Problems of the formation of incomes of local self-government. Financial and economic problems of local self-government Problems of formation of the financial and economic basis of local self-government
HELL. Kosmin, B.I. Kychanov, All-Russian Correspondence Financial and Economic Institute, Department of Financial Management
In April 1999, the Draft Guidelines (Concept) were published public policy development local government v Russian Federation... The need to develop the Concept is caused by the variability of many problems of legal and financial security activities of local government authorities, which prevents the effective solution of a number of important issues of the functioning of municipalities. There is an inconsistency in the legislation of the Russian Federation on local self-government, a number of existing regulatory legal acts contain provisions that do not correspond to the concept of local self-government enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. On the other hand, regulations are adopted at the regional and municipal levels, which often contradict Federal legislation.
The unresolved nature of many legal issues in the activities of local self-government bodies can be seen at least in this example. The Constitution of the Russian Federation established that land can be in state and municipal ownership. Land ownership would significantly strengthen the financial base of municipalities. But in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation adopted after the Basic Law in Art. 214 notes that "land and other natural resources owned by citizens, legal entities or municipalities are state property. "Meanwhile, at the time of adoption Civil Code there was practically no land in the ownership of municipalities, and therefore, despite the right proclaimed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, municipalities actually do not have ownership of land.
1. Improving the legal framework for local finance
The construction of a democratic federal state requires a combination of centralism and autonomy of territories, a clear delineation of tax powers, revenues and expenditures of budgets of different levels. At the level of interbudgetary relations between the federal authorities and the subjects of the federation, the following problems require an urgent solution:
clearer delineation of expenses and incomes between budgets of different levels;
maximum financial independence of the regions;
improving the redistribution of funds through the federal budget to the budgets of the subjects of the federation;
increasing the share of regional budgets in the consolidated budget, since regional and local budgets account for 75 - 90% of social spending.
The failure to resolve these problems causes counter financial flows (the main part, for example, VAT, is transferred to the center, and then through the transfer system is transferred back to the regions); encourages the dependence of a number of regions due to the imperfection of the methodology for distributing the Fund for Financial Support to Regions; generates centrifugal sentiments in a number of subjects of the federation. In recent years, the regional budget deficit has increased significantly. So, for 1996 - 1998. the budget deficit of the Omsk region grew 3.5 times, in relation to revenues it increased from 25.6% to 63.4%. One of the reasons for the deficit is the irrational distribution of tax revenues between federal and regional authorities. The very idea of transferring a significant amount of tax revenues from the regions to the center, and then returning them with a large time gap in the form of transfers back to the regions, is controversial in itself. At the same time, until recently, some of the financial resources were used by banks, by no means in the interests of the state and the regions.
Therefore, after analyzing the dynamics of recent years, the size of the counter cash flows, it is advisable for federal legislative bodies to reduce such flows to a minimum, increase the amount of tax revenues to the subjects of the federation and municipalities, and simultaneously reduce transfers to the regions.
Considering that the state owns a block of shares in enterprises, many of which do not pay dividends, it is advisable to transfer some of these shares to the ownership of the subjects of the federation. The main thing, of course, is not in the redistribution of property (property of the subjects of the federation and property at the federal level have a single character - the nature of state property), but in the effective management of this property. The subjects of the federation, at best, directly on the ground can participate in the management of ineffectively operating enterprises, increase the return on the use of state property.
One of the options for solving this issue was found in the Kemerovo region. Here, at the end of 1998, an agreement was signed with the federal authorities, according to which 50% of the region's representatives are included in the Board of Directors of federal-owned enterprises. Thus, without changing the forms of ownership, the constituent entity of the federation gets the opportunity to effectively participate in the management of this property and bears, together with the federal authorities, responsibility for its use. This fact requires careful analysis and, with positive results, further dissemination.
An equally important problem is currently interbudgetary relations between the subjects of the federation and the local government. The entry into force of the Law "On Local Self-Government", and then the Law "On the Financial Foundations of Local Self-Government", on the one hand, was a significant step in the development of local self-government, on the other hand, it exacerbated relations in many regions between the branches of government (Primorsky Krai, Omsk and Sverdlovsk regions, etc.).
In our opinion, inter-budgetary relations between the subjects of the federation and local self-government bodies should be built on the following principles:
combination of the principle of centralism and independence of budgetary relations;
a clear delineation between budgets on an ongoing basis of fixed income and the approval of relatively stable (for 3 years or more) norms for the distribution of regulatory income;
high interest of the subjects of the federation of local governments in increasing the level own taxes s and non-tax revenues;
responsibility of the authorities at each level for the balance of budgets, economical use of budget funds;
compensation to local government budgets from regional budgets to cover the increased costs caused by decisions of the authorities of the constituent entities of the federation;
complete, reliable and open information on income and expenses of budgets of different levels.
There are various proposals for streamlining interbudgetary relations between the subjects of the federation and local governments.
One group of these proposals connects the improvement of interbudgetary relations with the strengthening of the vertical of power, financing of the most important budget expenditures municipalities (for education, health care, culture, etc.) from a single source of the subject of the federation. Such proposals, however, conflict with the Budget Code, the Laws "On Local Self-Government", "On the Financial Basis of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation".
Insufficient the legislative framework the formation of incomes of local self-government, the lack of clear standards for the distribution of regulatory taxes between the subjects of the federation and municipalities have led in recent years in many regions to a significant reduction in the financial resources of local governments, the destruction of the social infrastructure of large cities, etc. In the Omsk region for 1995-1998. there is, for example, a continuous decrease in the share of taxes left to Omsk in favor of the regional budget, as evidenced by the data in Table. 1.
Table 1.
Standards of enrollment in budgets on taxes in the Omsk region in 1995 - 1998,%
Date of introduction of the standard | By budgets | ||||
Federal | Regional | Urban | District | ||
Tax | 01/01/95 | 37,14 | 41,62 | 21,24 | 0,00 |
01/01/96 | 37,14 | 39,80 | 23,06 | 0,00 | |
Profit | 01/01/97 | 37,14 | 40,00 | 22,86 | 0,00 |
13/01/98 | 37,14 | 44,20 | 18,66 | 0,00 | |
01/01/95 | 30,23 | 46,20 | 23,57 | 0,00 | |
Banks' income | 01/01/96 | 30,23 | 44,19 | 25,58 | 0,00 |
01/01/97 | 30,23 | 51,16 | 18,61 | 0,00 | |
13/01/98 | 30,23 | 54,58 | 15,19 | 0,00 | |
01/01/95 | 30,23 | 46,20 | 23,57 | 0,00 | |
Insurance activities | 01/01/96 | 30,23 | 44,19 | 25,58 | 0,00 |
01/01/97 | 30,23 | 51,16 | 18,61 | 0,00 | |
13/01/98 | 30,23 | 54,58 | 15,19 | 0,00 | |
01/01/95 | 18,57 | 53,93 | 27,50 | 0,00 | |
Video | 01/01/96 | 0,00 | 63,32 | 36,68 | 0,00 |
01/01/97 | 0,00 | 88,58 | 11,42 | 0,00 | |
13/01/98 | 0,00 | 90,67 | 9,33 | 0,00 | |
01/01/95 | 10,00 | 45,00 | 45,00 | 0,00 | |
Income tax | 01/10/96 | 10,00 | 45,00 | 35,00 | 10,00 |
04/03/97 | 0,00 | 64,00 | 27,50 | 8,50 | |
13/01/98 | 0,00 | 50,00 | 50,00 | 0,00 | |
01/01/95 | 30,00 | 57,50 | 12,50 | 0,00 | |
VAT | 01/01/96 | 75,00 | 12,50 | 12,50 | 0,00 |
01/01/97 | 75,00 | 9,62 | 14,34 | 1,04 | |
13/01/98 | 75,00 | 19,90 | 5,10 | 0,00 | |
Excise taxes and liquor products | 01/01/95 | 50,0 | 0,00 | 50,0 | 0,00 |
01/07/96 | 50,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 50,0 | |
01/01/97 | 50,0 | 0,00 | 50,00 | 0,00 | |
13/01/98 | 50,0 | 47,5 | 2,50 | 0,00 |
As can be seen from these data, the share of income tax left to the budget of Omsk for 1995-1998. decreased from 21.24% to 18.66%, from bank income from 23.57% to 15.15%, a similar picture for taxes from insurance activities. In terms of revenues from video salons, the share of the city budget has decreased by 3 times, and the regional budget has grown by 1.7 times. For VAT only for 1997 - 1998 the share of Omsk decreased from 14.34% to 5.10%, that is, 2.6 times, and the share of the region increased from 9.62% to 19.90%, that is, 2.1 times. If the city got in 1997 50% of excise taxes on alcoholic beverages, and the rest of them went to the federal budget, then in 1998, with the same share federal budget 47.5% of excise taxes went to the regional budget and only 2.5% to the city budget.
1The article examines the problems and prospects of strengthening the financial foundations of local self-government in Russia. The features of the development of the system of municipal finance in the country, associated with the implementation of the budget reform and the reform of local self-government, are revealed, various aspects of the financial independence of municipalities are analyzed. The tendencies of a decrease in the share of tax revenues of local budgets are revealed with an increase in the share of gratuitous receipts from the budgets of a higher level of the budget system, a deterioration in the balance of local budgets and an increase in their debt obligations. The key directions of strengthening the financial foundations of local self-government are highlighted, proposals are formulated to increase the revenue base of local budgets through the growth of their own tax sources, to take into account the level of their financial potential and the effectiveness of its use when conducting financial policy and choosing forms of financial support for municipalities.
local government
financial fundamentals
municipalities
local budget
financial transfers
1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation. - M .: Legal literature, 2014 .-- 64 p.
2. The budgetary code of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.consultant.ru/popular/budget/ (date of access: 05/17/2015).
3. Federal law of 6.10.2003, No. 131-FZ "On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation" Federation [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_177259/ (date of access: 05/17/2015).
4. European Charter of Local Self-Government (Strasbourg, 15.10.1985). The Convention was ratified by the Federal Law of April 11, 1998 No. 55-FZ [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/RUS/Treaties/Html/122.htm (date of access: 05/10/2015).
5. Igonina L.L. Competitiveness national economy: innovative imperatives and financial regulators // Economic analysis: theory and practice. 2014. - No. 7. - S. 12-20.
6. Igonina L.L. Assessment of the effectiveness of fiscal policy: retrospective and goal-oriented approaches // National interests: priorities and security. - 2014. - No. 28. - S. 2-10.
7. Igonina L.L. Principles of the organization of municipal finance // Finance. 2003. No. 8. P.15-19.
8. Igonina L.L. Financial policy of local authorities: instruments and restrictions / Economy of RNO-Alania: regional specifics global trends... -Vladikavkaz, 2003 .-- S. 41-57.
9. Zhigalov D., Pertsev L. Financial foundations of local self-government: the results of the 2000s // Budget [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://bujet.ru/article/142251.php (date of access: 05/10/2015).
10. Official site of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.minfin.ru/ru (date of access: 107.05.2015).
11. Panskov V.G. VAT and strengthening of local budgets // Finance. - 2013. - No. 2. -S.38-43.
12. Arrow K. The Organization of Economic Activity: Issues Pertinent to the Choice of Market Versus Non-Market Allocation. In Joint Economic Committee // The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PPB System. Vol. I. Washington, D.C .: U.S. GPO, 1970. - P. 166-183.
13. Musgrave R. The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Public Economics. - New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959 .-- 480 p.
14. Oates W.E. Toward a Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism // International Tax and Public Finance. - 2005. - No. 12 (4). - R.349-373.
The complex tasks of systemic reforms in the budgetary sphere, aimed at ensuring long-term balance and sustainability of all levels of the country's budget system, determine the need to strengthen the financial foundations of local self-government as an important factor of social and economic development municipalities. In this regard, identifying the problems and prospects for such strengthening is of particular importance for the consistent implementation of budgetary reforms that affect the municipal economy and, ultimately, the well-being of citizens.
Purpose of the study. The aim of the study is to identify problems and substantiate the main directions of strengthening the financial foundations of local self-government in Russia.
Materials and research methods
The study of the possibilities of strengthening the financial foundations of local self-government is based on the methods of situational, comparative, financial and economic-mathematical analysis.
Research results and their discussion
According to the fundamental provisions of the theory of public finance and the public sector, an important factor in the growth of public welfare is an increase in the efficiency of the use of public resources, realized by reducing the costs of providing public goods, matching the supply of these goods to the preferences of consumers in spatial and temporal terms and more fully meeting the needs of the population of the corresponding territory in public goods of high quality. At the same time, a municipality can provide citizens living on its territory with high-quality public goods, provided that its financial basis is sufficient and stable. Strengthening the financial foundations of local self-government bodies means increasing the opportunities for their influence on the formation of the financial potential of municipalities while ensuring a better expression of citizens' interests, increasing the political responsibility of local authorities, transparency and accountability to citizens of their activities. According to Art. 9 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, “local governments have the right to sufficient financial resources of their own, which they can dispose of”.
In the course of budgetary and local government reform, the system of municipal finance in the Russian economy has undergone significant changes. Institutional and legal foundations of local self-government were created, which were consolidated in a number of official documents (Table 1). A hierarchical territorial organization of municipal finance was formed, including seven types of municipalities.
The result of the reform of local government and budget process a number of changes took place in Russia, which had a positive impact on the development of municipalities. The powers of the authorities were delineated, the procedures for delegating them from the federation to the regions, from the regions to the municipal formations were fixed, the principles of financial support for the powers of local self-government were established, preventing the adoption of "unfunded mandates." However, despite the importance and significance of the transformations carried out, the situation in the field of forming sufficient financial foundations for local self-government has not improved.
In addition, the creation of a significant number and different types of municipalities with a differentiated level of socio-economic development and financial potential has led to the complication of the process of regulating interbudgetary relations at the subfederal level against the background of the persistence of the heterogeneity of regional models of interbudgetary relations.
The share of local budget revenues in relation to GDP from 1998 to 2014 decreased from 8.7 to 4.9% (Fig. 1).
The share of tax revenues in the revenues of local budgets, which in 2003 was 51.6% in 2014, decreased to 31.2%, including the share of local taxes (land and property individuals) - from 9.4% to 4.7% (Fig. 2). Thus, local taxes do not play a significant role in the formation of the financial foundations of local self-government. On average, in the municipalities of Russia, the share of local taxes, despite a certain upward trend in 2006-2014 associated with the institutionalization of land and property relations, is currently about 15% of tax revenues of local budgets.
Table 1
Legal basis for financial independence of local self-government
Legislative act |
|
Constitution of the Russian Federation |
Art. 132 item 1. "Local governments independently manage municipal property, form, approve and execute the local budget, establish local taxes and fees, maintain public order, and also resolve other issues of local importance." |
RF Budget Code |
Art. 31. "The principle of autonomy of budgets means: the right and duty of state authorities and local self-government bodies to independently ensure the balance of the respective budgets and the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds ...". |
Federal Law No. 131-FZ of 6.10.2003 "On the General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation" |
Art. 49, item 1. "The economic basis of local self-government is the property in municipal ownership, funds of local budgets, as well as property rights of municipalities" Article 51, clause 1 "Local self-government bodies independently own, use and dispose of municipal property on behalf of the municipality in accordance with the Constitution Of the Russian Federation, federal laws and regulations adopted in accordance with them legal acts local government bodies ". Art. 51, clause 2 “Preparation and consideration of the draft local budget, approval and implementation of the local budget, control over its implementation, preparation and approval of the report on the execution of the local budget are carried out by local governments independently in compliance with the requirements established by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. |
Fig 1. Revenues of local budgets in the system of income distribution by levels of the budget system,% of GDP
Rice. 2. Tax revenues and revenues from local taxes in the total volume of revenues of local budgets,%
Rice. 3. Tax on personal income in tax revenues of local budgets,%
The main source of tax revenues for municipalities remains deductions from personal income tax (Fig. 3).
Negative changes are taking place in the structure of local budget revenues associated with the formation of a large-scale system of financial transfers in the process of reforms. There is a tendency of growth in the volume and share of gratuitous receipts from the budgets of a higher level of the budgetary system (Fig. 5).
In 2014, in the structure of local budget revenues, tax revenues accounted for 27.6%, non-tax revenues - 8.6%, interbudgetary transfers (excluding subventions) - 29.5%, subventions - 34.3% of the total revenues of local budgets. In total, the share of gratuitous receipts from the budgets of the higher level of the budget system in the total revenues of local budgets amounted to 63.8% in 2014.
The trends considered have led to a deterioration in the balance of local budgets and an increase in their debt obligations (Table 2).
Rice. 4. Dynamics and structure of local budget revenues
table 2
Balancing local budgets and debentures municipalities, billion rubles
The problems of a systemic nature can also include: centralization of budget-forming taxes at the federal and regional levels of the budget system, inconsistency of expenditure powers of local governments with fixed income sources of local budgets, weak fiscal incentives to attract investors in the territory of municipalities, lack of local authorities due to their financial lack of independence, they are interested in carrying out reforms aimed at improving the quality of public finance management and the quality of services to the population.
In this regard, the system of reforming municipal finance presupposes the solution of two interrelated tasks: firstly, increasing financial capacity bodies of local self-government by adjusting the existing system of taxation and inter-budgetary relations and, secondly, creating incentives for the development and implementation of effective financial policies by municipalities.
Based on the generalization of the above problems, within the framework of solving these problems, the following key areas of strengthening the financial foundations of local self-government can be distinguished:
Strengthening the role of local taxes in the formation of the revenue side of local budgets, as well as assigning additional taxes or deductions from them to municipalities. As additional taxes that can be transferred to the local level, one should consider those taxes, the proceeds of which directly depend on the efforts of local governments, in particular, taxes within the framework of special tax regimes established for small businesses, personal income tax paid by individual entrepreneurs;
Development of a set of measures aimed at the implementation of reserves for the formation of own income sources, including increasing financial and tax potential, reducing tax arrears, increasing income from the use of property in municipal ownership, improving the accounting of income (profit) of municipal unitary enterprises;
Taking into account the level of their financial potential and the effectiveness of its use when conducting financial policy and choosing forms of financial support for municipalities.
The implementation of these measures will lead to an increase in the own revenues of municipalities and the strengthening of their financial independence.
Conclusion
In the current situation, characterized by a slowdown in economic dynamics and compression of financial resources of the state, an important factor in increasing the stability and balance of the country's budget system is increasing the efficiency of municipal finance management by strengthening the financial basis of local self-government. This presupposes the development of a comprehensive mechanism, including regulatory and incentive measures to adjust the existing system of taxation and interbudgetary relations and the formation of an effective financial policy of municipalities.
Bibliographic reference
Igonina L.L. PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR STRENGTHENING THE FINANCIAL BASIS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT // International Journal of Applied and basic research... - 2015. - No. 8-1. - S. 124-128;URL: https://applied-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=7054 (date accessed: 19.02. We bring to your attention the journals published by the "Academy of Natural Sciences"
INTRODUCTION 3
CHAPTER 1. CONCEPT AND ESSENCE OF FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC BASIS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT 8
1.1. The concept of financial economic basis local government 8
1.2. Municipal property as the economic basis of local self-government 15
1.3. Municipal finance as a financial basis for local self-government 25
CHAPTER 2. STATE, PROBLEMS AND IMPROVEMENT OF LEGAL REGULATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC BASIS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT 37
2.1. The current state and problems of regulation of the financial and economic foundations of local self-government 37
2.2. Directions for improvement legal regulation financial and economic foundations of local self-government 48
CONCLUSION 65
REFERENCES 68
Fragment of work for review
INTRODUCTION
Modern Russia claims the title the rule of law... This provision is enshrined in the Basic Law of the country, the Constitution.
But the formation of the rule of law can only be ascertained if both a legislative body has been created, which guarantees the unhindered exercise of human and civil rights, and a mechanism for its implementation. This also applies to the issue of exercising the rights to territorial local self-government.
Can we say that the legal basis for the organization of local self-government is perfect?
Experts note that creating a high-quality and effective system of legislation on local self-government in practice turned out to be a very difficult matter. The federal laws and laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation adopted over the past period for the most part do not meet these criteria. The need to improve legal regulation in the field of local self-government as one of the topical directions of state policy is stated in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation "On the approval of the main provisions of state policy in the field of development of local self-government in the Russian Federation" dated October 15, 1999 No. 1370. It notes the inconsistency and inconsistency of the legislation of the Russian Federation on local self-government, incomplete and inconsistent legislative regulation of many issues of the organization and activities of local self-government.
The basic principles of the organization and activities of local self-government throughout the country are established, first of all, in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The main law of the country stipulates: Local self-government is recognized and guaranteed in the Russian Federation. Local self-government is independent within the limits of its powers. Local self-government bodies are not included in the system of public authorities (Article 12 of the Constitution).
Along with the Constitution, it is necessary to highlight such an act of international legal nature as the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Strasbourg, October 15, 1985). Article 4 of the Charter stipulates that “the basic powers and competence of local self-government bodies are established by the constitution or law. However, this provision does not exclude the granting of powers and competences to local self-government bodies in accordance with the law for specific purposes ”.
If the Constitution and the Charter establish the basic principles of local territorial self-government in the Russian Federation, then the basis of such legislation is the Federal Law of August 28, 1995 N 154-FZ "On general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation" (with amendments and additions, effective from 01.01.2008). As noted in the preamble, this Federal Law, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, defines the role of local self-government in the exercise of democracy, the legal, economic and financial foundations of local self-government and state guarantees for its implementation, establishes the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation.
Describing this legislative act, experts note. The current Federal Law "On the General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation" was adopted in the context of the confrontation between the President of the Russian Federation, the State Duma and the Federation Council. As a result, a compromise version of the framework law was adopted, which is in many respects vague. In addition, it should be borne in mind that by the time of the development and adoption of the law, there was no necessary experience in the functioning and interaction of the main institutions of power in the new federal state... The hopes of federal legislators that, within the framework of the general principles formulated at the federal level, the constituent entities of the Federation will clarify the procedure for the activities and powers of local authorities by their legislation, did not come true, since the regional authorities turned out to be not interested in creating conditions for the independent activity of municipalities due to the objectively existing competition for powers and resources. As a result, the federal law on the general principles of organizing local self-government contains only the foundations and some general principles for the delineation of powers. Therefore, the law was repeatedly amended, which, however, in the opinion of most researchers did not exhaust the objective need for further improvement of the document.
Thus, in the sphere of the formation and functioning of the financial and economic foundations of local self-government, there are many unresolved and debatable issues, some of which will be discussed in this work.
The object of the research is the area of functioning of local self-government. The subject of the research is the financial and economic foundations of local self-government.
The purpose of the course work is to reveal the main problems of the formation and development of the financial and economic foundations of local self-government and show possible ways to solve them. To achieve the goal, the following tasks were set:
1. To reveal the essence of the concept of "financial and economic foundations of local self-government" and describe the genesis of this concept in the legislation of the Russian Federation.
2. To study the concept and significance of municipal property as the basis of local self-government.
3. Consider the concept and structure of municipal finance as the basis of local government.
4. Analyze the state of legislation in the field of regulation of the financial and economic foundations of local self-government and identify the main problems.
5. Suggest directions for improving the existing legislation.
By disclosing the assigned tasks in term paper the essence and features of regulation of the financial and economic foundations of local self-government in the Russian Federation are revealed. Some problems are shown, the solution of which is necessary for the normal development of the Russian state.
The course work used various literature. To disclose theoretical issues of work basic information was compiled from various textbooks and teaching aids... Deeper theoretical information was obtained from the scientific works of authors such as N.M. Korkunov, I. D. Sanachev, A.A. Sergeev and others. In addition, laws, codes and other legislation of the Russian Federation have been used.
In the articles of periodicals and materials of law enforcement practice, information was obtained on the current state of the study of the problem of regulating the financial and economic foundations of local self-government and the main practical problems were identified.
In accordance with the purpose and objectives, the work is divided into two chapters. The first chapter discusses theoretical concepts financial and economic foundations of local government. The concepts and significance of municipal property as an economic basis and municipal finance as a financial basis for local self-government are considered.
The second chapter analyzes the features of the current state and the problems of regulation of local self-government. Some problems are identified and possible directions for improving legislation are shown.
CHAPTER 1. CONCEPT AND ESSENCE OF FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC BASIS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
1.1. The concept of the financial and economic basis of local government
Of great importance for the activities of local self-government, especially in the era of its formation, is the extent to which it is provided with appropriate material resources. Without a decent economic foundation, self-government will remain a fiction, and the rich experience of our country convincingly proves this. Local authorities in the pre-reform period were deprived of rights precisely because of the lack of economic independence. Basically, the functions of local representative bodies were limited to financing social events at the expense of the state budget; this led to their complete dependence on the higher authorities even when dealing with purely local issues. The practice of foreign countries, whose municipalities have property, their own sources of income in the form of local taxes or some share of national taxes, testifies that even if these sources are not enough, the very existence of their own economic base guarantees local self-government bodies the preservation of independence. In the Russian Federation, the creation of a financial and economic basis for local self-government began in the 90s. The very concept of municipal property first appeared in the Law of the RSFSR "On Local Self-Government in the RSFSR", which entered into force in 1991. At the same time, the Supreme Soviet of Russia, by a special resolution, differentiated state ownership into federal property, property of the constituent entities of the Federation and municipal property. The latter was declared the property of the population of the respective territories. The management of such property was entrusted to local governments, although citizens were assigned the right to directly participate in resolving such issues. Subsequently, the problems of municipal property were touched upon in a number of legal acts adopted at the federal level. The Constitution of the Russian Federation, approved in 1993, confirming the right of citizens to local self-government, secured for municipal authorities the right to independently dispose of municipal property, approve and execute the local budget, and establish local taxes and fees. Finally, the aforementioned Federal Law "On the General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation" defined the economic basis of local self-government, which "consists of municipal property, local finances, property that is state-owned and transferred to the management of local self-government, and also, in accordance with the law, other property serving to meet the needs of the population of the municipality. "
Bibliography
Special literature
8. Vydrin I.V., Kokotov A.N. Municipal law of Russia. M., 2007
9. Constitutional law / Ed. V.V. Lazareva M., 2006
10. Korkunov N.M. Russian state law. SPb., 1897.T.2
11. Krokhina Yu.A. City as a subject of financial law. Saratov, 2006
12. Lapin V.A. Reform of local self-government and the administrative-territorial structure of Russia / V.A. Lapin, V. Ya. Love; Acad. bunk bed households under the Government of the Russian Federation. Federation. M .: Delo, 2005
13. Nersesyants V.S. General theory state and law. M., 2007.S. 514
14. Fundamentals of the European Charter of Local Self-Government / Ed. Chernikova V.A. M., 2006
15. Article-by-article commentary to the Federal Law of October 6, 2004 No. 131-FZ "On the General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation": (as amended on June 19, 2006 No. 53-FZ, dated August 12, 2006 . № 99-ФЗ) / Under total. ed. IN AND. Casket. M .: Justicinform, 2005
16. Reform of local government: Sat. norm.-analyte. materials / Eagle. region. acad. state service. Smolensk: Magenta. 2006 Issue 1.2006
17. Sanachev I. D. Comparative analysis of models of local self-government in Russia, the USA and Western Europe / I.D. Sanachev. Vladivostok: Publishing house of VSUES, 2006
18. Sergeev A.A. Federalism and Local Self-Government as Institutions of Russian Democracy / A.A. Sergeev. M .: Jurisprudence, 2005
19. Soldatov A.A. Municipal bodies for the protection of public order in the context of the reform of local self-government / А.А. Soldatov. Krasnodar, 2005
20. Utkin E.A. Denisov A.F. State and Municipal Administration M .: Tandem. 2003
21. Federal budget and regions: analysis experience financial flows/ Ed. Lavrova A.M. M., 2003
22. Financial right/ Ed. N.I. Chemical. M., 2006
23. Shirokov A.N. Territorial and organizational foundations of local self-government in the Russian Federation / A.N. Shirokov, S.N. Yurkov. M .: Ros. scientific. center of state and municipal. exercise, 2006
Law enforcement materials
24. Alekseev I.A. Municipal and legal responsibility of deputies of representative bodies of local self-government (on the example of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation that are part of the Southern Federal District) / I.A. Alekseev // State power and local government. -2005.-№ 1. P. 28-32
25. Borisov S.A. Responsibility of local self-government and its types / S.A. Borisov // State power and local government. -2005.-№ 2. P. 12-17
26. Vasiliev V.I. What should be the main law on local self-government? // Journal of Russian Law. No. 12. December 2001
27. Volkov M. Dizziness from anticipatory running / M. Volkov // Ros. gas. 2005.26 Jan. No. 013 S. 5
28. Gimaev I.R. Formation of a model of municipalities and municipal service in Russian regions / I.R. Gimaev // Law and Law. 2005. No. 1. P. 26-29
29. Gorodetskaya N. Ministry regional development counted the problems of local self-government / N. Gorodetskaya // Kommersant 2005. 25 Mar. No. 52. -C.3
30. Gorodetskaya N. They do not cry for the votes: [On the appointment of the heads of municipalities. formations] / N. Gorodetskaya // Kommersant Power. 2005. No. 10. P. 30-32, 34
31. Gorodetskaya N. Regional leaders will ask the president to postpone the implementation of the new law on local self-government / N. Gorodetskaya // Kommersant 2005.-13 Apr. No. 65. P. 3
32. Grishin V. The pendulum is swinging: [Conversation with the pre. Com. State Duma for Federation and Region. politics V. Grishin / V. Grishin; Recorded by Y. Filatov] // Our power: deeds and faces. 2005. No. 2. P. 34
33. Gryzlov B. Mayors must be elected / B. Gryzlov // Ros. gas. 2005.22 Mar. No. 56 (3725). P. 11
34. Emelyanova S. Municipal metamorphoses / S. Emelyanova // Ros. gas. 2005.23 Mar. No. 60. P. 6
35. A. A. Zamotaev. On some problems of the implementation of the transitional provisions of the Federal Law of October 6, 2004 No. 131-FZ "On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation": (on the issue of establishing the boundaries and statuses of municipalities) / А.А. Zamotaev // State power and local government. 2005. No. 1. P. 7-14
36. Zakhvatova Y. The law is hampered in the regions: [Meeting of legislators of the State. Duma and regions of Russia, dedicated. the problems of law enforcement of the new Law “On the General Principles of Org. places. self-control in RF "] / Yu. Zakhvatova // Russian Federation today. 2005. No. 2. P. 30
37. Zakhvatova Y. Is the bench empty ?: [Round table on questions. training for places. self-control] / Yu. Zakhvatova // Russian Federation today. 2005. No. 5. P. 39
38. Zakhvatova Yu. Through the myths and reefs of the seething reform: [Sess. Congr. municipal formations] / Yu. Zakhvatova // Russian Federation today. 2005. No. 4. -C. 24-25
39. Komutkov S. From autocracy to separation of powers / S. Komutkov // Power. 2005. No. 1. P. 17-23
40. Root A. Kozak's reform spawns cities and villages. By the beginning of the year, we had 12 thousand municipalities, now 24 thousand / A. Kornya // Nezavisimaya Gaz. 2005.15 apr. P. 9
41. Krasnov V.A., Kosarenko N.N., Ulyanova A.Ya. Economic foundations of local self-government in Moscow // Local self-government in Russia: a collection of reports on legal and methodological problems of development. M., 2001
42. Kurmanov M.M. Problems of Implementation of the Federal Law "On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation" by State Authorities of the Subjects of the Russian Federation "/ M.M. Kurmanov, N. Mizhareva // Legislation and Economics. 2005. No. 2. P. 5-9
43. Kurmanov E.R. Some prerequisites for the realization of the right to participate in local self-government in the conditions of building a rule of law / E.R. Kurmanov // State power and local government. 2005. No. 1. P. 17-18
44. Mashkovtsev Y. Governors will have to save the municipalities / Y. Mashkovtsev // Independent gas. 2005.18 apr. No. 78 (3474). P. 2
45. Wet V. The fate of the reform is being decided in the regions: [Conversation with the pre. Com. State Duma on issues. places. self-control V. Wet] / V. Wet; Recorded by Y. Zakhvatova // Russian Federation today. 2005. No. 6. P. 22-24
46. On the state of the regulatory legal framework necessary for the implementation of the refra of local self-government // Our government: affairs and persons. 2005.- No. 2. -C. 41
47. Palchikovskaya L. Urbanization of uninhabited territory? / L. Palchikovskaya // Russian Federation today. 2005. No. 1. P. 37-38
48. Roketsky L.Yu. To bring to completion the work on defining the territories of municipalities and delineating the powers of local self-government bodies between themselves and the state authorities: [Conversation with the pre. Com. Federation Council on issues. places. self-control L. Yu. Roketskiy] / L. Yu. Roketsky // Bulletin of the Federation Council. 2005. No. 1. P. 34-38
49. Soboleva LB Problems of the territorial organization of local self-government in the transition period / L.B. Sobolev // State power and local government. -2005.-№ 2. C. 9-12
50. Soloviev S.G. Federal intervention (intervention) in the competence of local self-government: mechanism and legal problems / S.G. Soloviev // Modern law. 2005. No. 2. P. 40-43
51. Tolstoy Yu. K. To the doctrine of property rights // Jurisprudence. 2002. No. 1, p. 21.
52. Torshin A. Power reforms: intentions and results: [Conversation with deputy. Prev Federation Council A. Torshin / A. Torshin; Recorded by Y. Feofanov] // Russian Federation today. 2005. No. 4. P. 56-58
53. Urikhanyan A. Regions are finishing cutting the shreds / A. Urikhanyan // Political journal. 2005. No. 6. P.72-74
54. Fabrichny S.Yu. Prospects for legal regulation of the institute of municipal service / S.Yu. Factory // Constitutional and municipal law... 2005. No. 1. P. 43-46
55. Chernega Y. “Unfortunately, we are not ready for this reform” [about the meeting “ round table", Dedicated. the introduction of the law on local. self.] / Yu. Chernega // Kommersant. 2005.- 15 Feb. No. 026. С.3
56. Sheremetyeva E. "On the course of the reform of local self-government": Dokl. President Congr. municipal formations Ros. Federation / E. Sheremetyeva // Municipal power. -2005. -No. 1. C. 7-12
57. Sheremetyeva E. Not a school of power, but a school of civil society: [Congress of the municipal. formations] / E. Sheremetyeva // Our power: affairs and persons. 2005. No. 2. P. 38-40
Please, carefully study the content and fragments of the work. Money for purchased finished work due to non-compliance of this work with your requirements or its uniqueness, will not be returned.
* The category of work is of an evaluative nature in accordance with the qualitative and quantitative parameters of the material provided. This material, neither in its entirety, nor any of its parts, is a finished scientific work, graduation qualification work, scientific report or other work provided for the state system scientific certification or required for passing the intermediate or final certification. This material is a subjective result of processing, structuring and formatting the information collected by its author and is intended primarily for use as a source for self-preparation of work on this topic.
Consideration of the optimal status and delineation of powers of local self-government bodies would be incomplete if one does not turn to the material basis of these issues. In the 1995 Law, the legislator established one of the important financial guarantees of local self-government - the obligation of state bodies to ensure a minimum local budget for each municipal formation (part 1 of article 37). In turn, the minimum local budget itself is determined on the basis of the need to ensure that the basic living needs of the population in the areas attributed to the jurisdiction of municipalities are met at a level not lower than the minimum state social standards. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 23, 1996 No. 769 "On the organization of preparation of state minimum social standards for determining financial standards for the formation of budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets" established that the formation of a system of state municipal social standards should be carried out on a single legal basis and principles, which excludes the possibility of developing and applying their own social standards in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. However, such state minimum social standards were never developed and adopted. As a temporary normative act, which recommended the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments to be guided in the formation of draft budgets, the Government of the Russian Federation issued order No. 1063-r dated July 3, 1996, which approved social standards and norms. These social standards and norms in quantitative terms show the need to provide the population with objects of health care, culture, mass media, etc. per unit of its number. Based on the cost of maintaining these facilities, as well as the costs of maintaining the work of the apparatus of the municipality, the minimum local budget was determined. Considering the fact that the order of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 3, 1996 No. 1063-r has a recommendatory character for the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipal bodies, it would be inappropriate to talk about the guarantee of minimum local budgets.
Attention is drawn to the fact that according to current edition Of the 2003 Law, almost all norms of the budgetary structure and budgetary administration of municipalities are of a reference (to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation) in nature. At present, instead of the concept of "minimum local budget", the term "level of estimated budgetary provision of municipalities" has been introduced. This level within the territory of a certain constituent entity of the Russian Federation is determined by the ratio of tax revenues per inhabitant, which can be received by the budget of the municipality based on the level of development and structure of the economy and (or) tax base(tax potential) and a similar indicator on average for the corresponding types of municipalities, taking into account differences in the structure of the population, socio-economic, climatic, geographical and other objective factors and conditions that affect the cost of providing municipal services per capita (part 3 Article 137 of the BC RF). In part, these provisions, introduced first into the 2003 Law and then into the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, were already predetermined by the practice of regional legislation. In the absence of a federal law on state social standards, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation tried to independently identify and fix material and social indicators of self-sufficiency of administrative-territorial entities, and based on the data obtained, organize activities and establish the powers of local authorities. In some regions, laws have been adopted that define, for example, temporary minimum social norms municipalities (Kaluga region), the minimum budget of a municipal formation ( Leningrad region), standards and norms that determine the minimum required number of employees of local self-government bodies to resolve issues of local importance (Irkutsk region), pay for municipal employees (Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug), financial foundations of local self-government (Vladimir, Kursk regions). In turn, the federal legislator has established that expenditure obligations arising as a result of the adoption of municipal legal acts on issues of local importance and other issues that, in accordance with federal laws, have the right to be decided by local authorities self-government, as well as the conclusion by the municipality (on behalf of the municipality) contracts (agreements) on these issues; conclusion on behalf of the municipality of contracts (agreements) by municipal government agencies (parts 1, 2, article 86 of the BC RF). Taking into account the above-mentioned problems of the presence in the competence of local self-government bodies of incorporated state powers and a large share of the state component in certain issues of local importance, it would be strange to be surprised at the total loss-making of municipalities, which is perceived by opponents of the idea of local self-government as the inability of this government, in principle, to solve problems of local importance. without the support of government agencies.
In this regard, it would be useful to pay closer attention to Art. 87 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, which refers to the register of expenditure obligations. The register of expenditure obligations is understood as a set (list) of laws, other normative legal acts, municipal legal acts used in the preparation of the draft budget, which stipulate public regulatory obligations and (or) legal grounds for other expenditure obligations indicating the relevant provisions (articles, parts, clauses, subparagraphs, paragraphs) of laws and other normative legal acts, municipal legal acts with an estimate of the amount of budgetary allocations necessary for the fulfillment of obligations included in the register. It seems that when drawing up budgets, one should carefully study these normative acts, analyzing the content of the latter from the point of view of whose actions to implement the obligations established by these acts, based on organizational, qualification, economic and other possibilities, are actually necessary for their implementation. Subsidies should be used as a form of inter-budgetary transfer from the federal budget or the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to municipal (local) budgets for the exercise of the powers of local self-government bodies on issues of local importance containing a state component. Meanwhile, the allocation of subsidies to local budgets from the federal budget or from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is not allowed if this is not provided for by the relevant federal or regional regulatory legal acts (part 3 of article 132 and part 3 of article 139 of the RF BC). In other words, the federal or regional authorities independently, without any coordination with municipalities, determine both the volume and content, and the level of ensuring the powers of local self-government bodies in the allocation of subsidies, including in the areas state regulation... And if, with the vesting of certain state powers, there is a minimum of guaranteed opportunities for local governments to challenge, including judicial procedure, the amount of funds transferred or the method (methodology) for calculating the standards for determining the total amount of subventions provided to local budgets from the federal budget, the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the corresponding powers, since these provisions are presented in the relevant law on the vesting of local government bodies with state powers (Part. 6 article 19 of the 2003 Law), then on the issues of calculating subsidies, in particular, from the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, where the goals, conditions for granting subsidies, criteria for selecting municipalities for the provision of these subsidies and their distribution between municipalities are established by the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, such disputes initiated by municipalities are unlikely and hopeless. In addition, the multi-purpose nature of subsidies (co-financing of expenses for any joint programs; implementation of additional measures to support sectors of the economy, the labor market and social sphere, on social security of the population; management of shared natural, cultural, historical, economic and other objects, etc.) assumes wide discretion and freedom of action of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
It is necessary to provide municipalities with guarantees not only on the issue of the obligation of financial support for the implementation of various state powers (delegated by laws; "hidden" in matters of local importance; incorporated, that is, actually state, but designated as the own powers of local governments), but also on the issue of the adequacy of the norms of deductions to local budgets from state budgets. Currently, municipalities can only express their position on the amount of these deductions when adopting the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which the latter may not accept. In turn, the lack of planning opportunities budgetary policy on a long-term basis, due to constant changes in the rules of the game (norms of budgetary allocations), deprives local governments of the opportunity to invest in long-term social development programs and work on the formation additional sources financing 1.
Prolonged and extremely difficult conditions economic crisis Russian economy caused primarily by unfavorable international events (2014-2015), require attention to another aspect of international budget financing the state of the municipal government. As noted by O. I. Bazhenova, “the mechanism of inter-budgetary financing, based on the concentration of financial resources in the Federation and their further redistribution between regions, and the latter between municipalities, has become the main instrument for implementing the centralization policy in a financial environment favorable to the state. However, in the event of its deterioration, the state, apparently, will have no choice but to return to the ongoing reform of 2002-2006. a policy that made it possible, based on the principle of independence of local self-government, to declare municipalities not only organizationally, but also financially responsible for the solution of almost all social problems and functions. "
Observing the dependence of local self-government on the material factor, one cannot but pay attention to the fact that through this factor the state can program a sufficient and desirable mode of manifestation of local self-government, expressed in self-regulation of public relations. At the same time, the state provides and controls only the lower threshold of this manifestation. At the same time, local self-government, which in its material development goes beyond the state minimum social standards, is no longer a mere "shadow" of the state and begins to form its own social policy. In one case, this is the desire to improve the way of life of people and create for this an additional (in addition to the one provided by the state minimum standards) network of sports and health institutions, in another case it is a policy expressed in increased attention to and care for disabled and elderly citizens, in the third - improvement of the improvement and quality of public utilities. Of course, within the framework of state social standards, the functions assigned to local self-government bodies can be carried out in different ways, but in this case it will not be about the social policy of the municipality, but about the quality and efficiency of the services provided to them.
Referring to foreign experience as an example, it should be noted that in a number of Scandinavian states in 1984-1986. an experiment was carried out to create the so-called free communes. Local authorities who have been granted this status for a specified period have the right, in the interests of their communities, to deviate from the organizational, procedural and political standards set by the central government, and to search for alternative ways of providing services to the population. Both in foreign and domestic practice of local self-government, there are cases when municipalities established free travel on municipal transport on their territory, carried out free distribution of food, medicines and other goods to their residents at their own expense. By the way, according to Part 5 of Art. 20 of the Law of 2003, local governments have the right to carry out expenses at the expense of the budget of the municipal formation for those not transferred in accordance with Art. 19 state powers, not only if the possibility of such expenses is provided for by federal laws, but also regardless of the presence of such provisions of federal laws, if the expenses are aimed at additional measures of social support and social assistance to certain categories of citizens.
Meanwhile, the use of such opportunities by municipalities is rather an exception, since, thanks to the efforts of the federal legislator, the burden on local budgets is already increasing every year. So, in accordance, for example, with Art. 14 of the 2003 Law, local self-government bodies of settlements at the expense of local budget revenues, with the exception of interbudgetary transfers provided from the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, and tax revenues, according to additional deductions (but in fact it is recommended) to create museums of settlements; perform notarial acts; participate in the implementation of guardianship and trusteeship activities; create conditions for the implementation of activities related to the implementation of the rights of local ethnic and cultural autonomies in the territories of settlements; participate in the organization and implementation of measures for the mobilization training of municipal enterprises and institutions located in the territories of settlements; create municipal fire protection; carry out measures for the capture and maintenance of stray animals inhabiting the territories of settlements, etc. Such an expansion in relation to local self-government will invariably lead to the adjustment of certain functions of the state aimed at liberalizing relations between society and the state, focusing the latter on other equally important state tasks.
Meanwhile, the issues of financing the powers of local self-government bodies remain the most difficult task so far, and this is not only a matter of lack of funds. The organizational component of this task is the need for a clear delineation of functions in the financial management process between the bodies participating in it. The main task of local government financial bodies is financial planning. The budgetary authorities should organize the budgetary process, and the supervisory authorities should control the spending of funds. Mixing these functions is unacceptable, since the interests of these bodies are different. So, if you assign the function of financing to budgetary bodies (which happens quite often), the process of financial planning will be subordinated not to the interests of the development of the municipality, but to the interests of the executor. Also, control functions and performance functions cannot be combined.
The lack of a solid financial base of their own makes municipalities dependent, on the one hand, on the state budget, and on the other hand, on private capital investment. Both dependencies should not be excessive, otherwise, under the pressure of this dependence, the spectrum of interests that local governments pursue in the exercise of their powers begins to change. For example, as a result of the fact that the central government in the UK covered 67% of local costs with its subsidies, local authorities did not feel fully responsible for public utilities. The Commission considered that subsidies should not exceed 50% of the cost, and additional funds should be sought through the local poll tax. It should be noted that in addition to the direct impact on the size of the source of budgetary financing of municipalities in a number of Western countries, there are other ways of the central government's influence on local authorities, which are expressed, for example, in the involvement of local authorities in solving state problems, in increasing pressure on local authorities. to reduce their costs by increasing the responsibility of local authorities, transferring certain powers to higher levels of government, etc.
In the Russian Federation, a serious blow to the financial basis of local self-government at one time was dealt by the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, according to which 1.5% tax on proceeds from the sale of goods (works, services) was withdrawn from municipalities, which, according to official data, amounted to up to 70% of the total amount of local tax receipts. Since only real powers can be the basis for real responsibility and interest in the results of their activities, in the future it is necessary to completely abandon the division of taxes and tax revenues into "own", "fixed" and "regulatory". All taxes and proceeds from them should be only own.
Currently, according to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, local taxes are established by this Code and regulatory legal acts of the representative bodies of municipalities (clause 4 of article 12). Local taxes include land tax, personal property tax and trade tax (Art. 15). The independence of the municipality is manifested not only in the possibility of establishing by the representative body of the municipality, for example, the land tax, but also in determining tax rate, order and timing of tax payment, tax incentives, the grounds and procedure for their application, including the establishment of the amount of the tax-free amount for selected categories taxpayers (clause 2 of article 387 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
The Budget Code of the Russian Federation adheres to the previous procedure for dividing all revenues of local budgets and, along with independent sources, in order to equalize the level of budgetary provision of settlements, it provides for the creation in each constituent entity of the Russian Federation of regional and district funds for financial support of settlements. The issue of optimizing the budgetary relations of municipalities is closely related to their economic independence. According to Art. 136 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the degree of independence of municipalities in making decisions by local governments on matters of their jurisdiction is differentiated in inverse proportion to the share of subsidies from other budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation. So, if the share of these subsidies in the specified period is exceeded in the amount of more than 5% of the own revenues of local budgets, the restrictions apply to the right to establish the amount of remuneration for deputies, elected officials of local self-government, municipal employees, and the maintenance of local self-government bodies. If the subsidies are exceeded by more than 20% of their own income, the restrictions already apply to the right to establish and fulfill expenditure obligations that are not related to the solution of issues directly attributed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws, laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to the powers of local governments. If the excess of subsidies is more than 50% of the volume of own revenues of the local budget, then a number of restrictive measures of state financial control related to the preparation and execution of the local budget are applied to such a municipality. According to the data cited by E. Marquart, out of the total number of municipalities in 2014, only 10% of them had the share of interbudgetary transfers (without subventions) and revenues transferred according to additional rates of deductions from taxes in their own revenues of local budgets. 10%, in 78.5% of local budgets - more than 30%, including 37.4% - over 70%. "
Of particular interest are inter-budgetary relations developing between different levels of municipalities. At first glance, it may seem that the distribution of subsidies from the district fund for financial support of settlements, which is approved by the decision of the representative body of the municipal district, makes the settlement dependent and subordinate to the municipal district, within whose territory it is located. However, this is not the case, which is confirmed by the explanations given in the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of November 11, 2003 No. 16-P. According to these explanations, it does not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation to endow local self-government bodies of municipalities with the state powers of the Chelyabinsk region to distribute financial assistance funds transferred from the regional budget in the order of interbudgetary regulation to the local budgets of municipalities that regulate taxes and fees, based on uniform principles and conditions. determined in the law of the Chelyabinsk region on the regional budget for the next financial year in order to equalize the level of the minimum budgetary provision, since this distribution is subject to own funds budget revenues subject of the Russian Federation. The powers of local self-government bodies of municipal formations - districts are limited by the application of uniform principles and methods for setting standards for deductions from regulatory income and distribution of financial assistance, and the implementation of these powers should not violate the financial independence of municipalities located within the territory of other municipal formations. At the same time, the provisions on vesting local self-government bodies of districts with state powers for the distribution and consolidation of budget expenditures due to the uncertainty of the regulatory content and the possibility of violating the financial independence of municipalities located within the territory of other municipalities were recognized as contradicting the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Only after legislative measures have put things in order in financial, budgetary and other material relations (in particular, in the issue of delimiting rights to land, etc.) it will be possible to talk about the real property responsibility of municipalities as economic entities, and at the same time assess the effectiveness of implementation the powers of their bodies. Then the experience of classifying municipalities as financially unfavorable, which, for example, is available in the state of Pennsylvania (USA), may be required. The criteria for such a state of municipalities are the following: 1) there is a deficit in the budget for three years with a deficit of 1% or more in each subsequent financial year; 2) the expenses of the municipality exceed the income for three years or more; 3) the municipality did not fulfill its obligations to pay the principal or interest on any obligations; 4) the municipality detained payroll for 30 days; 5) the municipality was unable to agree with creditors on the settlement of claims exceeding the fund or budget by 30%; 6) the municipality cannot make mandatory minimum budget payments (in particular, to the municipal pension fund). The initiators of the bankruptcy procedure can be: 1) the governing body of the municipality (by adopting a resolution by a majority vote); 2) creditor municipal debt 10 thousand dollars or more; 3) 10% of the members of the electorate of the municipality who voted in the last municipal elections; 4) 10% of municipal employees who have not been paid wages for more than 30 days; 5) guardian or agent for payments of the municipal pension fund if no mandatory payments are made. The petition is filed with the Department of Public Affairs, which can decide for itself that the municipality qualifies for financial decline.
If we talk about the position of the federal legislator on the subject of those measures that should be applied to financially disadvantaged municipalities, then according to paragraph 2 of part 1 and part 4 of Art. 75 of the 2003 Law, if municipalities have overdue debts that exceed a certain percentage of their own revenues and budgetary allocations in the reporting financial year, at the request of a higher official (head of administration) of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and (or) a representative body (head) of a municipal formation decision arbitration court of the subject of the Russian Federation in order to restore the solvency of the municipality, a temporary financial administration may be introduced for a period of up to one year.
An integral feature of every municipality is the presence of municipal property, which is an important factor in optimizing the functioning of local self-government. In Appendix No. 3 to the Decree of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR dated December 27, 1991 No. 3020-1 "On the delimitation of state property in the Russian Federation into federal property, state property of the republics within the Russian Federation, territories, regions, autonomous regions, autonomous regions, the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg and municipal property ”was given a list of objects related to municipal property. On the basis of this resolution, already in the process of privatization of state and municipal property in the localities (in districts, cities, towns), there was a "redistribution" of property, which affected individual property objects, in favor of the municipal authorities.
It should be noted that in some cases the question of the ownership of a particular property object could be resolved not only on purely formal grounds, but also on the basis of the constructive and other features of the object itself. So, according to the Law of the Moscow Region of July 25, 1996 "On the General Principles of Formation, Management and Disposal of Municipal Property in the Moscow Region" in the transfer of objects, the list of which is given in Appendix No. 3 to the Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 3020-1, municipal ownership could be denied if, in the composition of the population served by the object included in the list, members of the local community of another municipality make up less than 50%, or within another municipality, an enterprise (institution) sells less than 50% of the total volume products sold (work performed, services), there is no possibility of organizational and (or) territorial separation of divisions or branches included in the list (clause 3 of article 16 of the Law). At the same time, such institutions could be transferred to the shared ownership of several municipalities upon their prior agreement (paragraph 4 of article 16 of the Law).
The list of objects of municipal property, defined in Appendix No. 3 to the resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR dated December 27, 1991, No. 3020-1, was only the initial "authorized capital" of municipalities. In addition to the fact that the specified list of objects was not exhaustive, in the order of the President of the Russian Federation No. 114-rp dated March 18, 1992, the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation were allowed to transfer other objects of state ownership into municipal ownership.
During privatization state enterprises the procedure for the transfer of socio-cultural and communal-household objects on the balance sheet of these enterprises to municipal ownership was concretized in accordance with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of January 10, 1993 No. 8 and the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 7, 1995 No. 235. This procedure in the absence of the necessary production and operating base for housing and communal services, the local government provided for the possibility of concluding an agreement with the relevant privatized state enterprises for its design, construction and financing. Considering that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when many state-owned enterprises faced economic difficulties, social, cultural and communal facilities were practically not financed and fell into decay, they were not transferred to local governments. added and decreased the property assets of local government, since it required additional unforeseen expenses for the repair and maintenance of such objects, which significantly exceeded the real incomes received through the use of these objects. It should be noted that cases of transferring unprofitable property to the local government balance sheet are also observed in other legislative acts. So, in accordance with Art. 148 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)", the debtor's property that was not sold in the course of bankruptcy proceedings and which the creditors refused to accept, as a rule, is transferred to local authorities at the location of the debtor's property , who bear all the costs of maintaining this property. Moreover, according to general rule, established in Art. 225 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (part one), all ownerless immovable things, at the request of local governments, are subject to registration (registration) and subsequent judicial appeal to the municipal ownership of the municipal formation in the territory of which they are found.
In the 2003 Law, the list of property objects is tied to the list of issues under the jurisdiction of the respective municipalities. The strictly targeted nature of municipal property objects intended to resolve issues of local importance, to ensure the activities of local government bodies and officials, municipal employees, employees of municipal enterprises and institutions, as well as state property transferred to local government bodies for the implementation of certain state powers, is confirmed by the requirements of this Law on the need to repurpose or alienate, in accordance with federal law, the property owned by the municipality that does not meet the specified goals (part 5 of article 50). Regarding the redistribution mechanism non-core property between the state and municipal authorities, for this, according to the amendments made to the Federal Law of August 22, 2004 No. 122-FZ by the Federal Law of December 31, 2005 No. 199-FZ, a special administrative procedure was established. It provides for some deviations from the current civil legislation (a special form of transfer of property, the moment the new owner's right to it arises, a special procedure for registering immovable property, etc.), which is quite justified taking into account the one-time and urgency of these events (until January 1, 2009 .).
A special problem is the legal regulation of municipal management and disposal of lands located within the territory of municipalities, the ownership of which is not delimited. Despite the fact that since the adoption of the Federal Law "On the introduction of Land Code The Russian Federation ”, which initiated the process of delimiting ownership of land, has passed quite a long time, no more than half of non-privatized lands have become federal, regional or municipal property 1. At the same time, the issue of the procedure for the disposal of non-demarcated lands (and this is 700 million hectares, which is almost 44% of the land fund of Russia) in 2014 was revised in favor of granting, from March 1, 2015, the rights to dispose of non-demarcated lands within their territories, not only municipal districts and urban districts, but also settlements. Moreover, according to Art. 62 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, revenues from the disposal of these lands of rural settlements still go to the budget of municipal districts in full (if land plots are located within the boundaries of urban settlements, 50% of the income received goes to the budgets of municipal districts). Due to the shortage of qualified personnel at the settlement level, they will actually continue to manage land plots municipal authorities of the district level, but already on a contractual basis.
At the same time, the issue of the right to municipal property cannot be reduced only to the definition of the corresponding powers of the municipal authorities. The fact is that the ownership, use and disposal of municipal property in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 130 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is, first of all, the right of the population itself. But, given the high degree of declarativeness of this provision in the sphere of its practical application, in the charters of municipalities either this right of the population is not enshrined at all, or it is indicated that the rights to use and dispose of municipal property are transferred from the population to the bodies and officials of local self-government. It seems that such norms cannot be interpreted as an absolute transfer of property rights from the population to another owner, since, on the one hand, the power of municipal bodies and their officials is derived from the power of the local population, and therefore, such a transfer of property rights from the point of view of civil law does not lead to a change in the municipal form of ownership; on the other hand, the emergence of norms on the transfer of property rights does not deprive the population of the opportunity at any time to exercise this right on their own behalf at a local referendum. So, according to the current legislation, issues such as the construction of socio-cultural and industrial facilities, alienation of municipal property, etc. can be submitted to a local referendum (within the boundaries of municipalities).
The property nature of relations on the use, possession and disposal of objects of municipal property presupposes their regulation by civil legislation. The question of the feasibility of creating municipal unitary enterprises or the participation of municipalities in non-municipal and non-state enterprises should be resolved taking into account the ambiguity of the goals of such enterprises: this is, firstly, making a profit, and secondly, the implementation of socially significant goals. So, in accordance with Part 4 of Art. 8 of the Federal Law of November 14, 2002 No. 161-FZ "On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises" ). As some authors reasonably note, “in enterprises with the participation of the municipality, there are always two principles: entrepreneurial, represented by private interest, and municipal, which is of public interest, which are carried by local governments. The task of the municipality in such enterprises is to find such an optimal system of interaction, which, on the one hand, limits the group egoism of private co-owners of the enterprise, and on the other hand, does not allow the prevalence of public interests that could undermine the commercial incentives of private entrepreneurs. " The creation of separate municipal unitary enterprises must be approached taking into account the presence in certain areas of activity natural monopolies(energy, water, heat supply, etc.).
The special social purpose of municipal enterprises should be taken into account by state antimonopoly services when they carry out measures to develop competition in socially oriented markets for the production of works and the provision of services. In order to ensure equality of economic entities in areas closely related to the solution of local issues (transport services, bath and laundry services, school meals, funeral services, improvement of public places, removal of household waste, etc.), the antimonopoly authorities sometimes consider subsidizing municipal enterprises in non-competitive markets as a violation of antitrust laws. In this regard, the antimonopoly body of Russia needs to develop guidelines containing criteria for profitability and other characteristics by which one or another area of the municipal economy can be classified as competitive or non-competitive. It is also advisable to supplement Art. 78 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation in terms of specifying the procedure and the possibility of subsidizing municipal unitary enterprises operating in non-competitive markets.
In order to improve the efficiency of municipal property management, it is important to correctly build relationships between municipal authorities and state and non-state (private) organizations and enterprises. The first and most significant condition for such interaction on the management of municipal property is its strictly legal, legal basis. It is obvious that the nature of the relationship of municipalities with government bodies in this area will differ significantly from the relationship with private enterprises and organizations. In the first case, the principle of interaction is the principle “everything that is allowed is allowed”. In other words, every action of a municipal or state body in these matters should be clearly regulated in the relevant regulatory legal acts. In the interaction of municipal bodies with private enterprises and organizations, in addition to the fact that state regulatory legal acts provide much more freedom in these relations, the latter can be even more diverse due to municipal rule-making with the establishment of a negative way of securing rights (“everything that is not prohibited "), when the subjects of law are given the opportunity to conduct any behavior, as long as it does not contradict the current legislation and does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of third parties.
Characterizing the sphere of mutual relations between municipal and state bodies on the management of municipal property, it is possible to divide these relations, for example, according to the sectoral basis (administrative, financial and budgetary, civil law), according to the degree of compulsory execution (recommendatory, directive). Talking about government-imposed restrictions economic activity municipal authorities, it should be recognized that some of them are dictated by the desire to prevent possible abuses in this area.
So, in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 115 2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the provision by the municipality (principal) of securing the fulfillment of the principal's obligations to satisfy the recourse claim against the principal in connection with the fulfillment in full or in any part of the guarantee is allowed only if the principal, his guarantors (guarantors) have no overdue debt under monetary obligations to the Russian Federation, a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, a municipal entity, respectively, for compulsory payments to the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, as well as unsettled obligations under state or municipal guarantees previously provided to the constituent entity by the Russian Federation, respectively. In practice, local governments need to avoid transactions where the municipal body acts as a guarantor in securing the obligations of a private person, investments in authorized capital newly created private enterprises with the participation of municipalities of those types of municipal property that are associated with the life support of the daily needs of the population.
In the property relations of state and municipal bodies, there are also such relations that, in a latent form, can contribute to the gradual “enslavement” of local self-government. One of these ways to become dependent is to expand the sphere of delegated state powers to municipalities. So, in the city of Orenburg, the issue of transferring the rights to account for subject state registration real estate objects on the territory of the city of Orenburg to the municipal authorities of the city of Orenburg with the creation by the latter of their own, similar to the administration of justice structures. Another, even more conspiratorial way is to provide local governments with subventions to finance certain projects that are not related to the main activities of local governments. It would seem that this can bring nothing but strengthening of the material basis of local self-government. However, if these measures are far from the immediate goals and objectives of local self-government, then there is a gradual blurring of the lines between local self-government and state power structures, the transfer of issues of life support of the local population to the background and, as a consequence, the complete assimilation of local self-government in the system of state bodies. The adoption, for example, of the Federal Target Program for the Stabilization and Development of Agroindustrial Production in the Russian Federation for 1996-2000, the Federal Target Program for the Development and Preservation of Culture and Art of the Russian Federation (1997 - 1999) "and others, in the implementation of which local governments were involved with the use of their budgetary funds and other municipal property.
In the relationship between state and municipal authorities on property management, the burden of responsibility for its ownership, in practice, various collisions often arise, associated, on the one hand, with the territory where the immovable property object is located, and, on the other hand, with its belonging to a particular owner. So, by virtue of paragraph 24 h. 1 of Art. 16 of the 2003 Law, participation in the organization of activities for the collection (including separate collection), transportation, processing, utilization, neutralization, burial of solid municipal waste refers to the issues of local importance of the urban district. By virtue of this provision, the Severouralsk City Court Sverdlovsk region by decision of December 18, 2013 satisfied the claims of the prosecutor of the city of Severouralsk on imposing on the administration of the municipal formation “Severouralsk urban district” the obligation to liquidate an unauthorized dump of solid household and construction waste located on the territory of the Petropavlovsky district forestry of the state government institution “Karpinskoe forestry” ( the decision was upheld by the court of appeal). Having considered this case within its competence, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation did not agree with the position of the courts of general jurisdiction, recognizing that in the system of current legal regulation, the adoption of measures aimed at eliminating pollution with household and industrial waste of forest areas located in the territory of the urban district, but not located in its ownership, local self-government bodies of this urban district are not provided for and belongs to the competence of authorized executive bodies of state power. The term "organization" in relation to the relevant issue of local importance should be disclosed taking into account special sectoral legislative regulation, it cannot automatically be interpreted as implying the full responsibility of the municipality in the relevant field of activity. At the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation found in this case a violation not only of the constitutional principle of the independence of budgets (Article 31 of the RF BC), but also of the constitutional principle of independence of local self-government, including in relation to the management of municipal property, the formation and execution of the local budget, as well as the constitutional the rights of citizens to exercise local self-government (part 1 of article 130, part 1 of article 132 and article 133 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
The issues of relations between local self-government bodies and enterprises that are not in municipal ownership, including in the field of municipal property management, are built on the basis of contracts. At the same time, any municipality is interested in the integrated socio-economic development of its territory, and therefore, the current legislation, the municipal authorities are empowered to coordinate the activities of relevant economic entities on land use, urban planning, environmental protection, etc. The opinion of local governments is taken into account when changing the purpose of objects of social, cultural and communal purposes of privatized state enterprises (clause 1 of article 30 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 No. 178-FZ "On the privatization of state and municipal property") and when resolving issues of insolvency (bankruptcy ) city-forming organizations (Article 170 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)").
It is assumed that one of the main forms of interaction in the field of civil law relations between local governments and private enterprises is intended to be the procurement of goods, works, services to meet municipal needs (Article 54 of the 2003 Law). According to the Federal Law of April 5, 2013 No. 44-FZ "On the contract system in the procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs", competitive methods for determining suppliers (contractors, performers) are: 1) tender (open, closed limited number of participants, two-stage); 2) auction (electronic, closed); 3) request for quotations; 4) request for proposals. Purchasing from a single supplier is a non-competitive method. According to Art. 27 of this Law, advantages in procurement are provided to: institutions and enterprises of the penal system; organizations of people with disabilities; small businesses; socially oriented non-profit organizations. In particular, Art. 30 of the Law obliges customers to make purchases from small businesses, socially oriented non-profit organizations in the amount of at least 15% of the total annual volume of purchases. Thus, in addition to direct economic issues, a number of socio-economic problems of the population of the municipality are being resolved (issues of employment, support for disabled people, development of small business, stimulation of socially useful activity of civil society institutions, etc.).
Another important area of constructive interaction between municipal authorities and private business entities is municipal-private partnership. Adoption of the Federal Law of July 13, 2015 No. 224-FZ "On public-private partnership, municipal-private partnership in the Russian Federation and amendments to certain legislative acts Of the Russian Federation ”has its own background. In the regions and municipalities, work on the creation of an appropriate regulatory and legal framework began long before the adoption of this Law. But, despite the interest in public-private partnership on the part of the state, this form of interaction between business and government is implemented with great difficulty in practice. Thus, the Federal Law of July 21, 2005 No. 115-FZ "On Concession Agreements" has been in effect for a rather long time, however, according to the monitoring carried out by the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia in April 2013, there were only 79 concession projects in the Russian Federation, in which about 1,500 property objects. At the municipal level, along with the well-known and widespread forms of municipal property management (direct management, contracting system, rental system), in recent years, there has been an active introduction into the economic practice of municipalities of concluding concession agreements with private business, especially for the maintenance of heat and water supply networks. The advantage of a concession in comparison, in particular, with a lease, is that the law does not identify the efficient use of municipal property and the improvement of the quality of work and services provided to consumers as the main purpose of the lease agreement, while this goal is more clearly emerges during the creation and reconstruction of facilities at the expense of a private investor, which logically follows from the concession relationship. The positive aspects of the concession are: the introduction of new technologies; mechanization and automation of production; reducing the share of municipal funds in the implementation of various projects; creation of additional jobs due to the construction and reconstruction of utility facilities, etc. However, as practice shows, a private monopoly sometimes does not seek to invest in the development and technical improvement of the concession object, and at the end of the contract, worn-out equipment and real estate are returned to the municipality. It seems that each municipality should individually approach this method of municipal property management, proceeding from considerations of productivity and taking into account possible risks. The main requirement for the use of municipal property is the most balanced combination of the principles of economic efficiency and social responsibility of local governments for ensuring the life of municipalities and the socio-economic interests of the population.
Most important aspect the relationship of municipal bodies with private and other non-municipal enterprises located on their territory is associated with the receipt of income from their activities in the local budget. It is clear that in order to expand the tax base, it is necessary to increase the number of economic entities receiving income. Currently, the situation is such that most of the large state and privatized enterprises are idle due to lack of demand for their products, while they are constantly cutting jobs and increasing their debts to local and state budgets... In this regard, the sphere of small business deserves closer attention and friendly attitude of the competent local authorities, for which, along with the already familiar forms of support in the form of tax benefits, subsidies, crediting and guarantees from local authorities, new forms are being created, such as business. -incubators, industrial parks, etc.
By virtue of Art. 11 of the Federal Law of July 24, 2007 No. 209-FZ "On the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses in the Russian Federation", local governments are empowered to form the infrastructure for supporting small and medium-sized businesses, to promote the activities of relevant non-profit organizations, other organizational and analytical powers.
In contrast to the activities of state bodies, in which there is a strong relationship between the quality and efficiency of implementation state function and its material support, in local self-government this dependence is much weaker. The reason is the public element of local self-government, which introduces new, non-material incentives into the self-government mechanism, expressed in common, collective interests (to put things in order and improve the territory adjacent to the residential building, to protect the residents of the building from burglaries, etc.). The question is how to make the mechanism of social forces work.
Initially, there must be a personal interest of a member of the municipal community in solving a particular social problem. The essence and scale of the problem must be such that its solution can be carried out by the forces of the public and does not belong to the exclusive powers of state and municipal authorities. The goals and objectives set for solving the problem will contribute to a certain structuring and integration of social forces. At the same time, the powers of the structures of public self-government will be adequately formed. It should be noted that the powers of power are needed here not only in order to coordinate the efforts of all interested parties to achieve a common goal, but also in order to unify the will of these persons, in some cases by force of the majority of public opinion to compel those community members who oppose common actions or do not fulfill the duties assigned to them. In the 2003 Law, the legislator outlined some specific areas of solidarity of the public forces of the population to address issues of local importance. This is the involvement of citizens in the performance on a voluntary basis of works that are socially significant for the settlement and the urban district (clause 2 of article 17), self-taxation of citizens (article 56).
Of course, the problem of forming and strengthening this institution cannot be solved by simply declaring or imposing on the part of the state territorial and other bodies of forms of public self-government. In Soviet times, there was already a system of street, quarter, house committees and other similar formations, but it functioned according to certain rules, which were determined not by the population, but by the policy of the CPSU. In order for the bodies of public self-government to be created and to begin functioning with full dedication in the new conditions, new ideological conditions and attitudes are needed. But all of a sudden these foundations and attitudes will not appear on their own. The psychology and ideology of people must "mature" to a certain level of understanding by a person of himself as a part of the local community. In some cases, this is objectively facilitated by certain conditions of cohabitation of citizens. So, according to some authors, one of the most effective forms of organizing local self-government of citizens are homeowners' associations (condominiums), which organically combine such positive properties as: 1) mass character (tenants apartment buildings- the largest part of the population of cities); 2) the presence of a structural and material basis for the association, that is, the presence of a common house; 3) living together, which determines the range of pressing problems; 4) the features of the operation of the house, creating a fertile ground for the manifestation of the activity and initiative of residents. The recently established right of private property in the minds of Russian citizens fosters such important feelings for the owner as responsibility, order, etc. Starting with private property, over time, these feelings are projected onto the environment in which a person lives, since he, as an owner, feels internal discomfort between the environment to which his right to private property extends and the environment of his habitat (street, courtyards, etc.). Hence the desire of such a person to try to bring these environments to a “common denominator”.
All this, of course, does not mean that the state should calmly observe the process of the formation of cultural and moral traditions of the population. It is possible already now to try to take certain measures to expand the possibility of TPSG participation in solving the corresponding problems of municipalities. These are the problems of child neglect, social services for lonely elderly citizens and disabled people, improvement and sanitary condition of the territories of residential buildings, etc. Individual specialists are already engaged in the development of ways to attract citizens to participate in solving local issues on a voluntary basis, thus forming an independent direction of practice. activities of local self-government - territorial management 1. The gradual expansion of the social element in the implementation of the functions of local self-government makes it possible to significantly expand the possibilities of local self-government both in spatial and substantive, substantive meaning, without resorting to additional financial and property investments from the state.
See Federal Law No. 137-FZ of October 25, 2001 “On the Enactment of the Land Code of the Russian Federation”.
In accordance with the Federal Law "On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government of the Russian Federation" dated 12.08.1995, the economic basis of local self-government is municipal property, local finances, state-owned property and transferred to the management of local self-government bodies, as well as other property serving to meet the needs of the population of the municipality. The pivot of the economic foundation of any level of government is the budget, in this case, the local budget.
The federal law "On the financial foundations of local self-government in the Russian Federation" dated 09/10/1997 defines the basic principles of organizing local finance and interbudgetary relations in our country, but in the law itself, these principles are only indicated. Thus, “the principles of the formation and use of local finances are called independence, state support and publicity. Qualitatively new budgetary requirements are referred to the principles of interbudgetary relations. Including mutual responsibility, uniform methodology, equalization of income, reduction of counter flows, compensation of expenses, increased interest in increasing income and publicity. But neither the first nor the second definition discloses the content of these requirements, the ways of their implementation, responsibility for their non-fulfillment ”Saburov E., Tipenko N., Chernyavsky A. Budgetary federalism and interbudgetary relations. // Economic Issues. 2000. No. 1 .. Therefore, municipalities only have to guess what these principles are or try to interpret them by analogy with other laws, in which there are also no mechanisms for the implementation of these requirements at the municipal level.
According to the law, the revenue side of local budgets consists of their own revenues, which include local taxes and fees, other own revenues of local budgets and norms for deductions from federal and regional taxes.
As for local taxes and fees, they must be established by the relevant federal laws. The law classified income from privatization and sale of municipal property to the category of "other own income", at least 10% of income from state property located on the territory of the municipality, income from the lease of municipal property located on the territory of the municipality, payments for the use of subsoil and natural resources, fines to be transferred to the local budget, etc.
In addition, the federal authorities have consolidated a provision according to which, if the revenue side of the minimum local budget cannot be provided from the specified revenue sources, federal bodies the authorities and authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation transfer to local governments other revenue sources of the federal budget and the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, while ensuring the minimum necessary budgetary provision of the municipality, on the basis of budgetary security standards that are established by the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The result of this is the absence of a role for municipalities in setting their own standards for budgetary provision.
The law also establishes the mechanism for the formation of a fund for financial support of municipalities. The funds in this fund are formed from deductions from federal and regional taxes that go to the budget of the constituent entity of the Federation. The distribution of these funds is carried out in accordance with a fixed formula. It is worth noting that the formula itself is not given, but only certain factors are given that are taken into account in the calculation: the population of the municipality, the share of preschool and school children in the total population, the level of per capita provision with budgetary funds of the municipality, as well as other factors, defining the peculiarity of each region.
Compared to the previous laws of the RSFSR "On the fundamentals of the budgetary structure and budgetary process in the RSFSR" dated 10.10.1991, the Budget Code in a certain way limits the budgetary independence of municipalities. In accordance with the code, the budgetary independence of municipalities looks different than in the law "On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation", which establishes the right of local self-government bodies to independently, without any restrictions, manage local budget funds (Clause 2, Article 36) and in the law "On the basics of budgetary rights and rights for the formation and use of extrabudgetary funds representative and executive bodies of state power of the republics within the Russian Federation, autonomous regions, autonomous districts, territories, regions, cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, local government bodies ", which establishes the right to independently dispose of local budget funds.
In the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, firstly, there were norms regulating expenditures, jointly financed from the budgets of the Russian Federation, the budgets of its constituent entities and the budgets of municipalities, the distribution of which is attributed to the jurisdiction of the Government of the Russian Federation. In addition, article 87 of the code directly establishes the main expenses of local budgets, which include: the maintenance of local governments, the formation of municipal property and its management, the organization, maintenance and development of municipal housing and communal services, servicing and repayment of municipal debt, etc.
Revenues of local budgets, as before, are made up of their own tax revenues of local budgets, determined by tax legislation Of the Russian Federation, and deductions from federal and regional regulatory taxes and fees transferred to the local budgets of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Federation for a period of at least three years. But the rule that the level of fixed incomes of the local budget should be at least 70% of the revenue part of the minimum budget of the corresponding municipality has disappeared from the code. On the one hand, this figure is very significant, since it gave a certain stability in filling the budget of the municipality. On the other hand, this is also advisable, since a rigid definition of the share of assigned taxes prevents a flexible approach to the differentiation of sources of income, depending on the prevailing economic conditions.
The solution of issues related to the formation and spending of budgets of all levels: federal, regional and local, is enshrined in the general part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The Tax Code, adopted by the State Duma on July 16, 1998, established a system of taxes and fees levied in the Russian Federation. In the Russian Federation, federal, regional and local taxes and fees are established. Local taxes and fees are recognized as established by this code and normative legal acts of representative bodies of local self-government, enacted in accordance with this code, normative legal acts of representative bodies of local self-government and obligatory for payment in the territories of the respective municipalities. A separate section is devoted to each tax and collection in the Tax Code. In turn, the sections have a general structure covering the main elements of tax and collection. The most important is the content of clause 5 of Art. 12, according to which regional or local taxes and (or) fees that are not provided for by this code and the law “On the basics tax system in the Russian Federation ”, which establish a fairly closed list of local taxes and fees. So taxes cannot be imposed by local governments. This provision is in conflict with paragraph 5 of Art. 6 of the Law "On General Principles of Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation", which establishes the right of municipalities to establish local taxes and fees. Thus, the federal government severely limited the amount of taxes and fees levied by local governments. In accordance with Art. 15 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, local taxes and fees include: land tax, tax on property of individuals, advertising tax, inheritance or gift tax, local license fees.
The Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which approved a new list of local taxes and fees, has significantly reduced their number in comparison with the law "On the fundamentals of the budgetary structure and budgetary process of the RSFSR" dated 10.10.1991. According to the developers of the Tax Code, streamlining taxation involves building a unified tax system , the abolition of irrational taxes and other mandatory payments, the action of which is ineffective.
Many experts are of the opinion that, with the help of the Tax Code, the "center" is trying to redistribute fiscal revenues in its favor, leaving itself well-collected taxes, primarily VAT. Regions and municipalities are left with poorly collected, or not collected at all taxes (income tax, property tax).
In practice, “a distinctive feature of the existing local taxation is a huge number of tax payments, giving scanty revenues to the budget, but requiring significant organizational and legal efforts for their registration and withdrawal. An equally serious factor is the paradox and contradiction of the legislation that determines the system of municipal taxation and the procedure for establishing local taxes. These include the irrationality of individual tax payments (fees from dog owners, for parking, etc.), the absence in most of the objects of taxation (hippodrome and resort fees and taxes) "VB Khristenko. New stage reform of interbudgetary relations. // Finance 2006. No.2 ..
As a result, all this leads to the fact that tax revenues, which are the basis of the municipal budget, constitute an insignificant percentage in the total volume of revenues. So in the Rostov region on 01.01.2006. the share of own income was in the Azov region - 80%, in the Salsk region - 63%, in Taganrog - 61%, in the Semikarakorsk region - 49%, in the city of Morozovsk - 47.8%, in the Matveev-Kurgan region - 46.2 %, in Bataisk - 46%, in the station Kagalnitskaya - 30.5%, in the Millerovsky district - 28%, in the Gluboknensky district own revenues make up 26.2% of the budget, in the Aksay district - 25%. In the Kamensk-Shakhtinsky region, the figure is even less than 23%. Cities and districts of the Rostov region. Statistical handbook. Rostov-on-Don. 2005. p. 17. Naturally, the rest of the budget revenues are subsidies and subventions from the federal and regional levels of budgets, which largely determines the financial dependence of municipalities on higher levels.
Thus, at present, it is quite obvious that “the financial independence of any municipality is artificial enough. The federal government, through the norms established in laws, has created such a system of economic interaction between the levels of government, according to which incomes are taken by higher levels, and expenses are shifted to a lower level of local government. ”Stereotypes and realities of Russian budgetary federalism. Economic issues. 2000. No. 1. p. 15 .. At the same time, the problem of providing local budgets with their own revenue sources for exercising their powers has not been resolved at the federal level, despite the many laws and other regulations issued.
The law of 06.10.2003 "On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation" was supposed to outline the basic fundamental foundations of the economic base of local self-government and solve the most pressing economic problems of municipalities.
However, in the course of analyzing the new law, one can understand that the consolidated system of finance is once again not perfect, in addition to this, significant new problems are superimposed on the unresolved old problems.
In accordance with article 49 of the law, the economic basis of local self-government consists of property in municipal ownership, funds of local budgets, as well as property rights of municipalities. Naturally, the pivotal concept of the economic base of local self-government is the municipal budget.
Each municipality has its own budget (local budget), which is formed, approved, executed and monitored by local self-government bodies independently in the manner determined by the charter of the municipality. In order to organize cash service local budgets, local government bodies can either create a municipal treasury, or conclude an agreement with the treasury bodies of the federal or subject of the Russian Federation.
Since the new law provides for the mandatory formation of municipalities at two levels - in settlements and municipal districts, a new concept is introduced - consolidated budget municipal district.
The law pays significant attention to the transparency of the local budget and the municipal budget process. According to Article 52, in addition to the fact that according to the draft local budget and annual report on its implementation, as well as on the draft plans and programs for the development of the municipality, public hearings are mandatory, and the following are subject to mandatory official publication:
- - draft local budget;
- - decision on the approval of the local budget;
- - information on the number of municipal employees of local self-government bodies, employees of municipal institutions, indicating the actual costs of their maintenance.
In the "new" local budgets, in accordance with Article 52, it is separately provided for: revenues directed to the implementation of the powers of local self-government bodies to resolve issues of local importance; subventions for the exercise of state powers by local governments (both in revenues and expenditures).
It should be noted that in recent years, budgetary centralization has been steadily growing (1998 - 47.7%, in 2002 - already 63.2%), while more than 80% of regional and local budget revenues are formed from deductions from federal taxes, the rate and proportion the distribution of which is determined by the State Duma A. Oshurkov, A. Segienko, S. Lapteva New law about local self-government - new problems of the municipal economy and. // Problems of reforming local self-government in the Russian Federation and the experience of other countries. M., 2003, p. 21. This situation made regional and municipal authorities uninterested in the economic development of the territories.
The proposed changes in the law will require the redistribution of revenue sources between federal, regional and local budgets. The volume of own (tax and non-tax) revenues of local budgets, fixed on a long-term basis, according to the developers of the new law, should be at least 4.2% of GDP, the volume of subsidies from regional budgets - 1.4% of GDP, the volume of subventions for state powers - 1.5% of GDP Problems of reforming local self-government in the Russian Federation and the experience of other countries // Civil Forum. St. Petersburg. Issue No. 3. Moscow, 2003 ..
A positive aspect of the reform is that, as an integral part of the budgets of settlements, estimates of individual settlements that are not settlements can be envisaged.
Article 55 of the law clearly establishes a list of municipalities' own revenues:
means of self-taxation of citizens;
income from local taxes and fees;
income from regional taxes and fees;
income from federal taxes and fees;
gratuitous transfers from budgets of other levels, including subsidies for equalizing budgetary provision;
income from the use of municipal property;
part of the profits of municipal enterprises;
fines and other receipts in accordance with applicable law.
The first type of income of the local budget is self-taxation of citizens - one-off payments of citizens to address specific issues of local importance. “The mechanism of contributions is not worked out legally and does not have current legislation no precedents. Moreover, it is very dangerous. If the budgets of the districts are formed from contributions, and the representative body of the district is made up of delegates from settlements, then they will automatically underestimate the financing of the so-called inter-municipal powers, among which there are such significant ones as the maintenance of schools, hospitals, roads, and so on. "Materials of the Fund for the Development of Parliamentarism in Russia // www.legislature.ru. In our opinion, this institution of contributions in the course of its formation will create a significant number of problems and difficulties.
Regarding the establishment of local taxes and fees, the law contains several declarative articles, in a rather abstract form. So, in accordance with Article 57, the list of local taxes and fees and the powers of local governments to establish, amend and abolish them are established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on taxes and fees. Thus, the list of local taxes to be credited to the municipal budget will, in turn, again be strictly regulated by the state authorities of the Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, thereby local authorities are limited in determining their own taxes necessary for the full implementation of their own taxes by local authorities. functions, which casts doubt on the effectiveness of municipal policy. As for deductions from regional and federal taxes, the picture is the same here. “As a result, the financial issue, without the solution of which the activity of local self-government is unthinkable to resolve the main issues of the life of the population, remains unresolved. A direct consequence of this is that local governments cannot carry out long-term planning and, as a consequence, its full and comprehensive development. ”A. Lukichev. We must share ... Tax codes... Municipal government. 2003. No. 1. p. 54 ..
One of the most significant and most problematic revenues of the local budget is income from the use of municipal property. Municipal property is property that is necessary for solving local issues and is in municipal ownership, including municipal land, property of municipal enterprises and institutions.
The composition of municipal property, determined in accordance with federal laws and laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, can be changed only in two cases:
- - upon acquisition (alienation) of property owned by the relevant municipality;
- - when changing the list of issues of local importance established by federal law.
Besides, municipal property each municipality, according to article 50 of the law, must be sufficient for the normal and efficient performance of their functions by local authorities.
The problem immediately arises of the division of property between the newly created municipalities, as a result of the delineation of powers and subjects of jurisdiction between the federal, regional and municipal levels of government. The law also does not stipulate how the property that is really necessary to resolve issues of local importance will be determined. What happens if the required property is not available? Therefore, this gap must be closed by adopting laws, both at the federal and regional levels.
The next source of income for local budgets is subventions for the exercise of state powers by local authorities. The law clearly defines that such separate state powers are transferred for implementation to local governments. State powers are exercised by the municipal authorities of the district and city okrug, as a rule, only at the expense of subventions from the budgets of the upper level, while the possibility of the emergence of unfunded mandates will be excluded (Article 19 of the law).
According to paragraph 2 of Art. 53 of the new law "local self-government bodies independently establish municipal minimum social standards and other norms for the expenditures of local budgets to address issues of local importance."
When analyzing budget expenditures, the question of the minimum budgetary provision remains not fully worked out.
In accordance with the conceptual apparatus Budget Code Of the Russian Federation, enshrined in Art. 6, the minimum budgetary provision is understood as the minimum permissible cost of state and municipal services in monetary terms, provided by state authorities or local self-government bodies per capita at the expense of the corresponding budgets.
However, Federal Law of August 5, 2000 No. 116-FZ, part one of Article 65 was set forth in new edition: "The formation of expenditures of budgets of all levels of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation is based on the minimum state social standards, standards of financial costs for the provision of public services and uniform methodological bases for calculating the minimum budgetary provision" Oshurkov A., Segienko A., Lapteva S. New law on local self-government - new problems of the municipal economy, // Civil Forum. St. Petersburg. // Problems of reforming local self-government in the Russian Federation and the experience of other countries. Issue No. 3. M., 2003. p. 15 ..
As you can see, the new edition, as the prevailing basis for the formation of budget expenditures at all levels of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, fixes the minimum state social standards.
It should be noted that “the specified change is put into effect from the date of the entry into force of the federal law on state minimum social standards. However, this law is still missing. If the law on state minimum standards is not adopted, all this will lead to the fact that the provision of the population with basic needs and social services will be completely different depending on the socio-economic potential of the territory, and the agreements of the municipality with higher levels of government "Materials of the Parliamentarism Development Fund in Russia // www.legislature.ru. But in any case, the interests of the population should not suffer from the shortcomings of the existing legislation.
Thus, today, “the key points on which the procedure for the formation of expenditures of budgets of all levels is based are, in addition to the unified methodology and standards of financial costs per service, the standards of the minimum budgetary provision, which are understood as the minimum allowable cost of state or municipal services. in monetary terms per capita ”Oshurkov A., Sergienko A., Lapteva S. New law on local self-government - new problems of the municipal economy. // Civil Forum. St. Petersburg. // Problems of reforming local self-government in the Russian Federation and the experience of other countries. Issue No. 3. M, 2003. p. 16..
Unfortunately, as already mentioned, at present there is no legal basis for the establishment and application of state minimum social standards, on the basis of which financial standards can be developed.
The merit of the new version of the law is the presence of a clearly defined mechanism for the financial equalization of municipalities. As a result, a flexible, but rather clear-cut scheme of financial equalization has been proposed, which will allow avoiding arbitrariness. It is based on the so-called indicator of budgetary security. It should be noted that the right choice has been made - at present, the only realistic approach to financial equalization can be based only on the indicator of budgetary provision, and not on social standards, which are not yet realizable. In addition, it is important that “the law provides for a two-stage alignment - between urban districts and districts, on the one hand, and between settlements within the district, on the other. This norm, however, will only work if the income sources between each of these levels are stably divided, which is a rather problematic point. ”Decision No. 5 of the XII Congress of Municipal Formations of the Russian Federation // www.mfit.obzor.ru. Do not forget that the use of this mechanism, as it is also called, the “negative transfer” mechanism, deprives the donor municipality of incentives to increase the tax base and worsens the investment climate, all this, in turn, does not contribute to the economic development of the territory and an increase in the population level.
The existence of a certain negative mechanism contributing to financial interference in the affairs of municipalities by the regional authorities is also questioned. So, in case of "excess of the volume of debts of the municipality over 30%, the institution of" temporary financial administration "is introduced. However, the regional authorities can provoke this debt artificially and constantly interfere in the affairs of the municipality "Materials of the Fund for the Development of Parliamentarism in Russia // www.legislature.ru.
In order to organize the interaction of local self-government bodies, to express and protect common interests, municipalities can create their own associations both in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (councils, unions, associations) and an all-Russian association. The law clearly defines the mechanism of inter-municipal cooperation. So, for example, in the Rostov region, there are 6 municipal associations, which in turn can be a favorable basis for active inter-municipal cooperation. The Azov region is a member of the South Association. However, inter-municipal cooperation is limited to the framework of municipal districts, which in turn leads to the limitation of inter-municipal cooperation within urban and rural settlements.
For the purpose of pooling financial resources, material and other resources, municipalities have the right to create: for the joint solution of issues of local importance - inter-municipal economic companies; for the joint exercise of some of their powers - non-profit organizations and foundations. These inter-municipal associations can be endowed with separate powers of local self-government bodies.
In general, from the point of view of financial and economic mechanisms, the law is ambiguous.
First, the law allows small steps to go towards the goal stipulated by the government's program for the development of fiscal federalism in Russia, including the formation of fiscal autonomy for municipalities. The new law should assign a large share of the established regulatory revenues to municipalities. But today, regulatory taxes can be changed every year by the budget law, which practically excludes financial stability. In addition, significant problems are created by the mechanism for establishing local taxes and fees enshrined in the law. Local self-government bodies do not have real independence in the introduction and establishment of local taxes and fees. For the purpose of equalization, the centralization of local taxes is allowed (Articles 57, 60, 61 of the Law). As a result, the authorities of municipalities cannot draw up long-term plans for the development of the territory, in conditions of constant instability in the revenue side of municipalities. This, first of all, hinders the autonomy of municipalities and their stable and full-fledged development.
Secondly, the merits of the law associated with the development of the system of budgetary federalism can be nullified in the course of its implementation. Implementation of measures to reduce unfunded federal mandates will be complicated by the fact that local governments gain the right to use own funds for the use of government powers. If subventions for the execution of certain state powers are not allocated, local governments will have to execute them up to judgment(Articles 19, 20). So far, practice shows that the transfer of state powers is often not secured by financial means.
Thirdly, interbudgetary relations prioritize the equalization of the budgetary provision of municipalities, and not only at the expense of state funds, but also at the expense of the budgets of municipal districts. However, there are no data for equalization (in particular, for calculating the tax potential of settlements) and will not appear in the near future. Negative transfers are introduced to remove “excess profits”, but the mechanisms for their implementation affect, including the municipalities' own revenues (local taxes, federal or regional taxes), which makes the system less transparent and creates disincentives for the economic development of municipalities.
Fourth, since the trend of financial equalization dominates the trend of fiscal autonomy, competition between municipalities for both investment and residents is constrained. In addition, the growth of population mobility and the growth of the mobility of the location of enterprises throughout the country are constrained. As a result, the implementation of the law will, to a certain extent, "mothball" the existing settlement system (the creation of a huge number of new jobs for local self-government workers in economically insolvent settlements, including in the centers of newly formed municipal districts, investments in the development of social infrastructure of new municipal districts, etc.). NS.). The economic potential of the leader cities will be used to sustain this ineffective settlement system.
Fifth, the redistribution of property is also assumed - not only between municipalities of different types, but in general between local self-government and the state. This redistribution of property will sharply limit the development opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses, at least during the transition period. In addition, even now there are significant disputes over the future division of property in the regions.
The interests of investors, including foreign ones, directly in municipalities will be affected. An increase in economic risk is possible due to centralization, a decrease in the investment attractiveness of the Russian Federation and individual municipalities.
Sixth, “the natural cooperation of municipalities in resolving issues of an inter-municipal nature (for example, the development of infrastructure) will be held back, since an inflexible system is assumed to rigidly assign these powers to certain territories (municipal districts)” Decision No. 5 of the XII Congress of Municipal Formations of the Russian Federation // www .mfit.obzor.ru.
Thus, in the course of the analysis of the law, obvious problems arise related to the financial and economic basis of local self-government. All of the above problems once again call into question the degree of autonomy and, as a consequence, the effectiveness of the exercise by local authorities of their powers in the absence of the necessary financial resources.
reforming self-government russia local
- How to get a Metro Cash & Carry card for an individual - getting a card and a list of documents Metro card registration
- An example of a settlement reconciliation statement
- How to withdraw money from YouTube (YouTube) and Google Adsense (Google Adsense) to a Sberbank card: A Complete Guide
- Active income: types and creation of sources