Theoretical foundations of interbudgetary relations in a federal state. The concept of interbudgetary relations and their role in the socio-economic processes of the country 1.1 concept and principles of the implementation of interbudgetary relations

Donor Benefits - 11/23/2020

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

COURSE WORK

World experience in the development of interbudgetary relations and its use in the Russian Federation

Introduction

world budget federalism

The topic of my term paper is called "World experience in the development of interbudgetary relations and its use in the Russian Federation." I chose this topic due to the fact that the place of the state in the world determines its economic condition and financial security, and it all depends on the budgetary policy and the policy of budgetary relations.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia became its successor, which had all the financial problems of the Soviet Union. It was necessary to change the policy of the budgetary structure and look for ways out of the crisis. Thanks to the competent actions of the country's leaders, Russia emerged from the crisis and established itself at the global level. However, due to recent events, Russia is facing a crisis again.

Based on all of the above, I made my choice in favor of the topic of interbudgetary relations. Since inter-budgetary relations are characteristic of all countries that have an administrative-territorial division. The Russian Federation, by virtue of its specific features of the state structure, has a developed system of interbudgetary relations of the federal type.

Interbudgetary relations can be characterized as the functioning of a multi-level budgetary system, in which each level of government has its own budget and operates within the limits that are assigned to it by virtue of its budgetary powers. The main difficulties in improving interbudgetary relations are concentrated in the sphere of streamlining and dividing the budgetary possibilities of the authorities and, accordingly, in the sphere of distributing budgetary and tax powers.

Fiscal federalism acts as a form of organizing interbudgetary relations in a state with a federal structure. It is considered a form of monetary relations that appear in the process of formation, distribution and use of funds of foreign exchange resources. Therefore, fiscal federalism expresses a systemically sanctioned set of financial flows in order to provide the population with social benefits.

The aim of my course work is to study interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation, to discern the structure and principles of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, to analyze the forms and methods of providing interbudgetary transfers using the example of the Chechen Republic.

The task of my course work is to analyze the dynamics of the structure of interbudgetary transfers in the consolidated and republican budgets of the Chechen Republic.

The object of analysis is the consolidated and republican budgets of the Chechen Republic.

The subject of the analysis is interbudgetary transfers in the consolidated and republican budgets of the Chechen Republic.

I would like to emphasize that thanks to the analysis I have carried out, I have further consolidated the knowledge that I gained while mastering the discipline "The budgetary structure of the Russian Federation."

1 . The theory of the formation and development of interbudgetary relations

1.1 The concept and essence of interbudgetary relationshipsrelations and budgetary federalism

Interbudgetary relations are relations between public authorities at different levels,

The term "inter-budgetary relations" began to be applied in practice during the period of development of market relations. Then they began to apply it in legislative acts, replacing the previously used term "budgetary relations".

This term was also introduced into the RF Budget Code. In article 129 of the Code, interbudgetary relations are characterized as “relations between the bodies of state power of the Russian Federation, bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and bodies of local self-government”. In the following articles, the views of interbudgetary relations are installed and opened, and only then are we talking about certain forms of financial support from one budget to another and the criteria for its provision. A whole chapter (Chapter 16) was devoted to all these issues in the Code, which was called “Interbudgetary Relations”.

But over time, this wording was changed and introduced into the Budget Code of January 1, 2005. In this edition, this term is characterized as follows: “relations between government bodies of the Russian Federation, government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local government bodies on the regulation of budgetary legal relations and implementation budget process". At the same time, the legislator decided to abandon a thorough presentation and description of the foundations of interbudgetary relations. Chapter 16 of the Code was renamed and to this day it is called “intergovernmental transfers”. It began to include only norms on the form and criteria for their provision, as well as on the procedure for education and the use of various budgetary funds for monetary assistance.

To correctly reveal the essence of interbudgetary relations, it is necessary to reveal the concept of budgetary federalism as their specific type.

Budgetary federalism is understood as a form of organization of interbudgetary relations in a federal state. Due to this, in the Russian financial system, it is considered an adequate form of embodiment of interbudgetary relations. IN the Russian system budgetary federalism includes the following components:

Two poles of budget flows (the federal budget and the budgets of the subjects of the Federation);

Tax federalism as a system of federal, regional and district taxes;

Block of interbudgetary transfers (funds from one budget of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, transferred to another budget of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation);

Block of mutual settlements;

Block of targeted budget funds (Federal Fund for Financial Assistance to Subjects of the Russian Federation, Federal Fund for Regional Development, Federal Fund for Compensation).

An unusual subsystem of interbudgetary relationships is made up of ties within the constituent entities of the Federation. Here, inter-budgetary flows circulate from the budget of the subject of the Federation (republican, regional, regional, district) to local budgets. This block, entering unified system interbudgetary relations, legally falls out of the relations of budgetary federalism, since local bodies are not considered to be subjects of federal relations in any way, and local governments in the Russian Federation, in accordance with its Constitution, do not enter into the system of public authorities in any way. That is, there is a certain, well-formulated and well-established system.

One of the central issues of fiscal federalism is considered to be fiscal equalization. Allocate vertical and horizontal alignment.

Vertical alignment means removing inconsistencies between the same functions of regional budgets and the revenues attached to that budget level. The central government, possessing even greater than any other region, the ability of financial regulation and the size of tax revenues, is obliged to compensate for the imbalance of regional budgets at the expense of funds accumulated at the level of the federal budget.

As for regional and local authorities, the principle of vertical balance imposes on them, firstly, the responsibility for the financial supply of the functions assigned to them and the provision of appropriate services to the population, or specifically government agencies and by organizations, or through the private sector; secondly, the obligation to perfectly apply their own rights to preserve and increase their own profitable potential.

Horizontal alignment means the proportional arrangement of taxes between the subjects of the Federation to eliminate (or reduce) inequality in the tax capacity of different territories. These manifestations of regional inequality are considered in the doctrine of budgetary federalism as a form of manifestation of social inequality caused by a territorial cause.

By itself, budget equalization is in no way considered the main indicator of budgetary federalism, because it has the ability to have a place in a unitary state. There is also budgetary equalization within the constituent entity of the Federation, in relations with local authorities, although these relations cannot be classified as federal. Budget equalization, in this way, in its essence acts as an impartially necessary method of functioning of the budgetary system of one country, a single monetary and financial system of society. It combines the federal state and its citizens and has its own task of acquiring the budgetary consistency of the population of each region at a level not lower than the national average.

1.2 Formation and development of the system of interbudgetary relations in the EU countries and the USA

The variety of forms, types and types of models of inter-budgetary interaction is still being carefully studied by specialists. The most global studies in this direction were carried out by G. Hughes and S. Smith (Hughes, Smith, 1991), who managed to identify 19 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), with the exception of countries with a small population - Ireland, Luxembourg and New Zealand ... Thanks to their research, the main models of inter-budgetary interaction were identified. They divided the highlighted countries into 4 groups:

Group 1: three federal states - Australia, Canada and the United States and two unitary states - Great Britain and Japan, in which regional and local authorities are given relatively greater independence, supported by broad tax powers;

Group 2: Nordic countries - Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden, which are distinguished by a particularly high share of participation of non-central authorities in financing social expenditures;

Group 3: Western European federations - Austria, Germany and Switzerland, for which budgets of different levels are distinguished by autonomy and active cooperation;

Group 4: the south and west of Europe - Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and France, characterized by significant financial dependence of the regions on the central budget.

Since the main criterion for identifying the types of models of budgetary federalism is the degree of centralization (decentralization) of public administration or the degree of independence of regional and local authorities, all existing models of interbudgetary relations today are usually reduced to centralized, decentralized and mixed (cooperative) ones.

Centralized models are characterized by the highest degree of participation and responsibility of central authorities in solving socio-economic problems, the highest degree of centralization of management, total control of territorial budgets by the federal center, maximum possible limitation of the independence of regional authorities, elimination of regional inequality through a system of budget transfers. For countries with this model of interbudgetary relations, the delineation of powers between levels of government, as a rule, is not accompanied by endowing them with sufficient own sources of income, which creates the need to finance territorial programs through the redistribution of funds concentrated in the federal budget. The advantage of centralized models of interbudgetary relations is close cooperation between regional and central authorities, which contributes to the preservation of the unity of the state.

Speaking about the shortcomings of these models, first of all, it is worth highlighting the fact that on an independent basis the lower levels of the budget function only formally. This is due to the fact that they do not have personal sources of income. But it cannot be said that this is a colossal drawback of these models, because this drawback can be corrected by taking appropriate measures.

For decentralized models, the priority of the federal fiscal legislation over the regional one is distinctive; it seems to vouch for the implementation of the national interests of the state. In states with a decentralized system of power, the removal of acute horizontal imbalances in regions is performed by the route of providing targeted financing to the categories of population that need it.

The advantage of decentralized models is the conditional independence of the regions from the center and the minimization of redistributive actions in the budget and tax system. Their main shortcomings include excessive independence, which can lead to a violation of the country's integrity due to the consolidation of the positions of a number of regional favorites; the desire of more profitable regions for financial self-sufficiency and isolation, a high probability of the central government losing control over the fiscal efficiency of regional authorities.

Mixed (cooperative) models imply an established symbiosis of parts of centralized and decentralized models. They imply a narrow cooperation of regional and central municipal authorities in the process of activating the mechanism of budgetary equalization of territories, increased responsibility of the federal center for the situation of regional municipal finances, for creating conditions for the social and financial formation of regions, which leads to tougher control by the center and a certain limitation of self-sufficiency. regional authorities. For these models of interbudgetary relations, the significant role of interbudgetary transfers from higher budgets to lower ones for the budgetary equalization of the regions is significant.

Consider the decentralized competitive model of fiscal federalism in the United States.

The ideological origins of American federalism were formulated in their time by A. Hamilton, J. Madison and J. Jay. They viewed the federal state as a complex unified whole, based on a two-tier structure and mutual non-interference in the sphere of authority of both the federal center and the subject of the federation. In the United States in 1787, a federal form of government was established, based on an extremely strict delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction between Washington and the states of the country. This model of budgetary federalism was used by them as a doctrine of state building when developing the US Constitution. In the 1930s, it underwent a critical reappraisal by J. Clarke, T. Dye (Dye, 1990), and E. Corwin, the founders of the theory of “dual federalism”, who based it on contractual relations between the subjects of the country. There was no hierarchical moment in this model. The capital of the state and its regions were interpreted by them as equal centers of power. This model assumed a voluntary union of sovereign political communities,

Later, the theory of "dualistic federalism" was transformed into the theory of "cooperative federalism". Within the framework of the model of “cooperative federalism,” the power of the federal center of the United States extended to all areas of government, including those under the jurisdiction of the states. The main emphasis was placed on the interaction of the branches of government, which explains the term “cooperativity”. Regions included in a single system of government participated in the implementation of national policy, endowing themselves with functions that are most effectively able to perform the subnational level of government. In the 1970s-1980s. in the United States, new concepts of federalism were formed: the theory of "competitive federalism", the theory of "technocratic federalism", the theory of "federal society", the theory of "new federalism".

The modern highly decentralized budget system of the United States includes the federal budget, budgets of 50 states, more than 80 thousand local budgets, school and special districts (districts), trust funds. At the same time, the spheres of competence of the federal authorities and the states are delimited. Each level of public finance (federation, states, local authorities) independently draws up and approves its own budget, develops and implements tax policy, and manages debt. State budgets are not part of the federal budget, and local budgets are not part of state budgets. Local self-government is not included in the system of state power.

Tax revenue is considered to be the main source of a profitable share of the budget. At the same time, the types of taxes collected, their rates, the amount of fees are distributed according to the levels so as to pay back according to the needs of the country and people, while avoiding an unnecessary tax burden. This is a very well-formulated system and that is why the United States has gone ahead, leaving many states behind. One of the peculiarities of the tax system and the system of government regulation in the United States is that some types of taxes are levied at all 3 levels, the rest - at only one (or 2) levels. That is, there is a certain hierarchy of tax collection, according to which certain taxes are levied in a smaller amount.

In its modern form, the US tax system, which serves as an inventory of the formation of market relations, is rather difficult and heterogeneous. In accordance with the law, the right to establish personal taxes belongs not only to the federal leadership, but also to the state and land governments, as well as regional governments in towns, counties, districts, etc.

The central space in the US monetary system belongs to the federal budget. About 65% of the total earnings and expenditures of the consolidated budget go through it, 35% is the share of the other two levels, distributed between states and local governments in a ratio of 2 to 1.

For federal bodies, the costs of a nationwide sense are fixed (for military purposes and international affairs; for economic assistance to any sectors of the economy and sections of the state economy; for the maintenance of the federal municipal apparatus; for the management of federal municipal debt, etc.). The state and local governments account for a significant share of public expenditures associated with financing the social affairs of the district economy and the administrative apparatus. Here federal taxes are uniform and obligatory for the entire population of the state, while local taxes are territorially different.

Tax revenues are considered to be the main source of a profitable share of the budgets. Direct taxes dominate in federal budget revenues, indirect taxes in state revenues, and direct property taxes in the revenues of regional authorities.

The South American model of fiscal federalism is characterized by the highest degree of fiscal independence of subnational authorities both in terms of spending budget funds and in the formation of a profitable share of their budgets. The design of the profitable share of the budget for each of the values has important differences:

For federal taxes, a progressive scale is distinctive, because the main burden of paying them falls on the more affluent circles of the population;

Local taxes have a flat or, in some cases, a regressive scale, which promotes the most even participation and role of the population of a particular locality in the formation of a profitable share of its budget.

The most significant source of the US federal budget is the individual income tax... Individual income taxation in the United States is characterized by the following features:

Progressive nature of taxation;

Discretion of tax deductions - each more high rate applies only to a strictly defined part of the taxable amount;

Regular legislative changes in tax rates;

Universality of taxation - if the amount of income is equal, the same tax rates apply;

The presence of a large number of targeted discounts, benefits and exceptions;

Isolation from tax payments to social security funds;

A fixed minimum level of individual income that is not taxable.

The US states have broad tax powers, have the right to impose the same direct taxes as at the federal level, and determine the rates and base of taxation. One of the main sources of state revenue is sales tax.

Municipalities in the United States have different levels of access to local tax revenues as they require state approval to be collected. The sources of income for local budgets are: real estate tax, sales tax, various fees and other types of receipts.

The model used in the United States, which is described by the highest degree of decentralization of the management of fiscal actions along the vertical of power and the budget system, is mixed with the priority of federal legislation that guarantees the embodiment of national interests and the likelihood of the federal center showing in the main targeted economic assistance to territorial entities, does not aim at leveling the territories, the tax potential of which turned out to be below average.

As noted above, the division of tax sources and the large rights of states and municipalities in the field of US taxation contributed to the formation of a base for the vertical balance of the country's budget system. Since 1988, the structure of budgetary self-financing has been supplemented by a system of financing federal targeted programs, executed in the form of targeted transfers provided on a counter-financing basis. Currently, more than 500 targeted federal programs are being implemented in the United States to finance the needs of states and counties with the help of targeted transfers. In general, transfers from the US federal budget cover about 20% of state expenditures and, first of all, are used to increase the well-being of the population. Most of the programs are subject to federal laws. Under these circumstances, many programs are run by state governments (in which case the costs are split between the states and the federation).

As a rule, profitable shares of all levels of budgets, including the budgets of the subjects of the federation and local budgets, are replenished only at a small level through monetary support or a loan from higher budgets. Inter-budgetary regulation in the United States is used by the federal center as a "medicine" for the implementation of its regional political activities, providing economic assistance to the states based on a program-targeted approach. In the model of interbudgetary transfers, two types of targeted grants prevail.

The first type gives "block grants", prepared to finance a fairly wide range of expenditure items while establishing restrictions on the reassignment of funds between these items. They are allocated for health care, social security, payments for other expenditure groups. The second type is “categorical grants”, within which funds are allocated in order to pay for individual expenditure programs.

A feature of the American model can also be considered that about half of the total volume of targeted financial assistance is provided on a share basis, that is, the allocation of funds by budgets of a higher level occurs only if the lower level authorities finance a certain share of expenditure items covered by the grant. In the United States, all the main types of special grants are applied: formula, project, project formula, open funding grants and special grants. Most of the earmarked grants are in the form of closed funding with specified caps on the amounts due to the need to limit the growth of federal spending.

The goal of improving the US financial system, which ensures the combination of the interests of territories and groups of the population, is to maintain statehood, preserve the orderliness of public life.

Cooperative Model of Federal Budgetary Federalism of the Federal Republic of Germany

H. Siebert, who defined cooperative federalism in Germany as negotiated federalism, when all parties meet and agree every time, including on the division of revenue sources and expenditure obligations, noted his next significant drawback - a compromise in negotiations between the center and the regions is always achieved at the expense of infringement of the interests of future generations who do not take part in these negotiations (Siebert, 2005).

The individuality of the German model of budgetary federalism is considered to be its orientation towards the creation of similar criteria for life for the entire nation and the supply of more fundamental values at the federal level: legislative function, the distribution of financial resources and the formation of the main directions of political activity in one area or another. According to professionals, the fundamental difference between German cooperative federalism and South American competitive federalism lies in ensuring the integrity of life stereotypes, in the exercise of income splitting, and in the nature of self-financing between land equalization.

The three-tier budgetary system of Germany includes the budget of the federation, special government funds, budgets of 16 states (including 3 cities), budgets of about 10 thousand communities. The country's Constitution fixes the presence of two meanings of state power - the federation and the states (members of the federation). Communities are considered to be a share of land, and therefore community self-government moves limited. The predominant principle of the German system of inter-budgetary relations is considered to be the supply of one standard of living for the population of the entire country. The fundamental principle of the federal structure of Germany is to consider the principle of subsidiarity in the distribution of areas of responsibility between federations and states. The Constitution emphasizes that the implementation of municipal opportunities is considered to be the occupation of land.

Since 1977, the tax policy based on the principles laid down by L. Erhard has played an outstanding role in the formation of budget revenues from 1977: tax payments must be as low as possible; the amount of taxes must be in accordance with the amount of services provided by the state; tax payments should not burden competitiveness in any way; tax payments are required to respond to structural political activities; tax payments are obliged to ensure fairness in the disposition of income and profit among the population; the tax system is obliged to exclude double taxation of tax payments; when taxation is required to provide for the need to levy a tax.

In accordance with the object of taxation, German tax legislation distinguishes the following taxes: property taxes (taxes on income - income tax and corporate tax; property taxes - property tax, land tax, vehicle tax, etc.); taxes on circulation (indirect taxes - VAT, tax on insurance transactions); use taxes (excise taxes).

Germany's taxes are divided into uniform (distributed among the budgets of all levels), federal, land, district and duties (one of the sources for the formation of the budgets of the European Union).

General taxes include: payroll tax, direct income tax, corporate earnings tax, indirect income tax on dividends and interest income, VAT.

Own taxes include: motor vehicle tax, property tax; to your own local taxes - real estate tax, local business tax, etc.

The main types of earnings in Germany are progressive personal income tax, corporate tax, VAT, trade tax, property tax, land tax, and excise taxes.

In the event of a lack of revenues to cover the costs of the territory, since 1969, they receive additional federal transfers - transfers that have no targeted nature, which budget recipients can freely dispose of.

A specific feature of the German budget system is the presence of a difficult vertical and horizontal alignment mechanism enshrined in the country's Constitution: the main vertical alignment apparatus is the location of VAT revenues between the federal and aggregate state budgets; for horizontal alignment are primarily used uniform taxes, directed to the budgets of the lands. VAT is divided as follows: 75% (of 44% of the land in income) is distributed taking into account the number of population, that is, per capita, and 25% - depending on the financial potential of the land, this part goes to the fund to subsidize the poor ... Apart from this, 2% of the income from the share of VAT that goes to the federal budget is used in the form of additional subsidies to lands with a low level of tax revenues.

In Germany, particular importance is attached to the equalization of the tax potential of land through a system of horizontal transfers. Germany develops its territories, works closely with their budgetary security and allocates the necessary funds to maintain their stability. The modern German model of budgetary federalism is focused on partnership and an active policy of the federal center for the vertical and horizontal alignment of territorial entities, whose budgetary provision is less than the average level.

Financial relations between the federation and the communities are insignificant - the communities receive the necessary assistance mainly from the state budgets. If their own income after financial equalization turns out to be insufficient, the communities are entitled to receive general grants and targeted subsidies. General subsidies act as compensation for the lack of tax revenue. Targeted subsidies have a strictly defined purpose: a significant part of them is used to finance capital investments; grants to cover the difference between income and expenditure indicators (the amount of financial assistance is determined based on the difference in the size of own revenues and expenditures of lower-level budgets or on the basis of determining the standard levels of expenditure of lower-level budgets, regardless of the tax potential of a given territory). The system of budgetary federalism in Germany, as well as the methods and techniques of budgetary equalization are in constant reform and improvement.

On January 1, 2005, the Budget Equalization Act entered into force in Germany. It is based on the principle of assisting deposits in land, on attracting investments in land, as well as a new approach is formulated in this law, in accordance with which land is allocated that have the right to purchase subsidies and land that is obliged to pay out. By implementing this approach in Germany, they proceed from a comparison of the monetary potential of lands, taking into account the specifics of each individual territory and its inherent features. The obligation to provide subsidies, the same as the right to acquire them, depends on how much the potential of a particular land differs from the average value for all lands. Interest rates on amounts specialized for the implementation of equalization payments, and interest rates for recipient lands, they are installed so that the amounts of payments and subsidies are similar (Baltina et al., 2007).

The German model of budgetary federalism has created the highest degree of homogeneity of regional socially needed services for the population. Its introduction allowed, in a short time, through powerful transfers to the lands of East Germany, to create an advanced public infrastructure, advance entrepreneurship and, which is very important, stabilize social life. This is exactly what Russia needs to do now, but the problem is that Germany is territorially much smaller than Russia, and, consequently, the amount of interbudgetary transfers is much less. Indeed, in order to develop all of its regions, Russia will need to spend colossal amounts of money.

The commensurability of the historical experiment of Germany and Russia, the general views of the organization of interbudgetary relations, the degree of decentralization of budgetary systems, the reason for the "institutional inheritance" allow us to consider the German model of cooperative federalism as more promising in matters of reforming interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation. But the very different mechanisms for regulating interbudgetary relations, the presence of important disparities between the subjects of the federations in incomes and expenditures per capita do not in any way permit to concretely implement the German model of cooperative federalism in the Russian Federation - it must be adapted to the specifics of Russian conditions.

In the current conditions, Russia needs to compare all the pros and cons in order to properly use the experience of the EU countries and the United States in matters of intergovernmental transfers. The Russian Federation has its own specific system of inter-budgetary relations, but the competent use of certain approaches to this issue, used in the advanced countries of the world, will only benefit Russia. Of course, Russia should in no case fully borrow the entire budgetary system of Europe or the West, since the living conditions, and the very mentality of the Russian people, are fundamentally different from Western and European living standards. In my opinion, Russia needs, while preserving the originality and originality of its budgetary system of interbudgetary relations, to borrow only extremely necessary elements of other systems, relying on their experience and realizing its potential. The US economy is one of the most developed, so it is worth taking a close look at their system and studying it in detail, drawing on all the most useful things for yourself. The most important thing is to be honest and objectively consider the economic potential of the country, and then, based on this, apply the theories and concepts of other countries. But you shouldn't give up the Soviet system either, because Russia is the legal successor of the USSR, you just need to adapt this system to current trends.

2 . Analysis of changes in the MBO in the Russian Federation on the example of the Chechen Republic

2.1 Analysis of the dynamics of changes in the structure of the office in the consolidatedin the budget of the Czech Republic for 2010-2 014 years

The interbudgetary relations of the Russian Federation keep pace with the times and undergo certain, often necessary changes, thanks to which they develop and become better and better.

In this chapter, I analyzed the dynamics of changes in the structure of interbudgetary transfers of the consolidated and republican budgets of the Chechen Republic, using the data available on the official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Chechen Republic. In accordance with the criteria given to me, I used data from 2010 to 2014. Based on this analysis and the results I received, I made a small conclusion regarding the dynamics of the development of our economy.

Once one of the most industrial regions country, was destroyed by two brutal wars. After these devastating wars, having lost almost all of its economy, the Chechen Republic turned into the most backward subject of Russia. There was no point in talking about any republican budget. But by the will of the Almighty, having survived all these torments, the Chechen Republic was revived and rose from its knees. And at the moment I can proudly say that today the Chechen Republic is the most rapidly developing subject of the Russian Federation.

Today the budget of the Chechen Republic remains the most highly subsidized in Russia. Oil production is the only competitive one on foreign markets, accounting for 98.6% of the total industrial output. But projects to return the status of one of the strongest industrial regions of the country to the Chechen Republic are being created and should bear fruit in the near future.

The first post-war consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic was approved in 2002, its revenues amounted to 5 billion 580 million rubles, its own revenues were equal to 780 million rubles. Naturally, most of the budget was covered by grants and subventions.

According to Article 31 of the Federal Law of December 24, 2002 No. 176-FZ "On the Federal Budget for 2003", the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic was approved in terms of revenues in the amount of 8,406,588 thousand rubles and expenses in the amount of 8,543,559 thousand rubles. Consolidated budget 2003 did not differ from the budgets of 2001 and 2002, in which the source of covering the deficit was the income from the sale of state property in the Chechen Republic. In 2001, the process of forming the property of the Chechen Republic was launched, since it was in 2001 that 278 objects of the agro-industrial complex, housing and communal services and the social sphere were transferred from federal ownership to state ownership of the republic.

But today the Chechen Republic has a stable system for determining the consolidated budget. You can also highlight the positive dynamics of the development of interbudgetary relations in the Chechen Republic, although small problems still remain unresolved.

In order to analyze the consolidated budget of the republic, it is necessary to consider the dynamics of growth of tax and non-tax revenues in the period from 2010 to 2014. These data are shown in Figure 1

Consolidated budget revenues of the Czech Republic	Tax and non-tax revenues	Gratuitous receipts from other budgets of the RF BS	Share of tax and non-tax revenues in the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic,%
		tax. income	non-tax. income

Fig. 1. Dynamics of growth of incomes of the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic

Based on these data, it can be concluded that the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic for the period from 2010 to 2014 is distinguished by an extremely low level of tax and non-tax revenues. However, it is worth noting that despite this, a certain dynamics of their growth was formed.

Let us analyze the dynamics of expenditures of the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic; for this, Figure 2 shows a graph that shows the dynamics of the increase in expenditures.

Fig. 2. Dynamics of the increase in expenditures of the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic

The total cash expenditure of the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic at the end of 2013 was 77 billion 531.9 million rubles, but at the end of 2014 this figure changed and amounted to 58 billion 215.8 million rubles.

It should be emphasized that compared to 2010, expenses have decreased by almost 5%.

Turning directly to transfers, I want to highlight the fact that, according to the functional structure, the 2014 budget was focused on social needs, since social and social events accounted for 62.8% of total expenditures.

We will reveal each aspect where the funds were directed:

Education - 25.5%

Culture, cinema - 3.7%

Healthcare 15.7%

Social policy - 15.7%

Physical culture and sports - 2.2% 25.2% of the total amount of transfers was allocated for solving general economic problems. Government issues and others received 12% of the consolidated budget.

In general, the dynamics of changes in the structure of interbudgetary transfers of the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic is positive. Funds are allocated in accordance with the regulation of the law of the Chechen Republic of 14.07.2008 No. 39-RZ "On the budgetary structure, budgetary process and interbudgetary relations in the Chechen Republic."

Based on the analysis, it is possible to draw a conclusion regarding interbudgetary transfers of the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic. At the moment, the main disadvantage of the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic is considered to be the high level of its deficit, which can be called one of the largest among all the subjects of our vast country. Of course, funds are allocated to cover it in the form of gratuitous receipts from other budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation. But this cannot go on forever and the Ministry of Finance of the Chechen Republic realizes this. In order to get out of the current situation and move to the level of a deficit-free budget, the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic will take 45 years, provided that the existing dynamics of increase in its income and expenses remains, and this is essentially unrealistic. In my opinion, to resolve this problem, it is necessary to do everything possible in order to create the necessary conditions to stimulate the growth of the tax base. Based on the fact that more than half of tax revenues come from income tax, it is necessary to pay close attention to the growth of the corresponding taxes. Therefore, it is necessary to restore the economic clusters that once existed in the Czech Republic:

Petrochemical complex;

Agro-industrial complex;

Energy complex;

Construction complex;

Machine-building complex;

Hotel and health complex.

It is along this path that the Chechen Republic is going, and it will certainly bear fruit. Government of the Republic by all possible ways tries to bring the budgetary component of the HR to a competing degree. Large-scale projects of resort, industrial, energy, machine-building and other complexes are being implemented. Most of the projects are financed by investments from abroad, but there is a hope that in the near future all projects will be financed by the republican budget.

2.2 Analysis of the dynamics of changes in the structure of the Office in the republicanbudget of the Czech Republic for 2010-2 014 years

As mentioned above, the economy of the Chechen Republic was broken by the fighting. It was not possible to talk about any republican budget at the beginning of the new millennium. However, as was well noted in the journal "Economy of Russia - 21st Century", the foundation for the restoration of the economy of the Chechen Republic was laid in 2001. It was in 2001 that the Government Commission, headed by Viktor Khristenko, developed a program to restore the economy of the republic and, having taken the first step, launched a mechanism for the functioning of the financing scheme for the restoration process in the republic.

And this program was very effective and gave an impetus to the development of the economy, destroyed by the war, but not broken by the Chechen Republic. The implementation of the program was tightly controlled, especially its financial component. All violations were classified as economic crimes, and not as failures in the system, which was inherent in previous years.

Speaking about the program itself, it is worth highlighting 3 main areas for which funding was carried out:

from the federal budget - about 7.95 billion rubles;

from extra-budgetary funds - about 1.8 billion rubles, including funds from the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation and funds received from the export of oil produced in Chechnya;

from the funds of economic entities - RAO "UES of Russia", OJSC "Gazprom" and the Ministry of Railways of Russia - about 2.79 billion rubles.

As a result, the first post-war consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic was approved and, accordingly, the republican budget too.

Thanks to all these measures, today the economy of the Chechen Republic has a positive dynamics of development, of course it is not the most competitive, but everything has its time.

Turning directly to the analysis of the dynamics of changes in the structure of interbudgetary transfers of the republican budget of the Chechen Republic in the period from 2010 to 2014, it is necessary to consider the structure of the republican budget and assess the dynamics of its changes over the analyzed period.

For this, data on the republican budget for the period from 2010 to 2014 are presented, in the form of a table in Figure 3.

total revenues of the republican budget	gratuitous and irrevocable receipts from the federal budget	tax and non-tax revenues	total expenditures of the republican budget	Interbudgetary transfers
60 773 765.7 thousand rubles	54 891 188.7 thousand rubles	5 882 577.0 thousand rubles	62 798 218.0 thousand rubles	3,262,672.9 thousand rubles
75 840 195.7 thousand rubles	68 764 578.9 thousand rubles	7,075,616.8 thousand rubles	78 305 602.2 thousand rubles	2,525,203.8 thousand rubles
64 676 002.7 thousand rubles	56 442 016.7 thousand rubles	8,263,986.0 thousand rubles;	65,090 255.4 thousand rubles	3 363 767.5 thousand rubles
53 434 072.9 thousand rubles	44 827 665.9 thousand rubles	8 606 407.0 thousand rubles	54 299 744.9 thousand rubles	1,117,485.2 thousand rubles
64 565 892.9 thousand rubles	55 447 903.0 thousand rubles	9 117 989.9 thousand rubles	69 219 936.6 thousand rubles	2,175,737.4 thousand rubles

Fig. 3. Dynamics of changes in revenues, expenditures and interbudgetary transfers of the republican budget of the Chechen Republic in the period from 2010 to 2014.

Based on the above data, we can state that from year to year tax and non-tax revenues are growing and have a positive growth trend. It should be noted that the most positive year was 2013, as the budget deficit was less than 1 million rubles, for which one cannot but rejoice. The most profitable year, as we can see, is 2011, but at the same time the expenditure side was large, and the deficit was about 3 million rubles.

Having analyzed the dynamics of interbudgetary transfers, it should be noted that in 2014 relatively low indicators are observed.

The highest rate was in 2012. In general, having analyzed the dynamics of changes in the structure of interbudgetary transfers, I noticed that interbudgetary transfers in the Chechen Republic are of a jump-like nature, due to the fact that every year the republican regional centers are developing and the dynamics of their budget growth is also positive, as well as the dynamics of the entire budget in the whole. It should be noted that over the period under review, the budgets of cities and districts have become more balanced. Also, the lack of funds in order to fulfill the priority expenditure obligations in the budgets of cities and districts decreased in 2014 compared to 2010, 2011 and 2012 and increased compared to 2013. I would also like to highlight that the highly subsidized year in the period I am analyzing is 2011.

In 2014, the main funds of interbudgetary transfers were allocated in the form of subventions and subsidies to the budgets of city districts and municipal districts, and funds in the amount of 336,000.0 thousand rubles were allocated to the budget of the Territorial Mandatory Health Insurance Fund. As a result, its budget amounted to 8,830,995.0 thousand rubles. It is worth mentioning the allocated funds in the amount of 224 843.2 thousand rubles for servicing the state internal debt of the Chechen Republic.

Summing up the results of my analysis, I would like to emphasize that despite the still unresolved problems, on the whole, the economy of the Chechen Republic is slowly but surely moving to the top. The indicators are getting better every year both in the consolidated and in the republican budgets. The relationship between budgets is fixed on a well-built system of distribution of interbudgetary transfers. All the above data indicate that the budget of the Chechen Republic is less and less in need of revenues from the federal budget, and there is also a tendency to achieve the level of a deficit-free budget. That is, the Chechen Republic has risen from its knees and is no longer an economically backward region.

3 . Improving inter-budgetary relations inRF

3 .1 Features of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation

Each state decides for itself which model of budgetary relations to use. The effectiveness of intergovernmental fiscal relations and how useful they will be is not determined by the degree of centralization (decentralization) of the budget system, not by whether or not there are regulatory taxes, not by the ratio between the country's revenues and expenditures, not by the size and methods of transferring financial assistance, but clearly and clearly formulated and balanced a system of all these factors that correspond to the characteristics of the federal state that uses them. As a rule, the highest centralization of the budgetary system and a more significant amount of redistributed budgetary funds are distinctive for states with the highest degree of inequality of budgetary solvency between the constituent entities of the federation.

Russia is the most big country in the world. Its structure, in accordance with the Constitution, includes 85 subjects, including the recently annexed Republic of Crimea and the third, along with Moscow and St. Petersburg, the federal city of Sevastopol. Russia belongs to asymmetric federations. Article 5 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states that all subjects of the Russian Federation are equal to each other. The principle of equality here does not in any way eliminate the differences in the degree of compliance of these rights with those historical, socio-economic and political conditions that have really developed in budgetary policy, because they are necessary conditions for the functioning and development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The Constitution of the Russian Federation distinguishes between subjects that are under the jurisdiction of state power, as well as powers between the bodies of state power of the Russian Federation and its subjects, including in the field of the budget. Asymmetry of the federation does not mean that it completely deviates from the principles of federalism.

If this asymmetry is caused by a real necessity, then it is a prerequisite for balancing the interests of the subjects, respectively, and for preserving the unity of the federal state.

The RF BC identifies the following principles of interbudgetary relations, which can be confidently attributed to the principles of budgetary federalism:

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

Differentiation (consolidation) on a permanent basis and distribution according to temporary norms of regulating incomes at the levels of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation;

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

Leveling the levels of the 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, local budgets in relations with the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Especially it is necessary to highlight the principle of equality in the relationship of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the federal budget, since it is this principle that implies the establishment of uniform norms and rules for deductions to their budgets from federal taxes and fees and a unified procedure for paying federal taxes and fees for all constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Agreements between the Russian Federation and a constituent entity of the Russian Federation containing norms that violate the uniform procedure for relations between the federal budget and the budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and other provisions established by the BC RF, the federal law on the federal budget for the next financial year are invalid and cannot be enforced.

The Budget Code of the Russian Federation establishes that financial assistance from the federal budget to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation can be provided in the following forms:

Grants for leveling the level of the minimum budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

The concept of interbudgetary relations and the principles of their organization

The importance and universality of the problems of interbudgetary relations explains their wide discussion in economic literature, which, however, does not exclude the contradictory nature of the conceptual apparatus. Let's try to understand the definitions of interbudgetary relations and identify the one that, in our opinion, more accurately reflects the essence of these relations.

According to Article 6 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, interbudgetary relations are defined as "the relationship between public law entities on the regulation of budgetary legal relations, organization and implementation of the budgetary process." Budget Code of the Russian Federation of July 31, 1998 No. 145-FZ (as amended on December 25, 2012) (with amendments and additions, effective from 01.01.2013). Art. 6.

In the scientific literature, there are many interpretations of the concept of "interbudgetary relations". Some authors believe that "interbudgetary relations are relations between state authorities of the federal, regional levels and local self-government bodies regarding the budgetary structure, implementation of budgetary federalism, including the distribution and redistribution of income and expenditures between budgets." Gorbunova O.N., Selyukov A.D., Drugova Yu.V. Budgetary law of Russia. Tutorial. - M .: TK Welby, 2002, p.72 However, this definition limits the competence and practically exercised powers of the authorities.

A broader definition is adhered to by A.M. Babich and L.N. Pavlova: "Interbudgetary relations are a set of relations between the state authorities of the Russian Federation, the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments regarding the delimitation and consolidation of budgetary powers, observance of the rights, duties and responsibilities of authorities in the field of drawing up, approving and executing process ". Babich A.M., Pavlova L.N. State municipal finance. - M .: Finance, 1999, p. 147. The authors quite justifiably include in the definition of interbudgetary relations relations regarding a clear separation of income and expenditure powers and their assignment to the corresponding level of government.

Yu.N. Lyubimtsev understands interbudgetary relations as "systemically organized cash flows and connections between the subjects of interbudgetary relations in the formation, distribution and use of budgetary funds and grants." Lyubimtsev Yu.N. Priorities for improving interbudgetary relations // The Economist. - 2000. - No. 6, p. 22. In interbudgetary relations, the authorities act as intermediaries between the state and society, organizing financial support for the provision of public goods.

O.G. Bezhaev believes that "interbudgetary relations are economic and legal relations that arise between state and municipal authorities during the budgetary process regarding the delimitation on a permanent or long-term basis of expenditure powers, revenues entering the country's budget system, determining long-term basis of federal and regional taxes, redistribution of funds from budgets of higher levels to lower levels in the manner of budgetary regulation, reimbursement of expenses associated with the transfer of expenditure powers or decision-making that caused additional expenses or loss of income to other budgets, transfer of funds in the form of grants, subventions, subsidies temporary financial assistance on a repayable paid and free basis, as well as pooling funds to finance expenses in the interests of different levels of government and different territories of the same level of government. " Bezhaev O.G. Interbudgetary Relations: Theory and Practice of Reforming / Ed. Dan. M.A. Yakhyaeva - M .: Exam, 2001, p. 17. This definition contains the whole range of inter-budgetary relations arising in the budget process. Only the purpose of these relations is not indicated.

On the contrary, some authors, when defining the concept of interbudgetary relations, start from their goal or direction. H.M. Bogov proceeds from the premise that "the realization of people's needs involves the delegation of specific powers to the appropriate levels of government. Political powers are provided by financial powers. Any of the bodies of a particular level of government must have certain sources of income for the implementation of their powers. Interbudgetary relations are conditioned by the action of two main factors. - first, as part of distribution relations, they are generated by the uneven distribution of income sources and consumers of financial resources. Secondly, their presence is associated with the functioning of state authorities and local self-government, ensuring the hierarchical interests of citizens. " Bogov Kh. M. Development of interbudgetary relations and prerequisites for economic growth // Finance and Credit, 2007. No. 28. p. 2.

E.A. Morozova notes that interbudgetary relations are caused by the need for the functioning of the mechanism of financial equalization of asymmetric socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This mechanism represents the distribution of expenditure and income powers between the levels of government in order to provide financial resources for the functions they perform. Morozova, E.A.Municipal reform and interbudgetary relations in Russian regions// Economic sciences, 2008. - № 2 (39), p.106.

Summarizing the above, we can define the system of interbudgetary relations as a subsystem of budgetary relations, which includes a set of interrelated financial relations between budgets of different levels regarding the delineation of expenses and revenues in order to horizontally equalize revenues of budgets of the same level.

The system of interbudgetary relations unites budgets of different levels, ensuring the functioning of the budgetary system. At the same time, inter-budgetary relations are based on the principles highlighted by D. Elazar: fiscal federalism tax russia

- consolidation in the constitution of the country of the distribution of power and guarantees of the invariability of the powers of the central and regional governments;
- the presence of a bicameral parliament, representing the population and regions;
- representation of regions at the federal level through a bicameral parliament (in my opinion, this principle covers the previous one);
- the right of the regions to influence the process of changing the constitution of the country, but without the right to change their own constitution in unilaterally;
- the presence of a decentralized government, and the powers of the central government at the federal level are higher than the powers of regional governments at their level Elazar D. J. Exploring federalism. - Tuscoloosa, Al .; London: The University of Alabama Press, 1991 .;

However, in addition to the above, it is necessary to outline the following principles:

- combination of interests of all subjects of interbudgetary relations;
- equality of rights in interbudgetary relations of the subjects with the federal center and municipalities with the authorities of the subjects;
- mutual responsibility of the authorities of different levels for the observance of obligations on interbudgetary relations;
- transparency (clarity, transparency) and publicity of interbudgetary relations, simplicity of calculations.

Interbudgetary relations, both from a theoretical and a practical point of view, play an important role in the formation of financial relationships, which, in turn, ensure the functioning of the budget system.

The concept of interbudgetary relations is the basis for the development of approaches to the delineation of revenue and expenditure powers between the federal, sub-federal and local levels of government; determining the criteria and methods for providing financial assistance to the subjects of the budgetary system.

At the same time, the well-functioning delineation of revenue powers between the levels of government contributes to the efficient collection of taxes and a decrease in the tax burden on various segments of the economy, including the private sector.

Reasonable and clear delineation of spending powers shows the level of development of the public sector and the degree of its impact on the economy. Also, financial assistance to smooth out socio-economic differences between the subjects of the federation is provided through inter-budgetary relations.

In other words, it is these relations that contribute to the leveling and acceleration of economic development.

And last but not least, the reason for the influence of interbudgetary relations on the socio-economic development of the federation lies in the fact that well-formed financial relations between the subjects of the budgetary system are an integral factor in strengthening statehood and strengthening the rule of law, security of the population.

That is, the improvement of interbudgetary relations between the levels of government contributes to a more successful implementation of budgetary policy, which, in turn, leads to the political, economic and social development of the state.

Consequently, a developed and effective system of interbudgetary relations is one of the most important criteria emphasizing the maturity of the state.

Today the federal form of the device takes place in twenty countries of the world. And in all federations, the above general principles can be observed. However, they do not fully describe the state of interbudgetary relations, that is, each federal state has its own specific principles. Based on the specifics of building interbudgetary relations, there is a classification of models of interbudgetary relations, which will be described in the next section.

Introduction

Conclusion

Introduction

Interbudgetary relations - the relationship between the two levels of the budgetary system, concerning the equalization of budgetary provision, the provision of other grants and subsidies to their higher budget, the norms of deductions from regulatory taxes.

The goals of organizing the system of interbudgetary relations can be: equalizing budgetary provision, 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 (IBO) 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 the IBO at the federal level. Nevertheless, it is still too early to write off this direction of improving public administration:

By no means all of the systems for equalizing budgetary security 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 to unify with federal law... At the same time, not only efficiency suffered, but also the very compliance with the requirements of the Budget Code was not always the case;

inter-budgetary relations are one of the tools for managing the socio-economic development of the region. On the one hand, this means that the IBO must be synchronized with the goals and objectives of the region's development. On the other hand, the IBO may require adjustments (or at least revisions) in case of a more or less significant change in the development strategy of the region;

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

reforming the IBO is still one of the criteria for evaluating regional programs for reforming public finance 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 budgetary system are interconnected within the framework of interbudgetary relations. As a result of such interaction, relations are formed between state authorities and local authorities, which are specially highlighted in the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and are called interbudgetary.

Interbudgetary relations are relations between authorities, mainly of different levels, on a permanent (without time limit) delimitation of expenditure and income powers, the corresponding expenses and, as far as possible, income sources, as well as interbudgetary regulation: the possible distribution of some taxes on temporary (at least for the next financial year) norms of allocations between budgets of different levels and the 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 budgetary services in the volume and quality not lower than the minimum required level.

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

Inter-budgetary regulation is carried out, as a rule, by the authorities of a higher level by means of vertical (between different links of the budget system) and horizontal (in 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 the economic and social processes in the country.

Horizontal equalization in some countries (for example, in Germany) also occurs in the order 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 reimbursement of budgets additional costs or loss of income caused by decisions taken by the authorities of another level, and the possible share participation of budgets of a higher level in the expenditures of lower budgets, meaning stimulating the priority (most socially significant) directions of spending these budgets from the position of higher authorities

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

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

Foreign experience does not allow finding a standard that is completely suitable for Russia. Each country, along with common approaches there are also peculiarities of the mechanism of interbudgetary relations. For example, in many countries, in particular in the United States, taxes are delineated between the levels of the budget system on the principle of "one tax - one budget." At the same time, in Canada, Austria, Germany, India, along with separate taxes, each of which is directed 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, to one degree or another participate in the formation of budgets of different 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 tax on goods and services (analogous to VAT), excise taxes, import duties, social security contributions. In Austria, almost all taxes are joint, which provides a minimum level of use of intergovernmental 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) on a temporary basis (for 5 years). Most of them, taking into account the decisions made by the authorities of the lands, are distributed in three levels of the budgetary system. In India, the methodology for the distribution of taxes involved in intergovernmental regulation is adopted for 5 years. In Russia, taxes that are distributed between the levels of the budgetary system according to the norms 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 mass of the tax, consisting of receipts from all territories. Only then, according to the formula, the tax is distributed among the regional budgets. This practice exists, for example, in Germany for VAT. The proportions of the 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 in the context of land is also carried out in the order of horizontal regulation according to the standard determined per inhabitant 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 the calculations in order to achieve comparable conditions, not the actual, but the conditional population size (adjusted for population density, the degree of urbanization and some other factors) is used.

In the Russian Federation, the differentiation of types of income (on an ongoing basis) between the levels of the budgetary 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 the levels of the budget system according to temporary standards). But since 2006, the possibility of applying such standards as additional (differentiated) to single percentages of taxes fixed on a permanent basis is provided only within the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and only for personal income tax instead of subsidies to local budgets calculated (per capita method) for formalized basis. Thus, in the new budgetary legislation, preference is given to interbudgetary regulation through gratuitous and irrevocable transfers to budgets of other levels in various forms. They, according to this legislation, are considered as interbudgetary transfers. These transfers also include budget loans from the federal budget to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, provided on a reimbursable and repayable basis.

The high degree of independence of budgets of different levels and the responsibility of the authorities for the balance of the budget, budgetary security predetermines an increase in their interest in increasing tax potential, timely and complete collection of taxes, as well as in the efficient spending of budget funds. This independence of budgets is characteristic of classical budgetary federalism, since it allows for an independent fiscal policy 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 fiscal policy of the state as a principle of budgetary federalism confirms the fact that budgetary federalism is not limited to interbudgetary relations, although the latter largely characterize its features.

Therefore, the concept of "budgetary federalism" can be defined as the relationship between the 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 budgetary policy, delineation of fiscal powers, expenditures and revenues, their distribution and redistribution in budget system with a high degree of budget independence and responsibility for the results of an 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 the multinational federation living in the territories of the subjects of the federation and their local territorial entities.

Based on the principles of budgetary federalism, the following principles of interbudgetary relations can be defined:

a combination of interests of all participants in interbudgetary relations;

clear legislative delimitation of expenditure powers between the authorities of different levels and the corresponding expenditures, as well as revenue sources (in whole or in part) between the links of the budget system;

the maximum possible delineation on a permanent (no time limit) basis of types of income (in whole or in part) as fixed income between budgets of different levels;

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

equality of rights in interbudgetary relations of the subjects of the Federation with the federal center and municipalities with the authorities of the subjects of the Federation;

application in interbudgetary regulation for all subjects of the Federation, and within each of them for all municipalities, uniform methodology and criteria that take into account their individual and group characteristics;

the obligation to compensate for the missing funds in case of an increase in budget expenditures or a decrease in their revenues, which were the result of decisions taken by the authorities of another level;

inadmissibility of withdrawal or compulsory centralization to the budgets of another level of own revenues, fixed on a permanent basis, additionally received or saved budget funds;

the inadmissibility of changing the ranking of territorial entities by budgetary provision in comparable conditions when transferring funds from the higher budget to them in the order of interbudgetary regulation;

mutual responsibility of authorities at different levels for compliance with obligations on intergovernmental fiscal relations;

availability of reliable information about the financial security of territorial entities in need of financial support from the budget of another level;

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

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

Comparison of the current mechanism of interbudgetary relations with the above principles - the requirements of budgetary federalism for its construction, allows to improve the organization of these relations, as well as to 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 building of tax potential, timely and complete collection of payments to the budget in the jurisdictional territory, as well as rational and efficient 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, it is necessary to make adjustments to the current mechanism of interbudgetary relations.

conclusions... Proceeding from theoretical premises, the reform of interbudgetary relations in Russia should have the main ultimate 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 regional and local authorities of their territorial budgets (in conditions of interest and responsibility in ensuring the growth of their own, fixed on a permanent basis and regulating income sources, rational and effective spending of budgetary funds) in order to exercise the powers entrusted to them, to provide equal opportunities for the population throughout the country to receive budgetary services in the amount and quality not lower than that provided for by state social standards.

Related goals include the following: clear and well-grounded delineation of spending powers between levels of government; the delineation between the levels of the budgetary system of taxes and other payments (on an ongoing basis, that is, without a 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 budgetary system of joint taxes according to temporary (with the indication of the period) standards considered as regulatory taxes, redistribution of funds in different forms from budgets of one level of the budgetary 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 redistributing 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

In our time, the interregional redistribution of resources, carried out through the federal budget, is not sufficiently aimed at stimulating economic growth in specific constituent entities of the Federation. Resources are mainly allocated to industries, and their use does not take into account the possibilities of territorial development. Improving the efficiency of direct expenditures of the federal budget in the regions is possible in the following areas: allocation of resources in order to achieve the maximum value of the expenditure multiplier; taking into account regional needs in the implementation of targeted federal programs of scientific and technical development; strengthening the role public sector in the creation of "points of growth" in specific areas.

In market conditions, the criteria for the efficiency of budgetary spending on industrial development are the growth rates in technically advanced industries that require venture capital investments and the cost multiplier effect. It is advisable to use the latter in order to ensure a relatively uniform economic growth in the regions, choosing for state investment enterprises that allow providing the longest "order flow". The effect of the multiplier of expenditures will be maximal in the territorial context if, in the course of investments from the federal budget, bottlenecks in the production chain are eliminated at the expense of capital investments from regional budgets. In conditions not sustainable development economy, such a policy fully fits into the overall 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 the initial investment in the aviation industry and shipbuilding. These industries have the largest number of subcontractors. Implementation of programs for the development of these industries allows creating "points of growth" in various regions.

The development of budgetary policy in relation to depressed regions is also a rather difficult problem. At the same time, one should bear in mind not so much the stimulation of economic growth in these territories, but the cessation of the decline in production, the stabilization of the current situation. Experience confirms that the severity of the problem of depressed regions is significantly reduced with an adequate macroeconomic policy. In particular, the 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 noticeably reduced both social and economic tensions 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 the official minimum wage at the subsistence level, will lead to an increase in the consumption of food products by the population and thereby have a favorable effect on domestic agriculture. Such changes can radically improve the situation in a number of depressed agricultural regions. Macroeconomic policy measures can also affect the improvement of the situation in regions with the predominant development of other sectors of the economy. Magnification aggregate demand will lead to the demand for the products of the relevant industry in the domestic market.

Nevertheless, a successful macroeconomic policy does not solve the problem of aid to depressed regions. So, without the support of the federal center, even with an effective macroeconomic policy, territories with a difficult economic situation and a number of territories with a single-industry structure cannot do. Of course, assistance to such regions cannot be limited to the allocation of financial resources. It should include other areas, such as, for example, the scientific study of the restructuring of their economy, the improvement of legislation, etc. Significant financial assistance will be required for stabilizing social policies (targeted assistance to the poor, health care, education) and for investment in the social sphere.

In many cases, traditional policy measures will not be able to bring depressed regions even onto the trajectory 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 required 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 with less profitability than private ones. The main purpose of their functioning is not only to provide employment for 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 of its equalization. Even in the group of wealthy regions, the differentiation in terms of GRP per capita is more than 4 times, and in the group of the least wealthy regions - almost 3 times. The difference in this indicator between the most and the least well-off regions exceeds 20 times.

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

the level of economic development of the regions;

the degree of their provision with natural resources;

different structure of the regional economy, which determines different tax potential;

unequal efforts of regional authorities to collect taxes.

Along with the GRP per capita indicator, for the correct organization of interbudgetary relations, the ratio of the region's average accrued wages to the subsistence minimum is of great importance. 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 subsistence level, the higher the need for budgetary services among the residents of the region, since in such conditions they are unable to carry out a significant amount of expenditures from their own income. In turn, this implies an increase in financial assistance to a specific region and, accordingly, an intensification of interbudgetary relations. The low ratio between the average wage and the subsistence minimum is generally characteristic of subsidized regions. Due to their low incomes, their residents use a significant amount of public services. This, in particular, applies to Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia - Alania, Tuva, Mari El, Mordovia, Ivanovo region. At the same time, a low ratio of wages to the subsistence minimum is observed in the Saratov and Ulyanovsk regions, and the Primorsky Territory. The high ratio of wages to the subsistence minimum is observed mainly in export-oriented regions: Khanty-Mansi and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs, Bashkortostan, as well as in Moscow and Sverdlovsk region... The lack of an effective wage policy leads to an increase in the volume of services provided by state authorities and municipalities at the expense of budgetary sources.

Differentiation of regions in terms of GRP per capita does not coincide with their differences in tax income per capita. This is due to the varying degrees of concentration in the regions of both natural resources and population. Differentiation of regions in terms of the share of their own revenues in the total volume of budget revenues is quite noticeable. In the period from 1999 to 2005. the structure of financial aid to regions from the federal budget has changed significantly. This was due to a decrease, firstly, in mutual settlements between budgets; secondly, budget loans. As you know, budget loans are provided to the regions to cover the budget deficit, but their outstanding balance is actually an element of financial assistance.

The criteria for leveling the budgetary provision of the regions are determined by the general socio-economic situation of the state. In the context of sustainable development, the federal government is able to provide a uniform level of social guarantees for the country and, accordingly, budgetary services. For states with medium development, an acceptable leveling criterion may be a guaranteed minimum of budgetary 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 provision is the actual budget minimum. This means that the provision of financial assistance to the regions is limited by the amount of funds allocated by the federal center after financing its basic needs.

For modern Russia, a very urgent task is the refusal to provide financial assistance according to the criterion of the actual budgetary minimum and the transition to its provision according to the guaranteed minimum criterion. In this case, the 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 steady increase in budget revenues at all levels is required, which is achievable with a significant increase in GDP.

Improving the methodological foundations for the formation and use of the Fund for Financial Support of the Regions (FFSR) is of great importance for optimizing the financial support of the regions. 1994 - 2003 changes in the methodology for the distribution of the funds of this fund were made in the following main areas:

determination of the sources of FFSR formation;

development of methodological foundations for the distribution of FFSR funds;

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

ensuring the comparability of the expenditure needs of the regions;

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

Despite all the advantages of the methodology used in 2002-2003, in comparison with the previously used options, it was not free from serious drawbacks. It failed to link the provision of transfers to specific regions with their existing standard of living. The point is that the differentiation of regions in terms of such an indicator as GRP per capita does not coincide with their differentiation in terms of 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), the number of cars per 10 thousand inhabitants. These indicators indirectly reflect the redistribution of wages and entrepreneurial income between regions. Apparently, the volume of funds provided from the FFSR should be adjusted taking into account the indicator of expenditures on final consumption of households.

Conclusions. Modern budgetary policy, including its component of improving interbudgetary relations, of course, provides a number of prerequisites for increasing investment in the domestic economy, creating conditions for its sustainable growth and competitiveness. A fundamental feature of such a policy is its implementation with the help of tools that are flexible in economic and financial terms and universal in the sense of the object of application. Most of them should be focused on regulating not the sectors of the economy themselves, but macroeconomic indicators ( it comes on maintaining effective proportions of aggregated indicators of gross national output; an acceptable level of inflation; effective exchange rate ruble and refinancing rate; customs tariffs; export and import quotas, etc.).

3. Ways to improve interbudgetary relations

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

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

influence on the formation of the 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;

providing an innovative component of economic growth through the development of research centers;

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

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

the principle of the dependence of the delineation of powers between the levels of the budgetary system on the needs of society as a whole and of a particular citizen in the relevant public goods;

the principle of implementation of specific costs, taking into account the maximization of the beneficial effect while minimizing costs, including the costs of administration and subsequent control;

the principle of ensuring "action potential" as the ability of the corresponding level of government to exercise the authority to finance the priority areas of regional economic policy in the event of a change in macroeconomic conditions in the national economic system;

the principle of providing an opportunity for all levels of the budgetary system to promptly respond to changing macroeconomic conditions.

The implementation of these principles makes it possible to create a system of delimitation of budgetary powers between the levels of the budgetary system, which is basically stable, but open to changes. The formation of a system for the delineation of budgetary powers on the basis of 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 the IBO:

moderate decentralization of budgetary powers;

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

improving the efficiency of the interbudgetary transfer system;

improving the distribution of taxes between the levels of the budgetary 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 for expenses (for example, for improvement). But the paradox is that the same arguments can be used to justify the centralization of revenues and expenditures at a higher level of the budget system. In particular, indirect taxes are easier to collect at the federal level, while education and health spending can be funded from the federal budget. Therefore, a solution to the issue of the degree of decentralization of budget revenues and expenditures can be found, firstly, when analyzing the impact of the phenomenon under study on the economic development of territories; secondly, when assessing the productivity of competition between territorial entities for attracting investment.

In the sphere of interbudgetary relations in Russia, some urgent problems still remain unresolved. One of them is the legal status of participants in interbudgetary relations, associated with insufficient regulation of relations between the center and the subjects of the Federation, while the status of the latter is uncertain. With the proclamation by the Constitution of the Russian Federation of the equality of the constituent entities of the Federation, all republics within Russia have in practice significantly more rights in comparison with other constituent entities - territories, regions, districts. This inequality infringes on their budgetary rights and reduces the effectiveness of interbudgetary relations. It is also necessary to legally determine the status of the third level of the budget system, i.e. the counterparty of the authorities of the constituent entity of the Federation for 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 investment while avoiding competition in the tax area is an important way to improve the efficiency of IBOs. However, such competition is not analogous to competition in the private sector of the economy. Regional authorities can compete for attracted capital, but not through the provision of tax incentives. In our opinion, it is obvious that competition between regions, as well as between local authorities in the field of taxation and payment for environmental pollution is unacceptable in the context of significant differentiation of budgetary provision and an acute shortage of financial resources, including investment.

Improving the efficiency of the system for providing interbudgetary transfers is one of the most important areas for improving interbudgetary relations. Transfers have three functions. With their help, one territorial entity provides compensation for expenses from which other territorial entities benefit, i.e. compensation of externalities (external effects). The transfers ensure equalization of the level of public goods (budgetary services) provided by the territorial authorities to their residents, and are also a consequence of the collection of basic taxes at the federal level 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 the 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 in comparison with the current financial assistance;

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

development of incentive mechanisms for 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 objects, which are under the jurisdiction of regional authorities and municipalities, and on this basis growth of their budget revenues.

The predominant direction in the 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, inevitably the preservation of inappropriate financial assistance in the form of subsidies that ensure the alignment of regions in terms of budgetary provision.

Improving the distribution of taxes between the 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 aggregate tax revenues in favor of the federal budget. Accordingly, the share of territorial budgets in the consolidated budget has decreased. Tax revenues do not adequately ensure the financial independence of regions and municipalities.

An analysis of the current practice leads to the conclusion that it is necessary, in a strategic plan, to revise the system for splitting taxes between the levels of the budget system. Now it does not solve the problem of strengthening the tax component of the revenue base of regional and local budgets. The delineation of tax powers between the levels of the budgetary system is one of the three key blocks of the system of interbudgetary relations.

It is effective to use federal and regional taxes when levying objects with a mobile tax base - profit, wages, consumption. At the same time immobile the tax base must be subject to local taxes. The use of this practice presupposes further redistribution of collected taxes between the levels of the budget system. In a transitional economy, effectively use the capabilities of the federal government to collect taxes.

It is advisable to apply split taxes calculated from a single taxable base and credited in established shares to the budgets of three levels. From a theoretical point of view, using the principle of "one tax - one budget" 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 should have increased. Accordingly, the costs of business entities for maintaining tax accounting... This would be a factor in reducing the competitiveness of the domestic economy.

Currently, the differentiation of tax revenues is based on the full accumulation in the federal budget of the bulk of taxes with a mobile taxable base (VAT, excise taxes, corporate income tax) and crediting taxes with a non-mobile taxable base (on land and property) to local budgets.

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

The existing differentiation of regions and municipalities in terms of the level of tax potential does not allow the formation of budget revenues at each level mainly at the expense of their own taxes. Therefore, one of the main tasks of 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 respectively in the regions and municipalities.

The delimitation of ownership of natural resources between the federal center, regions and municipalities is a condition for creating a real financial base for the economic development of regions and intensifying investment processes to ensure sustainable regional development. Each of the levels of government should have a fixed share of ownership of natural resources. The Constitution of the Russian Federation and the laws establish the most general provisions for the differentiation of subsoil objects into federal and sub-federal 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, the principles of formation, as well as the limits of the competence of the federal authorities in managing the state subsoil fund have not been determined. This created the possibility of conflicts not only between the authorities and administrations themselves, but also between the authorities and economic entities. To date, it is still an important problem to differentiate the ownership of natural resources by levels of government. Justification of ownership shares of natural resources by levels of government is associated with the definition of 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 efficiently functioning mechanism for the distribution of revenue sources between the authorities for the implementation of their spending powers related to solving the problems of the socio-economic and political development of the country as a whole, its regions, municipalities. Methods for achieving this goal are improving legislation taking into account the emerging socio-economic conditions, formalizing methods for distributing financial assistance between the federal center and regions, between regions and municipalities, using standards of budget expenditures for specific purposes.

Conclusion

State budgetary policy - main component financial policy, since it determines the conditions and principles of organizing financial relations in the formation of the revenue base of budgets, in the implementation of budget expenditures, in the organization of interbudgetary relations. Fiscal policy directly affects the size and proportion of financial resources centralized by the state and determines not only the current structure of budget expenditures, but also the prospects for the use of budget funds for the development of the economy and social sphere. In addition, budgetary policy predetermines the organization of financial relations between business entities and the state in the course of implementing tax policy, conducting state investment policy, and developing budgetary policy in relation to priority sectors and activities.

The most important component of the country's budgetary policy is, as already noted, the concept of interbudgetary relations. On its basis, approaches are developed to delineate income and expenditure powers between the levels of government, to determine the criteria and methods for providing financial assistance based on the conditions for the functioning of the budget system. In other words, the financial and budgetary relations between federal, regional and local authorities are improving, which is one of the main factors of the political and economic development of Russia and, consequently, the success of the implementation of budgetary policy. First, a reasonable delineation of their revenue powers is a prerequisite for effective tax collection and optimization of the tax burden on various segments of the economy, including its private sector. Secondly, a clear delineation of spending powers determines the efficiency of the public sector and the extent of its impact on the economy, especially on the formation of the economic infrastructure. Thirdly, the provision of financial assistance through intergovernmental fiscal relations smooths out socio-economic differences between regions, contributes to the equalization and acceleration of economic development. Fourthly, well-functioning financial relations between the levels of government are a prerequisite for strengthening statehood and strengthening the rule of law 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 income and expenditure powers between the levels of government and, accordingly, the levels of the budget system, as well as the equalization of budgetary provision throughout the country.

Intergovernmental fiscal relations are driven by two main factors. First, as part of distribution relations, they are generated by the uneven distribution of income sources and consumers of financial resources across the regions of the country. Secondly, their presence is associated with the functioning of state and local government bodies that ensure the hierarchical interests of citizens. The federal structure of the state introduces significant specifics into the functioning of the financial system, determining the range of income and expenditure powers of both the central government and the authorities of the subjects of the Federation.

The socio-economic and political position of the state at a certain stage of its evolution predetermines the degree of concentration of financial resources at the disposal of the body of the corresponding level of government. The peculiarities of the regional budgetary policy being pursued determine the flows of financial resources from the center to the regions.

Interbudgetary relations are closely related to regional policy. Financial component regional policy is not limited to interbudgetary relations and includes investments from the federal budget, as well as the bulk of its direct costs (federal budget funds are spent in specific territories).

Bibliography

1.Bogov H.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, N 4

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

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

5. Slepov V.A., Shubov V.B. Priority directions of 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, N 4

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

Interbudgetary relations (Article 6 of the BC RF) – it is the relationship between public law entities on the regulation of budgetary legal relations, organization and implementation of the budgetary process.

Interbudgetary relations - this is a whole complex of financial and legal norms, which include, in particular, the relationship between different levels of government regarding:

1. delineation of expenditure obligations and responsibility for their implementation;

2. delineation of tax powers and income sources;

3. budgetary equalization and distribution of financial assistance.

There are two types of budget alignment - vertical and horizontal.

Vertical budget alignment- the assignment of tax and non-tax income sources to each level of the budgetary and tax system (federal, regional, local), established in accordance with the law and proceeding from the criterion of sufficiency to cover the normatively distributed expenses.

Horizontal budget alignment(with the help of grants, subsidies, subventions) - the establishment in the classification of expenditures of the federal and regional budgets of special positions for financing such directions of the regional policy of the federal state, as compensation to lower budgets for the insufficiency of their own funds to cover the normatively distributed costs.

Inter-budgetary relations exist in any state that has an administrative-territorial division, but they can develop on different bases (principles). It is customary to distinguish unitary(Great Britain, Italy, etc.) and federated budget systems (USA, Germany, Russia). Unitary corresponds to a high level of centralization of budgetary funds, the absence or insignificant amount of budgetary rights of subordinate authorities. Federated budget systems are built on exactly the opposite principles. They are characterized by a high degree of independence of territorial bodies of power while respecting the unity of national interests.

The principles on the basis of which federal budget systems operate are called principles budgetary federalism.

Fiscal federalism can be defined as a public finance management system based on the distinction between different levels of government of budgetary rights and powers in the field of formation and spending of budgetary funds with a combination of the interests of participants in the budgetary process at all levels of the country's budgetary system and the interests of the whole society as a whole.

It is customary to highlight two main models budgetary federalism - decentralized (competitive) and cooperative.

IN decentralized model of the three main functions of the state - macroeconomic stabilization, redistribution of national income and production of state goods and services - the first two most often relate to the sphere of activity of the central government, and the third is divided between three levels of government, but is considered the most important in the activities of regional governments (an example of this model can serve the USA).

More widespread cooperative model budgetary federalism, which implies: wider participation of regional authorities in the redistribution of national income and macroeconomic stabilization, then leads to closer budgetary cooperation between regional authorities and the center; increasing the role of regional authorities in the system of distribution of tax revenues, incl. and national, an active policy of horizontal alignment, increased responsibility of the center for the state of regional finances, the level of development of territories, which leads to increased control by the center and some limitation of the independence of regional authorities (Germany can serve as a vivid example of such a model).

The issue of equality in the distribution of powers, revenues and expenditures between the federal center and the regions is the central problem of fiscal federalism.

On the one hand, it is the federal type of organization that is able to provide the regions with real independence, both politically and economically. A federation as a type of government assumes that a given state consists of separate state entities (states - in the USA, provinces - in Canada, subjects of the Federation - in Russia), which have their own executive and legislative bodies, a regional legislative framework, their own taxes, etc. etc. It is easier to "reach out" to the regional authorities, it is easier to ask about the results of activities; the regional government is closer, it really knows firsthand about the problems of the region, is able to take into account its national characteristics, socio-economic conditions, etc. Thus, the development of the independence of the regions is a guarantee of real democratization of the whole society.

On the other hand, one should not underestimate the role of the federal center, which is called upon to ensure national interests, maintain the integrity of the state, neutralize separatist sentiments, and equalize the living conditions of the population of different regions.

For Russia, this problem is most urgent, since we are constantly accused of an excessive degree of centralization. This is confirmed by the lack of political and economic independence of the regions (governors are appointed; most of the financial resources are accumulated at the federal level, etc.). The inclination towards “unitarianism” in Russia can be explained, first of all, by the legacy of the recent past - the dominance of the command-administrative system, as well as by the peculiarities of the Russian mentality.

In our opinion, at present it is impossible to abandon the priority of the federal center, since the peculiarity of Russia is the presence of a large number of regions (more than 80, as in no other country in the world), sharply differing in their socio-economic conditions. In order to ensure more or less equal living conditions and constitutional rights for the population of various constituent entities of the Federation, it is necessary to concentrate financial resources in the federal budget, and then redistribute them in the form of interbudgetary transfers to equalize budgetary provision (today this is the largest expenditure item in the federal budget - more than 30% of all expenditures).

Interbudgetary transfers (Article 6 of the BC RF) – funds provided by one budget of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation to another budget of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with Art. 129 of the RF BC, there are the following forms of interbudgetary transfers , provided from the federal budget (since 2008):

Grants for equalizing the budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Subsidies to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Subventions to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Other interbudgetary transfers to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Interbudgetary transfers to the budgets of state extra-budgetary funds.

Conditions for the provision of interbudgetary transfers(Article 130 of the BC RF)- see table 3.11.

Interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget (with the exception of subventions) are provided subject to the observance of budget legislation and legislation on taxes and fees of the Russian Federation by the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

If the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation fail to comply with the conditions for the provision of interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget, determined by the budgetary legislation of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation has the right to make a decision to suspend (reduce) the provision of interbudgetary transfers (with the exception of subventions) to the respective budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in accordance with the procedure established by it. Federation.

Table 3.11

Restrictions for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation when receiving interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget

Subsidization level	Subjects of the Russian Federation They have no right to
1. Over 5%	Conclude agreements on cash service execution of the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the budgets of territorial state extra-budgetary funds and the budgets of its constituent municipalities by the executive body of state power of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation
2. Over 20%	1. Establish and fulfill expenditure obligations not related to the solution of issues attributed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws to the powers of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation
2. Exceed the standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation for the formation of expenses for the remuneration of civil servants of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation and (or) the maintenance of public authorities of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation
3. Over 60%	In addition to the requirements of line 2, such subjects of the Russian Federation take the following measures:
1. Signing agreements with the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation on measures to improve the efficiency of the use of budget funds and increase tax and non-tax revenues of the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation
2. Organization of the execution of the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation with the opening and maintenance of personal accounts to the chief managers, administrators, recipients of funds from the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation and the chief administrators (administrators) of sources of financing the budget deficit of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation in the bodies of the Federal Treasury
	3. Presentation financial authority of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of documents and materials necessary for the preparation of an opinion on the compliance with the requirements of budgetary legislation submitted to the legislative (representative) body of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation of the draft budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation for the next financial year (for the next financial year and planning period)
	4. Conducting an annual external audit of the annual report on the execution of the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation by the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation or the Federal Service for Financial and Budgetary Supervision; other measures

A special place in the system of interbudgetary transfers is occupied by financial funds(Art. 129-133, 135-140, 142-142.3 BK RF):

1. Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation is formed as part of the federal budget in order to equalize the budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with the current budget legislation this fund is formed by subsidies to equalize the budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The total amount of subsidies for equalizing the budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is determined based on the need to achieve the minimum level of the estimated budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The minimum level of estimated budgetary provision of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, taking into account subsidies for equalizing the budgetary provision of constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the next financial year, is determined as the average level of estimated budgetary security prior to the distribution of these subsidies to constituent entities of the Russian Federation that are not among the 10 constituent entities of the Russian Federation that have the highest level of budgetary security, and 10 constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the most low level budgetary security.

Tax Potential Index (INP)- relative (in comparison with the average level in the Russian Federation) assessment of tax revenues of the consolidated budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, determined taking into account the level of development and structure of the economy of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

The tax potential index is used to compare the levels of the estimated budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and is not a projected estimate of the tax revenues of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation per capita or in absolute terms.

The value added for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the average for the Russian Federation is calculated according to the data of the Federal State Statistics Service for 3 years prior to the last reporting year, while the added value of insurance and agricultural products produced by the population is excluded from it.

Budget expenditure index- a relative (compared to the average level in the Russian Federation) estimate of the expenses of the consolidated budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation for the provision of the same volume of budgetary services per capita, determined taking into account objective regional factors and conditions.

The budget expenditure index is used to compare the levels of the estimated budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and is not a projected estimate of the expenditures of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation per capita or in absolute size.

2. Federal Fund for Co-financing of Certain Types of Social Expenditures is formed for the purpose of financing by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in full the expenses referred to the priority expenditure obligations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The aggregate subsidies the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget are formed by the Federal Fund for Co-financing of Expenditures.

The Fund provides for subsidies for partial reimbursement of the expenses of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation:

To ensure measures of social support for rehabilitated persons and persons recognized as victims of political repressions;

To ensure measures of social support for labor veterans and home front workers;

To pay monthly child support.

The distribution of funds from the Federal Fund for the co-financing of certain types of social expenditures for the provision of social support measures to certain categories of citizens and the payment of child benefits (except for the provision of subsidies to citizens for paying for housing and utilities) is made based on the number of relevant categories of citizens, taking into account the level of budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation after the distribution of funds from the Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Russian Federation.

3. Fund for Reforming Regional and Municipal Finance is the legal successor of the existing in 2002-2004. Regional Finance Reform Fund.

Subsidies from the fund are provided to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities selected on a competitive basis, in two installments within 2 years following the results of the implementation of the stages of implementation of programs for reforming regional and municipal finances.

The use of the fund is aimed at implementing programs for reforming regional and municipal finances, paying off and servicing debt obligations, developing social infrastructure, and implementing socially significant events and projects.

In 2006, as part of the federal budget, Federal Fund for Regional Development with the aim of increasing the level of socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, including by improving the provision of the regions with engineering and social infrastructure.

The provision of the fund's resources is carried out on the terms of co-financing, taking into account the level of budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the need for obtaining appropriate financial assistance.

4. Federal compensation fund is formed for the purpose of financial support of the powers of the Russian Federation, delegated for execution to the bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government bodies.

The aggregate subventions the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget are formed by the Federal Compensation Fund.

The Federal Compensation Fund includes subventions:

To provide social support measures for persons awarded with the "Honorary Donor of Russia (USSR)" badge;

To pay for housing and communal services to certain categories of citizens;

For registration of acts of civil status;

To exercise the powers of primary military registration in territories where there are no military commissariats;

To exercise powers in the field of organization, regulation and protection of aquatic biological resources;

For the implementation of powers in the field of protection and use of objects of the animal world, classified as objects of hunting;

For the payment of one-time benefits for all forms of placement of children deprived of parental care in the family;

To exercise the powers of the Russian Federation in the field of preservation, use, popularization and state protection of cultural heritage objects;

To exercise the powers of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in preparation for the 2010 All-Russian Population Census, etc.

The distribution of funds from the Federal Compensation Fund is carried out taking into account the standards of financial costs for the implementation of the corresponding powers and number selected categories citizens.

Table 3.12.

The main forms of interbudgetary transfers (ILT) provided

from the federal budget

Name	Definition	Regulation (fund)
Subsidies	Office provided free of charge and irrevocably without establishing directions and (or) conditions for their use	Subsidies for equalizing the budgetary provision of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation form Federal Fund for Financial Support of the Subjects of the Russian Federation
Subsidies	The Office, provided to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to co-finance expenditure obligations arising from the fulfillment of the powers of the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which are their own and jointly with other public law entities	The totality of subsidies to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget forms Federal Fund for Co-financing of Expenditures
Subventions	ILO provided to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to financially support the expenditure obligations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and (or) municipalities arising from the implementation of federal powers transferred to the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and (or) local governments in the prescribed manner	The totality of subventions to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from the federal budget forms Federal compensation fund

Topic 4. Formation of federal, regional and local budgets. Managing budgets of different levels

Lecture plan:

1. Consolidated budget: concept, meaning

2. Federal budget: concept, meaning, features of the formation of income and expenditure

3. Budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation: concept, meaning, features of the formation of the income and expenditure side

4. Local budgets: concept, meaning, features of the formation of revenue and expenditure

5. Budget management system

6. The main directions of budgetary policy at the present stage

erohovastitch.ru RECOMMENDS

BTI plan - where and how to get

Legend table Are you thinking about where you can get an explication and a floor plan? About it...

2021-07-04 09:29:31

How to order an explication: step by step instructions

Anyone who has ever done anything with their property, be it or one of ...

2021-07-04 09:29:31

Calculation of storm sewers

Storm (rain) sewerage is a system designed to collect and drain storm ...

2021-07-04 09:29:31

Development of AGR (architectural and urban planning solutions)

THE GOVERNMENT OF MOSCOW RESOLUTION On the optimization of the approval procedure ...

2021-07-04 09:29:31

How to get the architectural and planning assignment of the APZ

The concept of an architectural and planning task is defined by the Federal Law of 17.11.1995 N 169-FZ ...

2021-07-04 09:29:31

Theoretical foundations of interbudgetary relations in a federal state. The concept of interbudgetary relations and their role in the socio-economic processes of the country 1.1 concept and principles of the implementation of interbudgetary relations

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

The concept of interbudgetary relations and the principles of their organization

Introduction

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

2. Prerequisites for reforming interbudgetary relations

3. Ways to improve interbudgetary relations

Conclusion

Bibliography