights of local authorities in forming their own budgets;
• 2. Absence or formal presence of distribution of functional responsibilities between levels of public administration;
• 3. Subordination of regional interests to national needs;
• 4. Authoritarian distribution of tax powers on the part of the state and the provision of financial assistance to local authorities;
• 5. Dependence on the form of government.

The formation of local budgets under the centralized model is carried out in inextricable connection with the central budget within the framework of the consolidated budget plan.

This model of organizing interbudgetary relations has its advantages and disadvantages.

The advantages include: unity of management organization; increasing the organizing capacity of the budget system; directing financial resources to accelerate the achievement of established goals; improving control and coordination of spending powers of local authorities; reducing the risk of local authorities making erroneous decisions regarding the distribution of funds within the powers established for them; control and equalization of the standard of living of the population of the territories.

Disadvantages: weakening of the effectiveness of the activities of central government bodies as a result of their overload; weakening of financial support and development of the financial base of the territories; dependent sentiments among local authorities, confident that in any situation the territory’s budget will be balanced.

The decentralized model is based on the principles:

• 1. Non-interference of the central government in the budget process of municipalities and regions;
• 2. Clear legislative delimitation of spending powers between different levels of management;
• 3. Targeted development of financial autonomy of local government;
• 4. Distribution of revenue sources based on budget agreements;
• 5. Independence from the form of government.

A decentralized model of interbudgetary relations is typical for economically developed countries with a federal government system, ensuring the expansion of budgetary rights of regional and local authorities and management, which helps to increase the share of local budgets in the total mass of government spending.

Disadvantages: with a decentralized model of interbudgetary relations, coordination of government actions to achieve macroeconomic goals and ensure a balance of financial capabilities in the state is complicated; managing interbudgetary relations in a decentralized manner requires a large amount of information and leads to a decrease in the efficiency of decision-making; When making decisions, local authorities are guided, to a greater extent, by the interests of their own socio-economic policy and do not always take into account the goals of national importance.

The cooperative model of interbudgetary relations is based on the principles:

• 1. Wider participation of regional authorities in the redistribution of national income and macroeconomic stabilization, which leads to closer budgetary cooperation between regional and central government structures;
• 2. Increased role of regional authorities in the system of distribution of tax revenues, including national ones;
• 3. An active policy of horizontal budget equalization, increased responsibility of the center for the state of regional public finances, the level of socio-economic development of territories, which leads to increased control by the center and some limitation of the independence of regional authorities (this can be expressed in a high degree of centralization of management and the transformation of regional authorities are actually agents of central structures).

Methods of implementing inter-budgetary relations mean the ways in which these relations influence the socio-economic state in the region through their own, assigned and regulating revenues, transfers, withdrawal of funds and lending. There are functional, delegating and balance methods.

The centralized model of interbudgetary relations in terms of revenue support is characterized by methods of transferring and regulating income, while the decentralized model is characterized by methods of own and assigned income.

In terms of delimitation of spending powers, with a centralized model they use a delegating methodology for distributing responsibility for the provision of public services; The decentralized model is based on a functional method, which provides for a specific delimitation of competence and expenditure powers between all levels of government, but at the same time it is possible to introduce delegation of some expenditure powers, which ensures flexibility in the mechanism of interbudgetary relations.

Subsidies are budget funds provided to a budget of another level, to an individual or legal entity on the basis of shared financing of targeted expenses. Budget loans are funds allocated on a repayable basis from a higher budget to a lower one or from the republican budget to a resident legal entity or a foreign state.

Budget transfer - funds allocated free of charge from the budget to a legal entity or individual directly or through an authorized body.

In foreign practice, transfers are, among other things, a form of providing financial assistance to territorial budgets from special funds for financial support of regions, formed as part of higher budgets at the expense of percentage deductions from taxes and fees. For example, in Russia, to provide financial assistance, the following budgets have been created:

• - in the federal budget - the Fund for Financial Support of Regions, the Regional Development Fund, the Compensation Fund, the Fund for Co-financing Social Expenditures, the Fund for Reforming Regional Finances;
• - in regional budgets - regional funds for financial support of settlements, regional funds for financial support of municipal districts (city districts), regional funds for municipal development, etc.

The need to allocate financial assistance to each specific territory is determined in the process of budget planning based on calculations of their tax potential and budgetary security.

1

Chechenov A.A., Kalov Z.A., Chechenova L.S., Mazloev R.B.

The main direction of improving inter-budgetary relations is to achieve a balance of budgets at various levels, which, in turn, will allow regions, actively using the potential of all forms of ownership, to have an independent base of financial resources as the basis for self-development and self-sufficiency of the reproduction process

Modern states, regardless of the formal structure in the form of a federation, confederation or unitary state, include subnational administrative-territorial units that are significantly heterogeneous in various characteristics (in terms of the level of economic development, the need for the provision of public goods, the cost of providing public goods, etc. ). Accordingly, the presence of different administrative-territorial entities in one state leads to the existence of the problem of regional inequality and creates the need to solve such a problem.

This problem is being solved within the framework of interbudgetary relations. Interbudgetary relations are a diverse concept. In domestic publications there is no single point of view regarding the economic content of this concept. Some authors do not see the difference between inter-budgetary relations, fiscal federalism and fiscal regulation; others reduce the content of interbudgetary relations to a system of providing financial assistance to regions and local self-education.

In our opinion, interbudgetary relations by their nature belong to a special phase of the process of formation and implementation of the core of the public finance system - the budget. The content of these relations is determined by the target function of this phase, namely the redistribution of financial resources with the participation of various levels of the state budget, adequate to the way of organizing state power and management.

In the process of such redistribution, budgetary funds of the middle and lower - regional and municipal - levels are brought into compliance with the objective needs of financial coverage included in the complex of socio-economic needs of the corresponding level (subject of the Russian Federation or municipal entity) provided at the expense of the state. An analysis of the composition of these needs and spending powers related to the level of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation allows us to conclude that the basis of state financial support for a complex of socio-economic needs is the socialization of the socio-economic process at various levels of its organization.

Despite the fact that in different countries the terms of reference of various levels of management vary significantly, recently a general trend has emerged of a gradual expansion of the powers of the lower echelons of power in the field of finance. This trend is due to the tasks of increasing the efficiency of spending public funds and taking into account the interests of the population more fully.

Decentralization of the Russian budget system in the 90s. led to a serious redistribution of state budgetary resources in favor of territorial government bodies. The federal center was freed from part of the administrative functions and financing of a number of social programs, which in federal states are usually carried out at the regional and local level, thereby making an attempt to overcome the federal budget deficit, which has a negative impact on the development of the economy as a whole.

Currently, Russia, both in terms of the status of its constituent entities (republics, territories, regions) and in terms of their economic capabilities (donors, recipients), is an “asymmetrical federation.” In this regard, the work to specify the substantive content of the powers and responsibilities of each level of government for the effectiveness of resolving issues of socio-economic development of the reproductive complex is of particular importance. The division of powers carried out in this case between the various levels of federal entities should, to the maximum extent possible, be focused on taking into account the interests of participants in federal relations and ensuring favorable conditions for the economic growth of the federation as a whole and its subjects.

There are two types of powers of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on subjects of joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Firstly, these are powers, the implementation of which is financed from the budget of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Federal regulation here can only be a framework. At the same time, the subjects of the Russian Federation have the right to accept other issues for their consideration if they are not assigned either to the jurisdiction of state authorities of the Russian Federation or to the jurisdiction of local self-government bodies. Secondly, these are powers on subjects of joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, exercised by the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, but financed in the form of targeted subventions from the federal budget and therefore regulated in detail by the state authorities of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with the concept of budget reform, it is assumed that the final division of powers by level of government should occur by January 1, 2006.

The modernization of interbudgetary relations, in our opinion, should be based on taking into account their relationship with the reproduction process. This means a fundamentally different formulation of a number of issues from the standpoint of improving financing for the development of regional reproduction.

Considering the problem of regional economic development, some authors note that the main sources of financing real development should be the components of income from property - depreciation, interest on capital and land rent, while others associate real returns with the circulation of capital, labor, product and income. In our opinion, everything does not rest on the redistribution of specific property objects, but on the fact that, in accordance with the budgetary powers assigned to the Federation and the subjects of the Federation, the functions of regulating the rights of ownership, disposal, and use are redistributed in such a way as to ensure maximum return from the reproduction of property.

Therefore, when justifying directions for improving interbudgetary relations, the priority should be to achieve such a balance of budgets at various levels that would allow regions, actively using the potential of all forms of ownership, to have their own base of financial resources as the basis for self-development and self-sufficiency of the reproduction process.

Since each of the levels of the state budget, one way or another, participates in the reproduction process at the corresponding level of the national economic system, interbudgetary relations solve a specific investment and financial problem - they adjust and give a specific form and scale to the participation of state budget funds of one level or another in the reproduction process .

Various interpretations of investment and financial relations developing with the participation of state budget funds, found in the economic literature, ultimately come down to two possible approaches. In the first one, which is currently being implemented, the state “removes itself” from the role of owner and forms only the rules of the game (“monetarist option”); within the second, the state actively participates in the investment process, acting according to rules common to all participants in the capital market (“Keynesian option”).

It seems that in order to concretize the role of inter-budgetary relations in the development of the reproduction process, a methodological approach to analyzing the relationships between income and expenses, savings and investments, formed within the framework of the Keynesian financial paradigm - the so-called “Keynesian cross” (Figure 1) - is constructive.

Let us assume that income is equal to expenses in relation to the level of budgetary relations and the reproduction process of a single subject of the Russian Federation. In Figure 1, this equality is displayed by a straight line OF with an angle of inclination to the income axis of 45 degrees. It is known that part of the income received is directed to consumption C, and the other part forms savings S. Expenses of participants in the reproduction process increase, but not to the same extent as income increases. The BC curve, reflecting the consumption process, gradually approaches a line parallel to the income axis, which corresponds to a relative decrease in the share of expenses in total income.

Picture 1. Keynesian approach to the analysis of income, expenditure, saving and investment

At the beginning of each reproduction cycle, consumer spending is supported not so much by current income as by past savings (AS). At point A, savings are equal to zero, that is, they are all invested in the development of reproduction; subsequently, part of current income begins to accumulate in the form of savings for a given reproduction cycle. Let’s assume that the reproduction of the region’s economic complex requires a more active investment process. This means that at the beginning of each cycle we must have a larger reserve of savings in order to invest it in the development of reproduction. The BC curve should change to the B1C1 curve. The equilibrium point A will shift to position A1. The source of such changes can be, first of all, external financial and investment expansion into the economic complex of the region, carried out, in particular, through the redistribution of budget resources from one level to another.

Analyzing the possibility of correcting the participation of state budget funds in the reproduction process through the redistribution of financial resources within the framework of interbudgetary relations, it is necessary to highlight the factors of this process. They are established based on the elements of the internal structure of interbudgetary relations:

Balance of the primary distribution of financial resources between different levels of the budget and the distribution of state-supervised socio-economic needs;

The scale of counter financial flows between different budget levels arising in the process of redistribution of funds within the framework of interbudgetary relations;

Form of provision of funds within the framework of interbudgetary relations (on a repayable or non-refundable basis for the recipient;

Targeted (that is, bound by conditions) or free nature of funds provided to the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation within the framework of interbudgetary relations;

The inertia of financial policy, formed during the development of interbudgetary relations.

The need to balance the primary distribution of financial resources between different levels of the budget and the distribution of state-supervised socio-economic needs is due to the fact that the worst thing for the reproduction process is the polarization of these forms of distribution, which means the financial insecurity of many socio-economic needs and the need to increase transaction costs by increasing redistribution processes .

This involves a transition from traditional methods of planning budget revenues from the achieved level to assessing the financial capabilities of territories and taking them into account in the system of distribution relations. This approach is prevalent in the world practice of building a system of interbudgetary relations and its implementation in Russian practice will be evidence of market reforms on the principles of financial self-sufficiency and self-development. At the same time, the scale of counter financial flows between different budget levels that arise in the process of redistribution of funds within the framework of interbudgetary relations should be minimized.

An analysis of the evolution of Russian interbudgetary relations from the perspective of interaction between the federal center and individual constituent entities of the Russian Federation in organizing the reproduction process shows that in the structure of forms of financial equalization there has been a shift towards increasing the share of financial transfers. Changes in the budget and tax legislation of the Russian Federation, which came into force in 2001, are unlikely to ensure the sufficiency of the regions’ own financial basis. The emphasis on subsidized forms of inter-budgetary regulation means an increase in the dependence of the economic development of territories on higher levels and a decrease in incentives to increase their own financial potential.

Tax redistribution systems are a more reliable method compared to other types of budget regulation for regions, since the likelihood of the state reducing the share of tax revenues is, as a rule, less than the likelihood of reducing the total amount of subsidies and subventions. When considering the problems of interbudgetary relations, special attention should be paid to the distribution of tax revenues between the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the federal budget. In recent years, there has been a trend toward a decrease in the share of tax revenues of regional budgets in the total tax revenues of the country’s consolidated budget, although Article 48 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation establishes a 50/50 proportion, which determines the proper ratio of federal budget revenues and consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation. And at the same time, an increase in expenditure obligations is clearly noticeable. As a result, the provision of regions with financial resources is reduced. In addition, the current tax base of territorial budgets is still based on the splitting of regulatory taxes and significantly depends on the rates of distribution of taxes between the federal and regional budgets. According to existing estimates, more than 80% of tax revenues of regional and local budgets are generated through deductions from federal taxes.

Annual changes in the distribution of tax revenues and fees also have a negative impact on the stability of regional budgets. At the same time, the ongoing changes in tax legislation are often far from equivalent in their consequences for individual regions and in some cases can lead to a significant reduction in the regional budgets’ own revenues and a reduction in the reproduction process of the subjects of the Federation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Budget system of the Russian Federation: Textbook. /Ed. M.V. Romanovsky, O.V. Vrublevskaya. - M.: Yurayt, 1999.

2. Zadornov M.M. Financial policy of the state and the possibilities of its implementation//Finance.- 1999.- N 1p.6

3. www.minfin.ru - Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.

Bibliographic link

Chechenov A.A., Kalov Z.A., Chechenova L.S., Mazloev R.B. THE ROLE OF INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS IN THE REPRODUCTION PROCESS // Modern problems of science and education. – 2006. – No. 4.;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=422 (access date: 02/01/2020). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"

Introduction

Conclusion

Introduction

Interbudgetary relations are relations between two levels of the budget system concerning the equalization of budgetary security, the provision of other grants and subsidies to their higher budgets, and the standards for deductions from regulatory taxes.

The goals of organizing a system of interbudgetary relations can be: equalizing budgetary security, stimulating the growth of tax potential, financial management of territorial development, reducing the risks of underfunding of key budget services at the local level.

The topic of improving interbudgetary relations (IBR) currently does not have the relevance that it had 4-5 years ago, with the adoption and entry into force of the new edition of the Budget Code, which established strict rules for organizing IBR at the federal level. However, it is still too early to write off this direction of improving public administration:

Not all budget equalization systems adopted at the regional level can be called effective. In many cases, laws on interbudgetary relations were adopted in a hurry, which was due to the need for unification with federal legislation. At the same time, not only efficiency often suffered, but also compliance with the requirements of the Budget Code did not always take place;

interbudgetary relations are one of the tools for managing the socio-economic development of the region. On the one hand, this means that IBOs must be synchronized with the goals and objectives of the region’s development. On the other hand, IBOs may require adjustment (or at least revision) if there is a more or less significant change in the region’s development strategy;

When regional laws on MBO were adopted, some territories could unreasonably remain among the losers. To change the situation, such territories, in addition to political initiative and will, need strong arguments and proposals for changing the MBO system adopted at a higher level;

IBO reform remains one of the criteria for evaluating regional public finance reform programs by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.

1. The concept of interbudgetary relations and their role in the socio-economic processes of the country

All budgets included in the country's budget system are interconnected within the framework of interbudgetary relations. As a result of such interaction, relations develop between state authorities and local governments, which are especially highlighted in the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and are called interbudgetary.

Inter-budgetary relations are relations between government bodies, mainly at different levels, regarding the delimitation on a permanent (without time limit) basis of expenditure and revenue powers, corresponding expenses and, to the maximum possible extent, revenue sources, as well as inter-budgetary regulation: the possible distribution of some taxes among temporary (no less than for the next financial year) standards of deductions between budgets of different levels and redistribution of funds from budgets of one level of the budget system to another in different forms in order to ensure access of citizens throughout the country to receive budget services in a volume and quality not lower than the minimum required level.

The need for such regulation arises mainly when the authorities of the lower territorial level, when forming budgets, do not, for objective reasons, have enough funds from revenue sources, assigned on a permanent basis in whole or in part (at divided tax rates or in percentage shares), to ensure the minimum necessary expenses in accordance with the functions and powers assigned to them.

Interbudgetary regulation is carried out, as a rule, by higher-level authorities through vertical (between different links of the budget system) and horizontal (within the context of budgets of the same link of the budget system) equalization of the budgetary provision of territorial entities in which it is below the minimum required level. The term “budgetary regulation” can have a broad interpretation, taking into account the regulatory impact through the budgetary system on economic and social processes in the country.

Horizontal equalization in some countries (for example, in Germany) also occurs in the form of centralized withdrawal (through the corresponding settlement (clearing) center under the Ministry of Finance of the Federal Republic of Germany, bypassing the federal budget) on a progressive scale in the form of negative transfers of funds from budgets where such security is above average level, in favor of budgets where it is less than this level.

Interbudgetary regulation is not limited to equalizing the budgetary provision of territorial entities, where it is less than the minimum required level. Its functions also include compensation to budgets for additional expenses or losses of income caused by decisions made by authorities at another level, and the possible share participation of higher-level budgets in the expenses of lower-level budgets, meaning the stimulation of priority (most socially significant) directions from the position of higher authorities spending of these budgets.

In most countries, interbudgetary regulation is carried out by transferring funds in various forms directly from a higher-level budget to the corresponding lower-level budgets. In some countries (for example, Austria, Germany, India, Russia) joint (common) taxes are also used for this purpose, when some of them are distributed on a temporary basis (with a period determined for at least the next financial year) between different levels of the budget system .

Interbudgetary relations can also exist directly between budgets of the same level. For example, to pool financial resources in order to solve problems of mutual interest. In Russia they have not yet received widespread use. In rare cases, financial assistance is provided from lower to higher budgets.

Foreign experience does not allow us to find a standard that is completely suitable for Russia. Each country, along with general approaches, also has its own characteristics of the mechanism of interbudgetary relations. For example, in many countries, in particular in the United States, taxes are differentiated between levels of the budget system according to the principle of “one tax - one budget.” At the same time, in Canada, Austria, Germany, and India, along with separate taxes, each of which is sent only to the budget of one level or another, joint taxes are also applied. They, being “large” taxes with a widespread tax base throughout the country, are to one degree or another involved in the formation of budgets at various levels, both on a permanent basis (Canada) and in combination with taxes distributed on a temporary basis.

In Canada, joint taxes, differentiated on a permanent basis, include the goods and services tax (analogous to VAT), excise taxes, import duties, and social security contributions. In Austria, almost all taxes are joint, which ensures a minimum level of use of interbudgetary transfers, and only for targeted purposes. At the same time, more than ten taxes, including personal income tax, VAT, oil tax, alcohol tax, are distributed (in percentage shares) on a temporary basis (for 5 years). Most of them, taking into account decisions made by state authorities, are distributed into three levels of the budget system. In India, the methodology for distributing taxes involved in inter-budgetary regulation is adopted for 5 years. In Russia, taxes distributed between levels of the budget system according to standards established on a temporary basis (for a certain period) are considered as regulatory.

In some countries, the distribution of individual joint taxes between the federal budget and regional budgets is carried out after preliminary centralization at the federal level of the entire tax mass, consisting of revenues from all territories. Only then, according to the formula, the tax is distributed between regional budgets. This practice exists, for example, in Germany for VAT. The proportions of distribution of its total mass between the federal budget and the budgets of all lands are established for a relatively long period. But the annual distribution by land is also carried out in the order of horizontal regulation according to a standard determined per capita on average for all lands and the population of each land, i.e. differentiated, based on a single criterion. At the same time, for a number of lands in calculations in order to achieve comparable conditions, not the actual, but the conditional population size is used (adjusted taking into account population density, degree of urbanization and some other factors).

In the Russian Federation, the differentiation of types of income (on a permanent basis) between the levels of the budget system is ensured through separate and joint taxes. And interbudgetary regulation is carried out primarily by deductions from regulatory taxes (joint taxes, which are “split” between levels of the budget system according to temporary standards). But since 2006, the possibility of applying such standards as additional (differentiated) to uniform percentage shares of taxes fixed on a permanent basis is provided only within the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and only for personal income tax in return for subsidies to local budgets calculated (per capita method) for formalized basis. Thus, in the new budget legislation, preference is given to inter-budgetary regulation through gratuitous and non-refundable transfers to budgets of other levels in various forms. They, according to this legislation, are considered as interbudgetary transfers. Such transfers also include budget loans from the federal budget to constituent entities of the Russian Federation, provided on a reimbursable and repayable basis.

The high degree of independence of budgets at different levels and the responsibility of authorities for budget balance and budgetary security predetermines an increase in their interest in building up tax potential, timely and complete collection of taxes, as well as in the efficient spending of budget funds. Such independence of budgets is characteristic of classical fiscal federalism, since it allows for independent fiscal policy to be carried out at the regional and local levels within its competence.

The active participation of the subjects of the federation in the formation and implementation of the state's fiscal policy as a principle of fiscal federalism confirms the fact that fiscal federalism is not limited to inter-budgetary relations, although the latter largely characterize its features.

Therefore, the concept of “fiscal federalism” can be defined as the relationship between federal authorities and the authorities of the constituent entities of the federation based on a combination of the principles of centralism and decentralism regarding the formation and implementation of the state’s budget policy, the delimitation of fiscal powers, expenses and revenues, their distribution and redistribution in budget system with a high degree of budget independence and responsibility for the results of the independent fiscal policy pursued by regional and local authorities based on the unity of national interests and the interests of the population, including the interests of the peoples of a multinational federation living in the territories of the constituent entities of the federation and their local territorial entities.

Based on the principles of fiscal federalism, the following principles of interbudgetary relations can be determined:

combination of interests of all participants in interbudgetary relations;

a clear legislative delimitation of spending powers between government bodies at different levels and the corresponding expenses, as well as revenue sources (in whole or in part) between the links of the budget system;

the maximum possible differentiation on a permanent (without time limit) basis of types of income (in whole or in part) as fixed income between budgets of different levels;

reducing subsidies and the number of subsidized budgets by optimizing counter financial flows and increasing tax potential in the relevant territories;

equality of rights in inter-budgetary relations of the subjects of the Federation with the federal center and municipalities with the authorities of the subjects of the Federation;

application in inter-budgetary regulation for all subjects of the Federation, and within each of them for all municipalities of uniform methodology and criteria, taking into account their individual and group characteristics;

the obligation to compensate for missing funds in the event of an increase in budget expenditures or a decrease in their revenues resulting from decisions made by authorities at another level;

inadmissibility of withdrawal or forced centralization into budgets of another level of own income, fixed on a permanent basis, additionally received or saved budgetary funds;

the inadmissibility of changing the ranking of territorial entities by budgetary provision under comparable conditions when funds are transferred to them from a higher budget in the manner of interbudgetary regulation;

mutual responsibility of authorities at different levels for compliance with obligations in interbudgetary relations;

availability of reliable information on the financial security of territorial entities that require financial support from the budget of another level;

the relative stability of the mechanism of interbudgetary relations adopted for implementation;

clarity (transparency) and openness of interbudgetary relations, simplicity of calculations.

Comparing the current mechanism of interbudgetary relations with the above principles - the requirements of fiscal federalism for its construction - allows us to improve the organization of these relations, as well as ensure the correct choice of directions for their further improvement.

The main functions of interbudgetary relations are equalizing the budgetary provision of those territorial entities where it is less than the minimum required level (ensuring compliance with constitutional and other state social guarantees throughout the country), and stimulating the increase in tax capacity, timely and complete collection of payments to the budget in the subordinate territory, as well as their rational and efficient use. Both of these functions must be implemented in combination - as a two-pronged process. Therefore, when the equalizing function becomes predominant, conflicting with the stimulating function, adjustments are required to the current mechanism of interbudgetary relations.

conclusions. Based on theoretical premises, the reform of interbudgetary relations in Russia should have a main final goal and accompanying goals. The main ultimate goal is to create the necessary initial conditions for reducing excessive differences in the budgetary provision of territorial entities, balancing their territorial budgets by regional and local authorities (in conditions of interest and responsibility in ensuring the growth of their own, permanently fixed and regulating income sources, rational and effective spending of budget funds) in order to implement the powers entrusted to them, providing equal opportunities to the population throughout the country to receive budget services in a volume and quality not lower than those provided for by state social standards.

Related goals include the following: a clear and justified delimitation of spending powers between levels of government; differentiation between the levels of the budget system of taxes and other payments (on an ongoing basis, i.e. without time limit, in full or as joint taxes in percentage shares, or at divided tax rates); fair (on an objective basis) vertical distribution of the budget system of joint taxes according to temporary (with a deadline) standards considered as regulatory taxes, redistribution of funds in various forms from budgets of one level of the budget system to another and the choice of optimal options for such regulation at the appropriate stages ; determination of a fair (on an objective basis) mechanism for the redistribution of funds between budgets of the same level based on the principle of solidarity to provide financial support to the poorest territories.

2. Prerequisites for reforming interbudgetary relations

Nowadays, interregional redistribution of resources carried out through the federal budget is not sufficiently aimed at stimulating economic growth in specific subjects of the Federation. Resources are mainly allocated to industries, and their use takes little account of territorial development opportunities. Increasing the efficiency of direct federal budget expenditures in the regions is possible in the following areas: resource allocation in order to achieve the maximum value of the expenditure multiplier; taking into account regional needs when implementing targeted federal programs for scientific and technological development; strengthening the role of the public sector in creating “growth points” in specific territories.

In market conditions, the criteria for the effectiveness of budget expenditures on industrial development are the growth rate in technologically advanced industries that require venture capital investments in nature, and the cost multiplier effect. The latter is advisable to use when ensuring relatively uniform economic growth in the regions, choosing for state investment enterprises that allow for the longest “flow of orders.” The cost multiplier effect will be maximum on a territorial level if, in the course of investments from the federal budget, bottlenecks in the production chain are eliminated through capital investments from regional budgets. In conditions of unstable economic development, such a policy fully fits into the general strategy for the development of market relations. Moreover, the implementation of this policy is ensured by the action of the market mechanism. As economic practice shows, the cost multiplier can achieve the greatest effect with initial investments in the aviation industry and shipbuilding. These industries have the largest number of related industries. The implementation of development programs for these industries makes it possible to create “growth points” in various regions.

The development of budget policy regarding depressed regions is also a rather difficult problem. At the same time, one should keep in mind not so much stimulating economic growth in these territories as stopping the decline in production and stabilizing the current situation. Experience confirms that the severity of the problem in depressed regions is significantly reduced with adequate macroeconomic policies. In particular, a decrease in food imports due to the devaluation of the ruble at one time led to an increase in demand for domestic agricultural products. This significantly reduced both social and economic tension in a number of depressed areas. It is obvious that the implementation of an adequate federal income and wage policy, in particular the establishment of an official minimum wage at the subsistence level, will lead to an increase in the population's consumption of food products and thereby have a beneficial effect on domestic agriculture. Such changes can radically improve the situation in a number of depressed agricultural regions. Macroeconomic policy measures can also influence the improvement of the situation in regions with preferential development of other sectors of the economy. An increase in aggregate demand will lead to demand for the products of the relevant industry in the domestic market.

However, successful macroeconomic policies do not eliminate the problem of helping depressed regions. Thus, even with an effective macroeconomic policy, territories with a difficult economic situation and a number of territories with a mono-industry structure will not be able to cope without the support of the federal center. Of course, assistance to such regions cannot be limited to the allocation of financial resources. It should include other areas, such as, for example, scientific study of the structural restructuring of their economy, improvement of legislation, etc. Significant financial assistance will be required for stabilization social policy (targeted assistance to the poor, healthcare, education) and for investment in the social sphere.

In many cases, traditional policy measures will not be able to bring depressed regions even onto a path of recovery growth. This is due to the fact that the existing production facilities are extremely worn out and do not allow the production of the necessary products. In such conditions, one cannot exclude the possibility of using such methods of supporting the economy as state orders, as well as the creation of state unitary enterprises. These enterprises could operate at a lower profitability than private ones. The main purpose of their functioning is not only to ensure employment of the population, but also to train qualified personnel. Subsequently, the availability of trained personnel and infrastructure would create more favorable conditions for attracting private capital to depressed regions.

The current state of interbudgetary relations in Russia is determined by a number of factors, in particular the reasons for the differentiation of the budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Federation, the criteria and methods for its equalization. Even in the group of affluent regions, the differentiation in terms of GRP per capita is more than 4 times, and in the group of least affluent regions it is almost 3 times. The difference in this indicator between the most and least affluent regions exceeds 20 times.

The main reasons for the huge differences in the budgetary provision of the subjects of the Federation are:

level of economic development of regions;

the degree of their provision with natural resources;

different economic structures of the regions, which determine different tax potential;

unequal efforts of regional authorities to collect taxes.

Along with the GRP per capita indicator, the ratio of the regional average accrued wages to the subsistence minimum is of great importance for the proper organization of interbudgetary relations. This indicator not only reflects the standard of living in a particular region, but also the needs of its residents for budgetary services. The lower the ratio of wages to the cost of living, the higher the need for budgetary services among residents of the region, since in such conditions they are unable to carry out a significant amount of expenses from their own income. In turn, this implies an increase in financial assistance to a specific region and, accordingly, an intensification of interbudgetary relations. A low ratio between average wages and the cost of living is generally typical for subsidized regions. Their residents, due to low incomes, use a significant amount of public services. This, in particular, applies to Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia - Alania, Tyva, Mari El, Mordovia, and Ivanovo region. At the same time, a low ratio of wages to the cost of living is observed in the Saratov, Ulyanovsk regions, and Primorsky Territory. A high ratio of wages to the cost of living is observed mainly in export-oriented regions: the Khanty-Mansi and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs, Bashkortostan, as well as in Moscow and the Sverdlovsk region. The lack of an effective policy in the field of wages causes an increase in the volume of services provided by state authorities and municipalities at the expense of budget sources.

The differentiation of regions in terms of GRP per capita does not coincide with their differences in tax income per capita. This is due to varying degrees of concentration in the regions of both natural resources and population. The differentiation of regions in terms of the share of their own income in the total volume of budget revenues is very noticeable. Between 1999 and 2005. The structure of financial assistance to regions from the federal budget has changed significantly. This happened due to a decrease, firstly, in mutual payments between budgets; secondly, budget loans. As is known, budget loans are provided to regions to cover budget deficits, but their outstanding balance actually represents an element of financial assistance.

The criteria for equalizing the budgetary provision of regions are determined by the general socio-economic situation of the state. In conditions of sustainable development, the federal government is able to provide a uniform level of social guarantees and, accordingly, budget services throughout the country. For states with average development, an acceptable equalization criterion may be a guaranteed minimum of budget services. To achieve it, a relatively small redistribution of financial resources between regions is required. Therefore, this criterion can be used in federal states with limited financial powers of the central authorities. In countries experiencing socio-economic crises, the criterion for equalizing budgetary security is the actual budget minimum. This means that the provision of financial assistance to the regions is limited to the amount of funds allocated by the federal center after financing its basic needs.

For modern Russia, a very urgent task is to refuse to provide financial assistance based on the criterion of the actual budget minimum and move to providing it based on the criterion of a guaranteed minimum. In this case, stabilization of the standard of living will be achieved not only in relatively prosperous, but also in depressed regions. This will improve the social situation in the country as a whole. However, to ensure such a transition, a sustainable increase in budget revenues at all levels is required, achievable at a significant rate of increase in GDP.

Improving the methodological basis for the formation and use of the Regional Financial Support Fund (FFSR) is of great importance for optimizing financial support for regions. In 1994 - 2003 Changes to the method of distributing funds from this fund were made in the following main areas:

determination of sources of formation of FFPR;

establishment of methodological foundations for the distribution of FFPR funds;

selection of a single criterion for calculating the amount of funds required for budget equalization;

ensuring comparability of spending needs of regions;

application of uniform principles for all regions for the provision of FFSR funds on the basis of a normative-share transition.

Despite all the advantages of the methodology used in 2002 - 2003, in comparison with previously used options, it was not free from serious shortcomings. It failed to link the provision of transfers to specific regions with their existing standard of living. The fact is that the differentiation of regions according to such an indicator as GRP per capita does not coincide with their differentiation according to a standard set of indicators characterizing the standard of living. These include, for example, the volume of retail trade turnover per capita, the provision of housing (sq. m per capita), and the number of passenger cars per 10 thousand inhabitants. These indicators indirectly reflect the redistribution of wages and business income between regions. Apparently, the volume of funds provided from the FFSR should be adjusted taking into account the indicator of expenditure on final consumption of households.

Conclusions. Modern budget policy, including its component to improve inter-budgetary relations, certainly ensures the creation of a number of prerequisites for increasing investment in the domestic economy, creating conditions for its sustainable growth and increasing competitiveness. The fundamental feature of such a policy is its implementation with the help of instruments that are flexible in economic and financial terms and universal in terms of the object of application. For the most part, they should be focused on regulating not the sectors of the economy themselves, but macroeconomic indicators (we are talking about maintaining effective proportions of aggregate indicators of gross national output; an acceptable level of inflation; the effective exchange rate of the ruble and the refinancing rate; customs tariffs; export and import quotas and etc.).

3. Ways to improve interbudgetary relations

In the context of significant cyclical fluctuations in the economic system, modern approaches to interbudgetary relations do not allow us to fully effectively solve emerging problems of interbudgetary relations, in particular, to provide support for regions that are most affected by the crisis state of the global economy.

The predicted transition to the stage of economic growth makes it possible to set new tasks for interbudgetary relations. The main ones are:

influence on the formation of infrastructure of regions and municipalities to solve federal problems of economic development;

co-financing of structural investment projects that create growth points and new jobs;

ensuring the innovative component of economic growth through the development of research centers;

equalizing the availability of education and healthcare services for residents of specific regions.

In the future, the following principles of delimitation of powers between budgets of three levels can be formulated:

the principle of dependence of the delimitation of powers between the levels of the budget system on the needs of society as a whole and of a particular citizen for relevant public goods;

the principle of implementing specific expenses, taking into account maximizing the beneficial effect while minimizing costs, including the costs of administration and subsequent monitoring;

the principle of ensuring “action potential” as the ability of the corresponding level of government to exercise powers to finance priority areas of regional economic policy in the event of changes in macroeconomic conditions in the national economic system;

the principle of ensuring the ability for all levels of the budget system to quickly respond to changing macroeconomic conditions.

The implementation of these principles makes it possible to create a system that is fundamentally stable, but open to change, for delimiting budget powers between levels of the budget system. The formation of a system for delimiting budgetary powers based on the principles formulated above makes it possible to increase the role of interbudgetary relations in stimulating economic growth in regions and municipalities.

This allows us to determine the following priorities for the development of IBO:

moderate decentralization of budgetary powers;

ensuring competition between regions and municipalities for investments while preventing competition in the tax sphere;

increasing the efficiency of the system for providing interbudgetary transfers;

improving the distribution of taxes between levels of the budget system;

delimitation of ownership of natural resources between the federal center, regions and municipalities.

The need for moderate decentralization of budgetary powers is explained by the fact that some taxes are more efficiently collected at the local level. This statement is also true regarding expenses (for example, landscaping). But the paradox is that the same arguments can be used to justify the centralization of income and expenses at a higher level of the budget system. In particular, indirect taxes are easier to collect at the federal level, and spending on education and health care can be carried out from the federal budget. Therefore, the solution to the question of the degree of decentralization of budget revenues and expenses can be found, firstly, by analyzing the influence of the phenomenon under study on the economic development of territories; secondly, when assessing the productivity of competition between territorial entities to attract investment.

In the sphere of interbudgetary relations in Russia, some pressing problems still remain unresolved. One of them is the legal status of participants in interbudgetary relations, which is associated with insufficient regulation of relations between the center and the subjects of the Federation with the uncertainty of the status of the latter. With the proclamation by the Constitution of the Russian Federation of the equality of the subjects of the Federation, all republics within Russia have in practice significantly more rights compared to other subjects - territories, regions, districts. Such inequality infringes on their budgetary rights and reduces the effectiveness of interbudgetary relations. It is also necessary to legislatively determine the status of the third level of the budget system, i.e. counterparty of the authorities of the constituent entity of the Federation on interbudgetary relations within the country. In practice, municipalities are created with reduced budgetary rights in terms of establishing local taxes, receiving deductions from regulatory taxes and financial assistance from higher budgets.

Ensuring competition between regions and municipalities for investments while preventing competition in the tax sphere is an important area of ​​increasing the efficiency of interbank organizations. However, such competition is not analogous to competition in the private sector of the economy. Regional authorities can compete for attracted capital, but not by providing tax benefits. In our opinion, it is obvious that competition between regions, as well as between local authorities in the field of taxation and fees for environmental pollution, is unacceptable in conditions of significant differentiation of budgetary security and an acute shortage of financial resources, including investment ones.

Increasing the efficiency of the system for providing interbudgetary transfers is one of the most important areas for improving interbudgetary relations. Transfers serve three functions. With their help, one territorial entity provides compensation for expenses from which other territorial entities benefit, i.e. compensation for externalities (external effects). Transfers ensure equalization of the level of public goods (budget services) provided by territorial authorities to their residents, and are also a consequence of the collection of basic taxes at the federal level, carried out in order to optimize the national tax system.

An important task of improving the system of interbudgetary transfers is to ensure the investment orientation of this system, which means:

achieving a balance between current financial assistance in the form of transfers from the FFSR and capital financial support from the Regional Development Fund to strengthen the investment component compared to current financial assistance;

improving the legislative framework and methodological support for borrowing activities of regional and local budgets in order to accumulate resources for their development;

development of mechanisms for stimulating sub-federal and municipal authorities to strengthen their own revenue and budgetary base for investment purposes. First of all, we are talking about increasing the efficiency of management of property owned by regional authorities and municipalities, and on this basis increasing the income of their budgets.

The primary direction of development of the transfer system is the provision of targeted financial assistance in the form of subventions and subsidies. However, with significant differences in the tax potential of the regions, the persistence of non-targeted financial assistance in the form of subsidies is inevitable, ensuring the equalization of regions in terms of the level of budgetary security.

Improving the distribution of taxes between levels of the budget system should ensure not only the redistribution of taxes, but also an increase in revenue budgets at all levels. In recent years, due to objective reasons, there has been a redistribution of total tax revenues in favor of the federal budget. Accordingly, the share of territorial budgets in the consolidated budget decreased. Tax revenues do not adequately ensure the financial independence of regions and municipalities.

An analysis of current practice leads to the conclusion that it is necessary to strategically review the system of splitting taxes between levels of the budget system. Currently, it does not solve the problem of strengthening the tax component of the revenue base of regional and local budgets. The division of tax powers between levels of the budget system is one of the three key blocks of the system of interbudgetary relations.

Federal and regional taxes can be effectively used when taxing objects with a mobile tax base - profit, wages, consumption. At the same time, the immobile tax base should be subject to local taxes. The use of this practice involves further redistribution of collected taxes between levels of the budget system. In a transition economy, it is effective to use the capabilities of the federal government to collect taxes.

It is advisable to apply split taxes, calculated from a single tax base and credited in established shares to the budgets of three levels. From a theoretical point of view, the use of the “one tax - one budget” principle in practice is not effective. It would mean the introduction of federal, regional and local taxes on the same objects of taxation. The number of taxes paid by one payer under these conditions would have to increase. Accordingly, the costs of business entities for maintaining tax accounting would increase. This would become a factor in reducing the competitiveness of the domestic economy.

Currently, the division of tax revenues is based on the full accumulation in the federal budget of the main part of taxes with a mobile tax base (VAT, excise taxes, corporate income tax) and the transfer to local budgets of taxes with a fixed tax base (on land and property).

In our opinion, the differentiation of income sources should be carried out in parallel with the processes of consolidation of regions of the Russian Federation and expansion of the range of socio-economic problems solved by municipalities.

The existing differentiation of regions and municipalities by level of tax potential does not allow the generation of budget revenues at each level mainly through their own taxes. Therefore, one of the main tasks in the development of interbudgetary relations is to improve methodological approaches to the distribution of financial assistance. These approaches should be based on the use of groups of indicators that characterize the tax potential of a particular region, the standard of living of the population achieved in it, and the efficiency of tax administration. It is necessary to increase the provision of financial assistance from the federal and regional budgets in the form of targeted programs implemented in regions and municipalities, respectively.

The division of ownership of natural resources between the federal center, regions and municipalities is a condition for creating a real financial basis for the economic development of regions and intensifying investment processes to ensure sustainable regional development. Each level of government must have assigned shares of ownership of natural resources. The Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws establish the most general provisions for the delimitation of subsoil objects into federal and subfederal property. At the same time, the specific powers of the federal authorities, the procedure for the formation of the federal list of subsoil objects, its content, principles of formation, as well as the limits of the competence of the federal authorities to dispose of the state subsoil fund have not been defined. This creates the possibility of conflicts not only between the authorities and management themselves, but also between authorities and economic entities. To date, the division of ownership of natural resources by levels of government still remains an important problem. Justification of ownership shares of natural resources by levels of government is associated with the determination of the legal and financial boundaries of interaction between legislative and executive authorities at all levels.

Conclusions. Thus, the goal of the strategy for the development of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation is to create an effectively functioning mechanism for distributing revenue sources between government bodies to implement their spending powers related to solving the problems of socio-economic and political development of the country as a whole, its regions, and municipalities. Methods for achieving this goal include improving legislation taking into account the current socio-economic conditions, formalizing methods for distributing financial assistance between the federal center and regions, between regions and municipalities, and using standards of budget expenditures for specific purposes.

Conclusion

The state's budget policy is the main component of financial policy, since it determines the conditions and principles of organizing financial relations in the formation of the revenue base of budgets, in the course of budget expenditures, and in the organization of inter-budgetary relations. Budget policy directly affects the size and proportions of financial resources centralized by the state and determines not only the current structure of budget expenditures, but also the prospects for using budget funds for the development of the economy and social sphere. In addition, budget policy predetermines the organization of financial relations between business entities and the state in the course of implementing tax policy, carrying out state investment policy, and when developing budget policy in relation to priority sectors and types of activities.

The most important component of the country's budget policy is, as already noted, the concept of interbudgetary relations. On its basis, approaches are being developed to the delimitation of revenue and expenditure powers between levels of government, the determination of criteria and methods for providing financial assistance based on the operating conditions of the budget system. In other words, financial and budgetary relations between federal, regional and local authorities are improving, which is one of the main factors in the political and economic development of Russia and, consequently, the success of the implementation of budget policy. Firstly, a reasonable delimitation of their revenue powers is a prerequisite for the effective collection of taxes and optimization of the tax burden on various segments of the economy, including its private sector. Secondly, a clear division of spending powers determines the effectiveness of the public sector and the extent of its impact on the economy, especially on the formation of economic infrastructure. Thirdly, the provision of financial assistance through interbudgetary relations smooths out socio-economic differences between regions and helps to equalize and accelerate economic development. Fourthly, well-functioning financial relations between levels of government are a condition for strengthening statehood and strengthening law and order and public safety.

The essence of interbudgetary relations is expressed in financial relationships between different levels of government. They are designed to ensure, first of all, the optimal distribution of revenue and expenditure powers between levels of government and, accordingly, levels of the budget system, as well as the equalization of budgetary security throughout the country.

Interbudgetary relations are determined by two main factors. Firstly, as part of distribution relations, they are generated by the uneven distribution of income sources and consumers of financial resources across regions of the country. Secondly, their presence is associated with the functioning of state authorities and local self-government, ensuring the hierarchical interests of citizens. The federal structure of the state introduces significant specificity into the functioning of the financial system, defining the range of revenue and expenditure powers of both the central government and the authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation.

The socio-economic and political position of the state at a certain stage of its evolution determines the degree of concentration of financial resources at the disposal of the body at the corresponding level of government. The peculiarities of the ongoing regional budget policy determine the flow of financial resources from the center to the regions.

Interbudgetary relations are closely related to regional politics. The financial component of regional policy is not limited to inter-budgetary relations and includes investments from the federal budget, as well as the bulk of its direct expenses (federal budget funds are spent on specific territories).

Bibliography

1. Bogov Kh.M. Article: Development of interbudgetary relations and prerequisites for economic growth // Accounting in budgetary and non-profit organizations, 2007, N 16

2. Vershilo T.A. Interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation with the participation of municipalities: concept and content // Financial law, 2006, No. 4

3. Eroshkina L.A. Main directions for improving interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation // Accounting in budgetary and non-profit organizations, 2008, N 23

4. Rybakova N.Yu. Article: Theoretical foundations for building interbudgetary relations // Accounting in budgetary and non-profit organizations, 2007, N 9

5. Slepov V.A., Shubov V.B. Priority directions for the development of interbudgetary relations // Finance, 2009, N 3

6. Shmakova S.A. Interbudgetary relations: definition and essence // State power and local government, 2006, N 12

Vershilo T.A. Interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation with the participation of municipalities: concept and content // Financial law, 2006, No. 4

Slepov V.A., Shubov V.B. Priority directions for the development of interbudgetary relations // Finance, 2009, N 3