Interbudgetary relations- these are relations between state authorities, authorities of subjects and local governments on the regulation of budgetary legal relations, the differentiation of income and expenses and the implementation of the budget process.

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

Principles:

1. distribution and fixing of budget expenditures for certain levels of the budget system

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

3. equality of budgetary rights of subjects of the Russian Federation or municipalities

4. equalization of the levels of minimum budgetary provision

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

32. Assessments of the financial position and quality of financial management of the subject of the Russian Federation and municipalities

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

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

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

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

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

2. management

The quality of financial management at the level of a municipality or at the level of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is assessed depending on the stability and value of own income separately for tax and non-tax sources over a number of years. At the same time, the trend towards increasing sources is a good sign of financial management. In addition, the quality of financial management is determined through the share of enterprises of municipal and regional subordination that operate at a loss.

Through the value of extra-budgetary funds for social purposes, formed on the territory of the municipality, the subject. A positive trend is an increase in the value of funds.

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

"Interbudgetary relations, their development and improvement" is one of the most important and topical topics today.

The theme of the thesis is relevant because the relationship of budgetary federalism is one of the most dynamically developing areas.

The interconnections of the links of the budgetary system are realized through the mechanism of interbudgetary relations, which in federal states should be based on the principles of budgetary federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, firstly, all subjects of the Federation are equal in financial relations with the center, although the forms of these relationships may differ by agreement. Secondly, the spheres of activity and responsibility between the center and the subjects of the Federation, the spheres of financing expenditures at the expense of budgets of one level or another are delimited. Thirdly, the budget of each level has independent sources of financing, and the authority has the right to independently make decisions on the directions for the use of these funds.

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

At present, it is practically impossible to present a single document of the federal, regional and municipal levels related to socio-economic development without mentioning or referring to the topic of interbudgetary relations.

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

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

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

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

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

An obligatory element of this paragraph of the thesis is the formulation of the object and subject of research.

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

The subject of the study is interbudgetary relations.

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

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

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

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

2. On the basis of a theoretical analysis of the study of the problem, to systematize knowledge about the current state of interbudgetary relations in Russia.

3. Consider interbudgetary relations on the example of the administrative municipality of the rural settlement of Varzuga, Tersky district, Murmansk region.

4. To systematize and generalize the scientific approaches to this problem existing in the special literature.

5. Offer your own vision on this problem and find ways to resolve it.

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

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

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

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

The structure of the thesis is expressed in its content.

The following structure is defined for the disclosure of the set topic: the work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and an appendix. The title of the chapters reflects their content.

1. DEVELOPMENT OF INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

1.1. The concept and principles of the implementation of federal
and intergovernmental relations.

Interbudgetary relations - financial relations between state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments regarding the redistribution between the levels of the budget system of revenue sources, spending powers and amounts of financial assistance to balance the budget system.

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

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

Various subjects of interbudgetary relations interact in the budgetary system of the Russian Federation.

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

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

The totality of the components interacting in the process of exercising the powers enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation forms a system of budgetary federalism.

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

Federal budget and budgets of state off-budget funds;

Budgets of subjects of the Russian Federation (regional budgets) and budgets of territorial state non-budgetary funds;

local budgets;

Budgets of settlements (territories, regions).

All budgets included in the budget system of the country are interconnected within the framework of interbudgetary relations, which are currently the main problem not only in the relationship of the federal center with the subjects of the federation, but also between the subjects of the federation and their municipalities.

The model of fiscal federalism includes 3 components:

The spending powers of the levels of government are delimited;

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

Vertical and horizontal budget equalization using the mechanism of interbudgetary relations.

In the world there are states with different types of federal structure. Each type has its own model of fiscal federalism.

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

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

The main share of budget revenues of each level is accounted for by taxes. The types of taxes levied, their rates, amounts of fees are distributed by levels in such a way as to optimally meet the needs of the country and citizens, while avoiding an excessive tax burden. The structure and size of all incomes and expenses have evolved over decades. They are determined by economic and political goals, which are formed by the country's leadership on the basis of developed concepts of national interests.

The system of interbudgetary relations that has developed in the United States is not ideal, it works with tension and is subject to criticism. But in general, it performs its tasks satisfactorily.

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

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

In the Chinese model, taxes are collected by regional authorities, the center determines (partially by formulas, but mostly by agreement) how much to leave to whom. Tasks are being brought to transfer tax payments to the central budget. No one really interferes in the affairs of the provinces that are coping with the task, in fact they are given to the regional authorities. The viceroys who failed to cope with the tax "rent" are removed from their posts, even expelled from the Communist Party.

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

At the same time, the processes of universal alignment of the socio-economic conditions of the population's life activity play an important role in this model.

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

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

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

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

Federal budgetary systems are built on directly opposite foundations. They are characterized by a high degree of independence of territorial budgets and observance of the unity of national interests.

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

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

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

Equality of budgetary rights of subjects of the Russian Federation, equality of budgetary rights of municipalities;

Aligning the levels of the minimum budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities;

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

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

The list of instruments of interbudgetary relations includes the delimitation of revenue sources, expenditure commitments and financing, as well as the provision of financial assistance. It is important to note that the distribution (splitting) of regulatory revenues remains the most “voluminous” area of ​​interbudgetary relations.

One of the directions of interbudgetary relations is the transfer of expenditures and revenues from one level of the budget system to another. The Budget Code of the Russian Federation establishes that certain types of expenditures can be transferred from the federal budget to the budgets of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation by including the relevant norms (regulations) in the federal law on the federal budget while simultaneously amending the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. Similarly, the issues of transferring expenses from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to local budgets are resolved.

Taking into account the theoretical aspects of interbudgetary relations, in our opinion, they can be defined as a set of interactions between state authorities of the Russian Federation, with state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government regarding the differentiation and consolidation of budgetary powers, observance of the rights, duties and responsibilities of the authorities in the field of compilation, approval and execution of budgets that ensure that the relevant authorities and administrations carry out an effective distributive and redistributive economic policy.

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

1.2.Interbudgetary relations and interbudgetary transfers.

The main functions of interbudgetary relations are:

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

Stimulation of building up tax potential, timely and complete collection of payments to the budget in the jurisdictional territory, as well as their rational and efficient spending.

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

The principle of budgetary federalism (the responsibility of the regions for ensuring revenues to the federal budget to solve common problems and the responsibility of the center for the implementation of its powers on the ground) is carried out through the development and implementation of a policy of income and expenditure, as well as on the basis of interbudgetary transfers.

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

A number of subjects of the Federation (Perm Region, Arkhangelsk Region, etc.) were not monosubjects and included autonomous entities. In the Perm region there was the Komi-Permyatsky district, in the Arkhangelsk region - the Nenets district. These districts had independent budgets. But in connection with the creation of the Perm Territory from the beginning of 2006, the district was abolished. The issue of the status of the Arkhangelsk Oblast and the Nenets Okrug was resolved similarly. Rich in developed mineral deposits, such districts (including the Taimyr and Evenk national autonomous districts that were part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, as well as the Khanty-Mansiysk and Yamalo-Nenets national autonomous districts that are still part of the Tyumen region) turned out to form the basis of the revenue base the entire region or region. In such cases, there are situations when the district, by agreement with the region, directs financial flows "upward". So it was in 2008 and early 2009, when the Nenets Okrug, under the main and additional agreements with the regional administration, sent 650 and 700 million rubles to the regional budget. respectively in two tranches.

Such facts (the desire to liquidate national-autonomous formations and form a single budget of a region or territory) testify to the conceptual immaturity of the Russian model of budgetary federalism. In the current budgetary legislative acts, these questions do not have an adequate answer.

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

Since historical, climatic and other factors, such as the location of production, are at work, it was and remains natural that there are conditions that predetermine a significant and, at the same time, objectively determined differentiation in the production of GDP per capita by regions of the country. In 2009, the gross regional product per capita ranged from 17,000 to 500,000 rubles. in year . For this reason, there is an objective need to equalize the provision of regions with funds for their socio-economic development.

In Russian practice, interbudgetary transfers are carried out mainly vertically (i.e., from top to bottom), in connection with which the federal budget annually provides for the allocation of funds to the constituent entities of the Federation under the section of the functional structure of budget expenditures "Interbudgetary transfers". Until 2004 inclusive, this section was called "Interbudgetary relations", and in the budget classification - "Financial assistance to budgets of other levels". In the new edition of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the concept of "interbudgetary relations" is replaced by the concept of "interbudgetary transfers". In this regard, intergovernmental loans are excluded from this section, since they are provided on a repayable basis, i.e. are not transfers. This more accurately reflects the essence of the relationship between the center and the regions. In fact, the concept of "transfers" emphasizes not the fact of the most diverse relations between the center and the regions, but the fact of financial flows "from top to bottom." There can be no relations between budgets (these are just financial plans), financial relations can be between federal, subfederal and municipal authorities.

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

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

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

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

1. Subjects of the Federation are an equal party of relations, including budgetary ones, with the Federation. Unlike unitary states, the Federation does not have an administrative subordination of regional authorities to central ones: both are endowed with power directly by the population and therefore, within the framework of their competence, independently perform the functions assigned to them.

2. Subjects of the Federation are equal in relation to each other. This implies the use of uniform principles and mechanisms for delimiting the subjects of jurisdiction and powers in the tax and budgetary sphere. It is inadmissible both to grant benefits and privileges on an individual basis to individual subjects of the Federation, and to discriminate against certain regions. This does not mean that certain exceptions cannot be made, but all of them must be based on the observance of criteria, conditions and procedures common to all regions.

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

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

Budget loans from the federal budget are provided to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Federation only if they do not have overdue debts on loans previously received from the federal budget. If during two of the last three years subsidies and budget loans from the federal budget exceed 50% of the own income of the subjects of the Federation, then the authorities of the subjects of the Federation are obliged to conclude an agreement with the Ministry of Finance of Russia that they will take measures to increase the efficiency of budget spending, as well as measures to improve the administration of taxes and fees. For highly subsidized regions, the condition for receiving transfers from the federal budget is the transfer of these regions to cash services by the Federal Treasury.

The principal scheme of interbudgetary transfers is presented in Table 3 (See Appendix).

The most acute problem of interbudgetary relations is the justified allocation of federal budget funds to all regions that have a yield below the minimum budgetary security. Financing within the framework of the minimum budgetary security is carried out within the framework of the standards for the provision of these services. Such flows of funds go to all regions with incomes below the minimum budgetary security.

Regardless of their profitability, all regions, including regions that have excess income compared to subsidized regions, receive funding from the federal budget to pay for the so-called federal mandates. For example, in whatever region a citizen who was exposed to radiation during the Chernobyl disaster lives, this citizen will receive funds from the federal budget in this or that region in his name.

Forms of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation and directions of their development. State support of the territories is currently carried out in various forms. Intergovernmental transfers from the federal budget are provided in the form of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, the formation of uniform principles for building interbudgetary relations in the subjects of the Russian Federation in the presence of regionalization of methodological approaches to the provision of financial assistance to municipalities from the budgets of the subjects of the Federation.

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

Now the issue of "soft" budget constraints is being raised, as well as issues related to the effect of subsidies on the balance of lower budgets, their influence on the behavior of subnational authorities. At the same time, it is emphasized that, on the one hand, this type of financial assistance has a number of properties that discourage the quality and independence of managing subnational finances, and, on the other hand, it is becoming increasingly important in the structure of interbudgetary transfers.

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

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

2. CURRENT STATE OF INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS IN RUSSIA.

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

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

Nevertheless, the analysis of socio-economic indicators in the current year shows that the uneven development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation continues to persist, and the ongoing policy of interbudgetary relations does not adequately reduce differentiation in the socio-economic development of regions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donor regions do not receive assistance from this fund.

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

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

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

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

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

2.2. Interbudgetary relations: optimization of financial assistance flows.

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, a number of measures were taken to stimulate the subjects of the Russian Federation and municipalities to improve the quality of public finance management. Over the past four years, the list of participants in the competition for the title of a region adhering to the best practice in financial management has been expanded. In addition, ten municipalities are included in the membership. The participants with the highest scores were awarded financial incentives.

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

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

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

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

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

According to the current legislation, subsidies are provided from the federal budget to those regions whose level of budgetary security, that is, the level of budget revenues per capita, is below the average for Russia. Taking into account the significant differentiation of the economic potentials of the subjects of the Russian Federation, which arose as a result of differences in the existing structure of the economy, the number of residents and other various objective and subjective reasons, it is impossible, in my opinion, to achieve the same level of income per capita. Therefore, the topic of equalizing budgetary security through the provision of subsidies from the federal budget will remain relevant for a long time. It does not at all follow from this that it is not necessary to create conditions for the subjects of the Russian Federation to earn their own funds. The task of annually reducing the level of dependence of regional budgets on the aid of the federal center is also not removed by anyone. It must be set and solved by developing the economic potential of the regions.

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

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

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

The Budget Code of the Russian Federation prohibits making decisions on the transfer of any powers from one level of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation to another without adequate financial resources. Recently, some regional leaders and heads of municipalities have applied to the federal authorities with a request to be allowed to exercise a number of powers assigned to the federal level of government. Such permissions were given, while it is written in the laws that a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipality "has the right" to exercise such and such an authority. But “right” is not a duty. Permission assumes that the appropriate level of government has its own means for the exercise of this authority.

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

State fees for the performance of notarial acts by officials of local self-government bodies of settlements and urban districts (previously credited to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation);

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

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

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

Of course, in many respects the success of the local self-government reform depends on the completeness of financial support for the powers of local self-government bodies to resolve issues of local importance. In this regard, the relevance of analyzing the execution of local budgets is obvious.

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

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

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

For the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the implementation of the plan for own revenues of local budgets has developed as follows:

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

Over 50% - in 3 subjects of the Russian Federation;

Below 20.9% - in 39 subjects of the Russian Federation.

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

The issue of strengthening the revenue base, and, above all, the tax base of local self-government, remains very topical. Tax revenues of local budgets in 2009 were executed in the amount of 579.5 billion rubles. with an overfulfillment of the original plan by 24.2%, or 62.5 billion rubles.

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

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

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

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

In 2009, the revenues to local budgets of personal income tax in the order of execution by the subjects of the Russian Federation are estimated at 90.1 billion rubles.

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

The positive properties of this tax as an instrument of interbudgetary regulation (the tax base is more evenly distributed compared to other taxes, immobility, accuracy in calculating revenues) make it preferable for securing local budgets on an ongoing basis.

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

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

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

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

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

The additional assignment of deduction rates to local budgets led to changes (compared to 2008) in the structure of tax revenues of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Along with tax revenues, a significant increase in non-tax revenues of local budgets should be noted, the receipts of which, unlike taxes and fees, largely depend on the efficiency of local self-government bodies. Actual receipts of non-tax revenues in 2009 amounted to 239.7 billion rubles, which is higher than in 2008. by 39.4%, or by 67.7 billion rubles.

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

2.4. Prospects for the development of interbudgetary relations.

Prospects for the development of interbudgetary relations in the near future will be determined by the Concept for the Development of Interbudgetary Relations and Improving the Quality of Management of the Budgetary Process in the Subjects of the Russian Federation and Municipalities. Before proceeding to a direct consideration of the directions for developing interbudgetary relations and improving the quality of budgetary process management, it is necessary to dwell on the prerequisites for the formation of policy in this area for the near future.

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

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

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

In the budgets of several dozen constituent entities of the Russian Federation, a serious share is occupied by a tax on income from minerals. During January - April, there was a decrease in income from this source by 18%, but in May there was some growth. Unfortunately, a significant decrease is observed in non-tax revenues, which in some subjects of the Russian Federation and municipalities are the main source of income. Perhaps the reason for this was the drop in profits of unitary enterprises, as well as the reduction in rental rates, which were carried out as part of anti-crisis measures to support entrepreneurs.

In January-April, we observed that the levels of budget expenditures remained unchanged and even grew somewhat, which was ensured by the availability of balances of budget funds at the beginning of the year. However, in May there was a decrease in the budget expenditures of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which, obviously, is associated with the exhaustion of the possibility of using these balances. First of all, investment expenses are reduced (by almost 50% in May).

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

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

Turning directly to the concept of developing interbudgetary relations, let us single out a few points concerning anti-crisis measures. The most significant is that the project provides for the mandatory formation of reserve funds in those constituent entities of the Russian Federation whose budgets depend on individual export-oriented sectors of the economy or on large taxpayers. In subsequent years, these regions will be required to create such funds. The whole practice of our work shows that in difficult periods we optimize our expenses, and in good times we forget that expenses should always be optimal - and we begin to spend all available funds. Therefore, we consider it right that the regions that are dependent on extractive industries and exports and experience the greatest decline during crises should create appropriate reserves. These subjects of the Federation during the period of economic recovery have significantly more income than subjects with an economic structure focused on meeting demand in the domestic market. After all, it is not by chance that in many subjects of the Russian Federation capital expenditures accounted for up to 50% of all budget expenditures. So, there was the possibility of creating such reserves.

The second significant point is related to the strengthening of the mechanisms of centralized financial administration in cases of crisis situations in the economy of individual subjects of the Federation. If in some subjects, during the course of budget execution, there will be a serious drop in revenues (the level of 30% has been determined so far), then the federal government will conclude agreements with them on the specifics of the execution of their budgets for the period until the recovery of revenues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. INTERBUDGETARY RELATIONS ON THE EXAMPLE
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE MUNICIPALITY OF THE RURAL SETTLEMENT OF VARZUGA IN THE TERSK DISTRICT
MURMANSK REGION.

3.1. General characteristics of the settlement of Varzuga, Tersky district
Murmansk region.

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

The municipal formation of the rural settlement of Varzuga is endowed with the status of a rural settlement with the administrative center of the village of Varzuga by the Law of the Murmansk Region dated 08.12.2004 No. 545-01-ZMO “On the status, names and composition of the territories of the municipal formation of the Tersky district and the municipalities included in its composition”.

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

Once Varzuga was the largest village on the Kola Peninsula. One of the first mentions of it is contained in a letter of 1466, when Timofey Yermolinich, a native of Varzu, transferred to the Solovetsky Monastery his lands in the Varzuga River and along the seashore - traps and forests.

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

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

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

In 1568, the villages of the North-Western White Sea region were subjected to an oprichnina pogrom committed by the detachment of Basarga Leontiev, Varzuga also did not stand aside. This event went down in history as "Basargin pravozh" (pravozh - the collection of debts or taxes through torment). Reports about the right have not been preserved, but the results and consequences of this atrocity are clearly visible in the inventory of the village, carried out in May 1575. Seven years after Basargin Pravezh, in Varzuga there were 79 empty yards and 33 places overgrown with weeds, on which peasant houses stood before the pogrom; no one used 11 salmon ton, and the Assumption and St. Nicholas churches "stood without singing."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Municipal property is recognized and protected by the state along with other forms of ownership.

The rural settlement of Varzuga owns property intended for:

1) to resolve issues of local importance;

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

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

The property of the rural settlement of Varzuga may include:

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

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

The rural settlement owns property intended for solving local issues:

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

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

3) housing fund for social use to provide poor citizens living in a rural settlement and in need of better housing conditions with living quarters on the terms of a social tenancy agreement, as well as property necessary for the maintenance of municipal housing stock;

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

5) property intended for the prevention and liquidation of the consequences of emergency situations within the boundaries of the settlement;

6) objects, as well as fire equipment and gear, designed to provide primary fire extinguishing measures;

7) property of the libraries of the settlement;

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

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

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

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

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

13) property, including land plots intended for the organization of ritual services and the maintenance of burial places;

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

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

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

17) forests located within the boundaries of settlements;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2. The municipal budget of the village and state subsidies during the crisis.

The budget revenues of the rural settlement Varzuga are formed at the expense of their own revenues and deductions from federal and regional regulatory taxes and fees, other incomes, gratuitously and irrevocably received in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the Murmansk region, decisions of the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement at the disposal of local governments .

The income of the budget of a rural settlement includes:

1) local taxes and fees;

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

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

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

5) other means of financial assistance from budgets of other levels for equity financing of investment programs and projects for the development of public infrastructure of a rural settlement;

6) part of the profits of municipal enterprises remaining after paying taxes and fees and making other mandatory payments, in the amount established by the decision of the Council of Deputies of the rural settlement, and part of the income from the provision of paid services by local governments and municipal institutions, remaining after paying taxes and fees;

7) fines, the establishment of which, in accordance with federal law, falls within the competence of local governments;

8) income from property owned by the municipality;

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

10) means of self-taxation of citizens;

11) voluntary donations;

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

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

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

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

The size and terms of remuneration of municipal employees, employees of municipal enterprises and institutions are established by a resolution of the head of a rural settlement.

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

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

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

The composition of the territory of the joint venture Varzuga

With. Varzuga (administrative center of the settlement),

n.p. Lighthouse Nikodimsky,

With. Kuzomen,

With. Kashkarans,

With. Tetrino,

With. Chavanga,

With. hoop,

With. Chapoma

The population of the rural settlement is 0.9 thousand people.

Industry and transport SPK RK "Vskhody kommunizma" (agricultural industrial cooperative fishing collective farm), SPK RK "Chapoma", RK "Belomorsky fisherman".

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

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

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

In the late 2000s, the collective farm decided to expand the scope of amateur fishing and rented 12 lakes throughout the Tersky coast. Permits for fishing are distributed mainly among residents of the Murmansk region; the most popular winter ice fishing.

The collective farm is also engaged in animal husbandry and processing of agricultural products. Butter and sausage are produced in the village. In addition, he carries out housing construction in the village, in his department there are two kindergartens, two secondary schools.

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

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

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

At the same time, the smallest shares are subventions from the budget of the SMR for the implementation of part of the powers to dispose of land plots, less than 3 hectares - 0.33%, income from the lease of property that is in the operational management of state authorities, local governments and institutions created by them and in the economic management of MUP - 0.28%.

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

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

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

Reforming interbudgetary relations in the next 3-4 years will go in the direction defined in the "Concept for Improving the Efficiency of Interbudgetary Relations and the Quality of Management of State and Municipal Finances in the Russian Federation in 2009-2011." and the budget message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of March 9, 2007, although not as quickly and effectively as we would like.

This Concept defines the following main tasks:

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

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

4) increasing the transparency of regional and municipal finances;

5) providing methodological and consulting assistance to the subjects of the Federation in order to improve the efficiency and quality of management of regional and municipal finances, as well as to implement the reform of local self-government.

The Budget Message defines the following main tasks for 2009-2011:

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

Ensuring long-term balance of budgets at all levels

Further lengthening of the budget planning horizon.

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

Summarizing the work, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Interbudgetary relations are relations between state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments associated with the formation and execution of the relevant budgets.

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

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

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

2) enlargement of regions on a mutually beneficial, economically expedient basis;

3) creation of a clear regulatory and legal framework that objectively assesses the efforts of regions in need aimed at increasing their socio-economic base;

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

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

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

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

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

- the delimitation of revenue sources between the levels of the budget system is unstable. The possibility of annual changes in the rates of deductions from federal taxes discourages regional and local authorities from developing the economic and tax base of the territories.

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

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

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

Determination of the list of own powers of authorities;

Introduction of subventions for the delegation of state powers;

Long-term fixing of revenues for the budgets of all levels;

Using the principle of objectivity when equalizing the budgetary provision of regions and municipalities; introduction of "negative transfers";

Establishment of the institution of temporary financial administration.

The main instruments of interbudgetary regulation include:

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

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

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

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

At the same time, the reform of interbudgetary relations at this stage considers such fundamental blocks of the system of interbudgetary relations as the delimitation of expenditures and incomes between the levels of the budgetary system, the extension of the reform to the level of the constituent entities of the Federation (the relationship between regional and local authorities), the development of the legal framework of the budgetary process at regional and local levels.

The main reason for the chronic crisis of interbudgetary relations and regional finances in Russia is a sharp disproportion between the financial resources transferred to the subnational level and the responsibility for their use. The official (legal) system of interbudgetary relations remains excessively centralized even by the standards of unitary states; the deliberate impracticability (irrationality) of its requirements allows subnational authorities to shift the main political and financial responsibility to the federal center, while retaining almost unlimited shadow powers. The lack of legal authority to manage public finances means that there is no legal responsibility for its results, which results in decision-making based on the principle of political expediency and inefficient management of public finances.

The amendments to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, adopted in 2007, have completed securing income on a long-term basis for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities. Along with the incentives laid down in the methods of equalizing the budgetary provision of the regions, this has become one of the factors for the steady growth of tax and non-tax revenues of the consolidated budgets of the Russian Federation.

On the whole, the mechanism of delegating the execution of federal powers to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the financial support of which is carried out at the expense of subventions from the federal budget, also justifies itself.

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

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

The public authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation far from always comply with the principles of financial relations with municipalities established by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, including the assignment to local budgets on a long-term basis of tax deductions to be credited to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The traditions of "centralized regulation" of revenues and expenditures of local budgets are being overcome with difficulty.

The ongoing reform of local self-government is one of the most dramatic in recent times. Nevertheless, there are still a number of serious problems to be solved in the direction of improving interbudgetary relations and improving the quality and efficiency of managing regional and municipal finances.

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

Budget Code of the Russian Federation

Law of the Murmansk region "On the status, names and composition of the territories of the municipality Tersky district and the municipalities included in it"

The concept of improving the efficiency of interbudgetary relations and the quality of public and municipal finance management in the Russian Federation in 2009-2011.

Aleksandrov I.M. The budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / I.M. Alexandrov. - M.: Dashkov i K, 2008.

Babich A.M., Pavlova L.N. State and municipal finance. Moscow: UNITI Finance, 2007.

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

Berlin S.I. Theory of Finance: Proc. allowance / S.I. Berlin. - M.: Finance and statistics, 2007.

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

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

The budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / O.V. Vrublevskaya [and others]; ed. O.V. Vrublevskaya, M.V. Romanovsky. - M.: Yurayt-Izdat, 2008.

The budget system of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook. allowance / V.Yu. Nalivaisky, N.K. Dvoretskova, V.F. Kostyuchenko [i dr.]. - Rostov n / D .: RGEA, 2008.

Vakhrin P.I., Neshitoy A.S. The budget system of the Russian Federation: Textbook / P.I. Vakhrin, A.S. Unsewn. - 3rd ed., Rev. and additional - M .: Publishing and Trade Corporation "Dashkov and Co", 2007.

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

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

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

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

Godin A.M. The budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / A.M. Godin, N.S. Maksimova, I.V. Podporin. - M.: Dashkov i K, 2008.

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

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

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

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

Igudin A.G. Why the sharpness of contradictions in interbudgetary relations does not decrease [Text] / A.G. Igudin // Finance. - 2008. - No. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siluanov A.G. Interbudgetary Relations: Directions for Improvement [Text] / A.G. Siluanov // Finance. - 2008. - No. 6.

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

Somoev R.G. Budget deficit: principles, dynamics, regulation [Text] / R.G. Somoev. - St. Petersburg: SPbGUEF, 2009.

Federal budget and regions: the experience of analyzing financial flows [Text] / Mosk. center in-ta "East-West". - M.: Dialogue-MGU, 2009.

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

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

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

Finance. Money turnover. Credit. Ed. Drobozina A. A. and others. M: Finance, UNITI, 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX

Rice. 1. Budget regulation

Table 1. The volume of financial assistance to the budgets of the subjects of the Federation from the federal budget in 2002-2009

Table 2. Intergovernmental transfers versus income
and expenses of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation in 2008-2009, billion rubles.

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

Table 3. Perceptions of intergovernmental transfers

Mandatory payments of subjects of the Federation to the budget of the Russian Federation (taxes and fees)	All regions make mandatory payments to the budget
Part of the income, including our own, goes to the budgets of the subjects of the Federation	All regions receive income in accordance with the accepted procedure for securing income
All subjects of the Federation within the framework of interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget receive funds in accordance with federal legislation, if the federal center is obliged to finance the corresponding expenses	All regions, within the framework of federal obligations and in accordance with budgetary powers in terms of financing the socio-economic development of regions, are entitled to count on subsidies and subventions from the funds formed for financing under the "interbudgetary transfers" section, with the exception of the Regional Financial Support Fund (FFSR)
Some regions receive funds from the federal budget as part of interbudgetary transfers in case they are not enough to cover budget expenditures at the regulatory level - the limits established by law	Financing is carried out at the expense of the FFSR

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

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

Without subventions from compensation funds.

Table 5. Tax revenues of municipalities in 2009

Types of income

urban districts

Municipal areas

Settlements

Total

% execution

performance

% execution

% execution

Tax revenues, total

of them:

Land tax

Fig. 3. The structure of the administration of the municipality of the rural settlement of Varzuga, Tersky district

Table 6. The budget of the Varzuga settlement of the Murmansk region in 2009

Source of income	Amount, thousand rubles	Share, %
Personal Income Tax
Personal property tax
Land tax
Rent for state-owned land until the delimitation of state ownership of land and proceeds from the sale of the right to conclude lease agreements for these land plots
Income from the lease of property that is in the operational management of state authorities, local governments and institutions created by them and under the economic jurisdiction of the municipal unitary enterprise
Other income from the provision of paid services and compensation of state expenses (Employment)
Subsidies for equalizing the level of budgetary security from the regional FFPP
Subsidies to equalize the level of budgetary security from the FFPP SMR
Subventions from the regional budget for the implementation of part of the powers for primary military registration
Subventions from the budget of the SMR for the implementation of part of the powers to dispose of land plots, less than 3 hectares
Income from the sale of services

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

The budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / O.V. Vrublevskaya [and others]; ed. O.V. Vrublevskaya, M.V. Romanovsky. - M.: Yurayt-Izdat, 2008. S. 54.

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

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

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

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

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

Seleznev A.Z. The budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook. allowance / A.Z. Seleznev; ed. prof. V.Yu. Katasonova. - M.: Master, 2007. S. 151.

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

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

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

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

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

Godin A.M. The budget system of the Russian Federation [Text]: textbook / A.M. Godin, N.S. Maksimova, I.V. Podporin. - M.: Dashkov i K, 2008. S. 194.

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

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

Vakhrin P.I., Neshitoy A.S. The budget system of the Russian Federation: Textbook / P.I. Vakhrin, A.S. Unsewn. - 3rd ed., Rev. and additional - M .: Publishing and Trade Corporation "Dashkov and Co", 2007.

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

Vyshegorodtsev M.M. Budget management [Text]: a course of lectures / M.M. Vyshegorodtsev. - M.: Business and service, 2007. S. 92.

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

Siluanov A.G. Interbudgetary Relations: Directions for Improvement [Text] / A.G. Siluanov // Finance. - 2008. - No. 6. S. 37.

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

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

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

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

Babich A.M., Pavlova L.N. State and municipal finance. Moscow: UNITI Finance, 2007.

The budget system of Russia [Text]: textbook / edited by G.B. Pole. - M.: Finance and statistics, 2009. S. 107.

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

The problem of interbudgetary relations has always been one of the most discussed and studied economic problems. Perhaps that is why there is no single conceptual approach to its solution in either economic or legal literature.

This justified the need to refer to the legal framework and scientific literature in order to understand the role of interbudgetary relations in the socio-economic development of the country. But first it is necessary to define the concept, existing models and instruments for regulating interbudgetary relations.

The concept of interbudgetary relations and the principles of their organization

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

According to Article 6 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, interbudgetary relations are defined as "mutual relations between public legal entities on the issues of regulating budgetary legal relations, organizing and implementing the budgetary process." Budget Code of the Russian Federation No. 145-FZ dated July 31, 1998 (as amended on December 25, 2012) (as amended and supplemented, effective from January 1, 2013). Art. 6.

There are many interpretations of the concept of "interbudgetary relations" in the scientific literature. Some authors believe that "interbudgetary relations are relations between state authorities at the federal, regional levels and local governments regarding the budget structure, the implementation of budgetary federalism, including the distribution and redistribution of income and expenditure between budgets." Gorbunova O.N., Selyukov A.D., Drugova Yu.V. Budget law of Russia. Tutorial. - M.: TK Velby, 2002, p. 72 However, this definition limits the competence and practical powers of the authorities.

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

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

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

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

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

Summarizing the above, it is possible to define the system of interbudgetary relations as a subsystem of budgetary relations, including a set of interconnected financial relations between budgets of different levels regarding the differentiation of expenditures and incomes in order to horizontally equalize the incomes of budgets of the same level.

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

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

However, in addition to those mentioned, it is necessary to identify the following principles:

• - a combination of interests of all subjects of interbudgetary relations;
• - equality of rights in inter-budgetary relations of the subjects with the federal center and municipalities with the authorities of the subjects;
• - Mutual responsibility of authorities at different levels for compliance with obligations on interbudgetary relations;
• - transparency (clarity, transparency) and openness of interbudgetary relations, simplicity of calculations.

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

The concept of interbudgetary relations is the basis for developing approaches to the delimitation of revenue and expenditure powers between the federal, subfederal and local levels of government; determining the criteria and methods for providing financial assistance to the subjects of the budget system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

COURSE WORK

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

Introduction

fiscal federalism of the world

The theme of my course work is called "World experience in the development of interbudgetary relations and its use in the Russian Federation." I chose this topic because the place of the state in the world determines its economic condition and financial security, and all this depends on the budget policy and the policy of budgetary relations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to emphasize that thanks to the analysis, I have further consolidated the knowledge I gained in the course of mastering the discipline “Budgetary structure of the Russian Federation”.

1 . Theory of formation and development of interbudgetary relations

1.1 The concept and essence of interbudgetary relationsotions and fiscal federalism

Interbudgetary relations are relations between public authorities at different levels,

The term "interbudgetary relations" began to be applied in practice during the development of market relations. Then it began to be used in legislative acts, replacing the previously used term “budgetary relations”.

This term was also introduced into the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. In Article 129 of the Code, interbudgetary relations are characterized as "relations between state authorities of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments." In subsequent articles, the views of interbudgetary relationships are installed and opened, and only then do we talk about certain forms of financial support from one budget to another and the criteria for its provision. A whole chapter (Chapter 16) was devoted to all these issues in the Code, which was called “Interbudgetary Relations”.

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

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

Fiscal federalism is understood as a form of organization of interbudgetary relations in a federal state. By virtue of this, in the Russian financial system it is considered an adequate form of implementation of interbudgetary relations. The Russian system of budgetary federalism includes the following components:

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

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

A block of interbudgetary transfers (funds from one budget of the budget system of the Russian Federation transferred to another budget of the budget system of the Russian Federation);

Block of mutual settlements;

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

An unusual subsystem of interbudgetary relationships is made up of ties within the constituent entities of the Federation. Here, interbudgetary flows circulate from the budget of the subject of the Federation (republican, regional, regional, district) to local budgets. This bloc, being included in a single system of interbudgetary relations, legally falls out of the relationship of budgetary federalism, since local authorities are in no way considered subjects of federal relations, and local governments in the Russian Federation, in accordance with its Constitution, do not enter into the system of state authorities. That is, there is a certain, well-formulated and adjusted system.

One of the central issues of budgetary federalism is budget equalization. Separate vertical and horizontal alignment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Group 2: Nordic countries - Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden, characterized by a particularly high share of participation of non-central authorities in the financing of social spending;

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

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

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

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

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

For decentralized models, the priority of federal tax and budget legislation over regional legislation is distinctive, as if it guarantees the implementation of the national interests of the state. In states with a decentralized system of power, the removal of acute horizontal disproportions of regions is performed by providing targeted funding to the categories of the population that need it.

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

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

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

The ideological origins of American federalism were formulated at the time by A. Hamilton, J. Madison and J. Jay. They considered the federal state as a complex whole, based on a two-level structure and mutual non-interference in the sphere of authority of both the federal center and the subject of the federation. In the United States in 1787, a federal form of government was established, based on the extremely rigid delimitation of jurisdiction between Washington and the states of the country. This model of budgetary federalism was used by them as a doctrine of state building in the development of the US Constitution. In the 30s of the 20th century, it was critically reassessed by J. Clark, T. Dye (Dye, 1990), E. Coruin, the founders of the theory of “dual federalism”, who based it on contractual relations between the subjects of the country. In this model, there was no moment of hierarchy. The capital of the state and its regions were interpreted by them as equal centers of power. This model assumed a voluntary union of sovereign political communities,

Later, the theory of "dualistic federalism" was transformed into the theory of "cooperative federalism (cooperative federalism)". Within the framework of the model of "cooperative federalism", the power of the federal center of the United States extended to all spheres of government authorities, including those within the competence of the states. The main emphasis was placed on the interaction of the branches of government, which explains the term "cooperativeness". The regions included in the unified system of power participated in the implementation of the national policy, endowing themselves with the functions that the subnational level of government is most effectively able to perform. In the 1970s-1980s. in the United States, new concepts of federalism were formed: the theory of "competitive federalism", the theory of "technocratic federalism", the theory of "federal society", the theory of "new federalism".

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

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

In its modern form, the US tax system, which serves as an inventory of the formation of market relations, is rather difficult and heterogeneous. According to the law, not only the federal government, but also the governments of the states and lands, as well as district authorities in towns, counties, districts, etc., have the right to establish personal taxes.

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

The federal bodies have fixed expenses of a national nature (for military purposes and international affairs; for economic assistance to any sectors of the economy and sections of the state economy; for the maintenance of the federal municipal apparatus; for the management of the federal municipal debt, etc.). The share of state and local authorities accounts for a significant share of public expenditures related to the financing of social affairs of the district economy and the administrative apparatus. Here, federal taxes are uniform and obligatory for the entire population of the state, while local taxes differ geographically.

Tax revenues are considered the main source of the profitable share of budgets. Direct taxes dominate in federal budget revenues, indirect taxes dominate in state revenues, and direct property taxes dominate in district government revenues.

The South American model of budgetary federalism is characterized by the highest degree of fiscal independence of subnational governments, both in terms of spending budgetary funds and in the formation of a profitable share of their budgets. The construction of the profitable share of the budget of any of the values ​​has important differences:

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

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

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

Progressive nature of taxation;

Discreteness of tax deductions - each higher rate is applicable only to a strictly defined part of the taxable amount;

Regular changes in the legislative order of tax rates;

Universality of taxation - if the amounts of income are equal, the same tax rates apply;

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

Isolation from tax deductions to social security funds;

A fixed minimum level of individual income that is not subject to taxation.

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

Municipalities in the United States have varying levels of access to local tax revenue, as they require state approval. Sources of income for local budgets are: real estate tax, sales tax, various fees and other types of receipts.

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

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

As a rule, profitable shares of all levels of budgets, including the budgets of subjects of the federation and local budgets, are replenished only to a small extent through monetary support or loans from higher budgets. Interbudgetary adjustment in the United States is used by the federal center as a "medicine" for the implementation of its regional political activities, providing economic assistance to the states on the basis of a program-targeted approach. The model of interbudgetary transfers is dominated by two types of targeted grants.

The first type provides "block grants" designed to finance a fairly wide range of expenditure items, while setting limits on the reassignment of funds between these items. They are allocated for health care, social security, payment for other expenditure groups. The second type is "categorical grants" (categorical grants), in which funds are allocated in order to pay for individual spending programs.

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

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

Cooperative model of budgetary federalism in Germany

H. Siebert, who defined cooperative federalism in Germany as negotiation federalism, when all parties each time gather and agree, including on the division of revenue sources and expenditure obligations, noted its following significant drawback - a compromise in negotiations between the center and regions is always achieved through infringement of the interests of future generations who do not take part in these negotiations (Siebert, 2005).

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

Germany's three-tier budget system includes the federal budget, special government funds, the budgets of 16 states (including 3 cities), and the budgets of about 10,000 communities. The Constitution of the country fixes the presence of two meanings of state power - the federation and the lands (members of the federation). The communities are considered to be a share of the land, in connection with which the self-government of the communities moves is limited. The prevailing principle of the German system of interbudgetary relations is the supply of one standard of living for the population of the entire country. The fundamental principle of the federal structure of Germany should consider the principle of subsidiarity in the distribution of areas of responsibility between federations and states. The Constitution emphasizes that the exercise of municipal power is considered the occupation of land.

Since 1977, an outstanding role in the formation of budget revenues has been played by tax policy, based on the principles laid down by L. Erhard: tax payments must be as minimal as possible; the amount of taxes must be consistent with the amount of services provided by the state; tax payments should in no way burden competitiveness; tax payments must be consistent with structural political activity; tax payments are required to ensure fairness in the distribution of income profits among the population; the tax system is obliged to exclude double taxation of tax payments; taxation must provide for the need to levy a tax.

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

German taxes are divided into single (distributed among the budgets of all levels), federal, state, regional and duties (one of the sources of formation of the EU budgets).

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

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

The main types of earnings in Germany are progressive income tax on the finances of individuals, corporate income tax, VAT, trade tax, property tax, land tax, excises.

In the event of a lack of revenue to cover the expenses of the territory, since 1969, additional federal transfers have been received - transfers that do not have a targeted nature, which budget recipients can freely dispose of.

A feature of the German budget system is the presence of a difficult mechanism for vertical and horizontal alignment, enshrined in the Constitution of the country: the main vertical alignment apparatus is the location of VAT revenues between the federal and the total budget of the lands; for horizontal equalization, first of all, single taxes directed to the budgets of the lands are used. VAT is divided as follows: 75% (out of 44% of land in income) is distributed taking into account the number of population, that is, per capita, and 25% - depending on the financial potential of the land, this part goes to the fund for subsidizing the poor . In addition, 2% of income from the share of VAT received by the federal budget is used in the form of additional subsidies to lands with a low level of tax income.

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

The financial relationship between the federation and the communities is insignificant - the communities receive the necessary assistance mainly from the budgets of the lands. If their own income after financial equalization is not enough, the communities are entitled to receive general grants and targeted subsidies. General subsidies act as compensation for the lack of tax revenue. Targeted subsidies have a strictly defined purpose: a significant part of them goes to finance capital investments; grants to cover the difference between income and expenditure indicators (the amount of financial assistance is determined on the basis of the difference in the size of own revenues and expenditures of lower budgets or on the basis of determining the standard levels of expenditures of lower budgets, regardless of the tax potential of a given territory). The system of budgetary federalism in Germany, as well as the methods and techniques of budget equalization, are in constant reform and improvement.

On January 1, 2005, the Budget Equalization Act came into force in Germany. It is based on the principle of providing assistance to contributions to land, on attracting investments in land, and this law also formulates a new approach, according to which land is allocated that has the right to purchase subsidies and land that is obliged to pay them. Implementing this approach in Germany, they proceed from a comparison of the monetary potential of the lands, taking into account the specifics of each individual territory and its inherent features. The obligation to provide subsidies, as well as the right to acquire them, depends on how much the potential of a particular land differs from the average value for all lands. Interest rates on the amounts specialized for the implementation of equalization payments and interest rates for land recipients are set in such a way that the amounts of payments and subsidies are similar (Baltina et al., 2007).

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

The commensurability of the historical experiment of Germany and Russia, the general views on the organization of interbudgetary relations, the degree of decentralization of budgetary systems, the reason for the “institutional legacy”, allow us to consider the German model of cooperative federalism as more promising in matters of reforming interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation. But very different mechanisms for regulating interbudgetary relations, the presence of important disproportions between the subjects of the federations in incomes and expenditures per capita in no way allow the concrete implementation of the German model of cooperative federalism in the Russian Federation - it must be adapted to the specifics of Russian conditions.

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

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

2.1 Analysis of the dynamics of changes in the structure of the MBT in the consolidatedbudget of the Czech Republic for 2010-2 014 years

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

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

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

To date, the budget of the Chechen Republic remains the most highly subsidized in Russia. The only competitive in foreign markets is oil production, which provides 98.6% of the total industrial output. But projects to return the status of one of the strongest industrial regions of the country to the Chechen Republic are being created and should bear fruit in the near future.

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

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

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

In order to analyze the consolidated budget of the republic, it is necessary to consider the growth dynamics of tax and non-tax revenues in the period from 2010 to 2014. These data are shown in Figure No. 1

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

Rice. 1. Growth dynamics of revenues of the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic

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

Let's analyze the dynamics of expenditures of the consolidated budget of the Czech Republic, for this, Figure 2 shows a graph that shows the dynamics of increasing expenditures.

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

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

It should be emphasized that, compared with 2010, the costs decreased by almost 5%.

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

We will reveal each aspect where the funds were directed:

Education - 25.5%

Culture, cinematography - 3.7%

Healthcare 15.7%

Social policy - 15.7%

Physical culture and sports - 2.2% 25.2% of the total amount of transfers was allocated to solve general economic problems. Issues of a state nature and others received 12% of the consolidated budget.

In general, the dynamics of changes in the structure of interbudgetary transfers of the consolidated budget of the Chechen Republic has a positive character. Funds are allocated in accordance with the regulation of the law of the Chechen Republic dated July 14, 2008 No. 39-RZ "On the budget structure, budgetary process and interbudgetary relations in the Chechen Republic."

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

petrochemical complex;

Agro-industrial complex;

Energy complex;

Building complex;

Machine-building complex;

Hotel and health complex.

It is on this path that the Chechen Republic is going, and it will certainly bear fruit. The Government of the Republic is trying in every possible way to bring the budget component of the Chechen Republic to a competitive level. Large-scale projects of resort, industrial, energy, machine-building and other complexes are being implemented. Most of the projects are financed by investments from abroad, but there is hope that in the near future all projects will be financed by the republican budget.

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

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

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

Speaking about the program itself, it is worth highlighting 3 main areas in which funding was provided:

from the federal budget - about 7.95 billion rubles;

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

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

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

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

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

For this, data on the republican budget in the period from 2010 to 2014 are given, in the form of a table in Figure No. 3.

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

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

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

After analyzing the dynamics of interbudgetary transfers, it should be noted that in 2014 there are relatively low rates.

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

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

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

3 . Improving interbudgetary relations inRF

3 .1 Features of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation

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

Russia is the biggest country in the world. It consists, in accordance with the Constitution, of 85 subjects, including the recently annexed Republic of Crimea and the third, along with Moscow and St. Petersburg, the federal city of Sevastopol. Russia belongs to asymmetric federations. Article No. 5 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states that all subjects of the Russian Federation are equal among themselves. The principle of equality here does not in any way eliminate the differences in the degree of compliance of these rights with the historical, socio-economic and political conditions that have really developed in budget policy, because they are necessary conditions for the functioning and development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The Constitution of the Russian Federation delimits the subjects that are under the jurisdiction of the state authorities, as well as the powers between the state authorities of the Russian Federation and its subjects, including in the field of the budget. The asymmetry of the federation does not mean that it completely departs from the principles of federalism.

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

The Budget Code of the Russian Federation identifies the following principles of interbudgetary relations, which can be confidently attributed to the principles of budgetary federalism:

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

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

Equality of budgetary rights of subjects of the Russian Federation, municipalities;

Aligning the levels of the minimum budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities;

Equality of all budgets of the Russian Federation in relations with the federal budget, local budgets in relations with the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

It is especially necessary to single out the principle of equality in the relationship between the budgets of the subjects of the Russian Federation and the federal budget, since it is precisely this principle that implies the establishment of uniform norms and rules for all subjects of the Russian Federation for deductions to their budgets from federal taxes and fees and a single procedure for paying federal taxes and fees. Agreements between the Russian Federation and a constituent entity of the Russian Federation containing norms that violate the uniform procedure for relations between the federal budget and the budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and other provisions established by the RF Budget Code, the federal law on the federal budget for the next financial year, are invalid and are not subject to execution.

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

Subsidies to equalize the level of the minimum budgetary security of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

Similar Documents

The main directions of reforming interbudgetary relations as the basis of budgetary reform. Interbudgetary Relations: Theoretical Approaches. Organization of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation, improvement of their system in the medium term.

test, added 08/20/2011


The federal structure of the state as the basis of budgetary federalism. Delimitation of expenditure obligations between the levels of the budget system. Fundamentals of interbudgetary relations. Improving the system of interbudgetary relations. The mechanism of budget equalization.

thesis, added 01/13/2011


Fundamentals of the organization of interbudgetary relations in a federal state. Normative regulation of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation. Research of interbudgetary transfers and practice of interbudgetary relations on the example of the Novosibirsk region.

test, added 07/15/2011


The concept of interbudgetary relations and their role in the socio-economic processes of the country. Goals and objectives of the organization of the system of interbudgetary relations, the prerequisites for their reform and ways to improve. Basic mechanisms and principles of interbudgetary relations.

test, added 01/15/2011


The concept and signs of interbudgetary relations. Features of the organization of interbudgetary relations in Russia. Operations with interbudgetary transfers provided from the federal budget. Prospects for improving the system of interbudgetary relations in Russia.

term paper, added 08/13/2012


Essence and principles of interbudgetary relations. Socio-economic aspects of interbudgetary relations in the course of their historical development in Russia. Mechanism of relationship between the federal and regional budgets in the Russian Federation in 2010–2012.

term paper, added 12/07/2013


Scientific-theoretical and practical foundations for the development of interbudgetary relations. Study of the actual state of the budget system of Ukraine. Directions for improving interbudgetary relations, which will make it possible to improve the use of funds.

test, added 09/12/2011


Theoretical foundations for the formation and development of intergovernmental relations of the state: the economic situation, the process of formation, problems, foreign experience. Analysis of interbudgetary relations in the Republic of Kazakhstan and legislation on budget planning.

thesis, added 06/29/2011


Socio-economic essence of the budget and its functions. Principles of the budget device. Distribution of expenses and incomes between the links of the budget system and types of budgets. Improvement of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation, development of budgetary federalism.

presentation, added 03/28/2015


The essence and internal structure of the budget system, the main elements and features of their interaction. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this system, the principles and stages of its formation, economic management. Proposals for the development of interbudgetary relations in the Russian Federation.

Introduction

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

financial resources budget system

Interbudgetary Relations: Concept, Principles, Goals, Models, Forms, Methods, Tools

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

Interbudgetary relations are based on the principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

centralized, decentralized and cooperative.

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages: weakening the effectiveness of the activities of the central authorities as a result of their congestion; weakening of financial support and development of the financial base of the territories; dependency moods among local authorities, confident that in any situation the budget of the territory will be balanced.

The decentralized model is based on the principles:

• 1. Non-intervention of the central government in the budgetary process of municipalities and regions;
• 2. A clear legislative delimitation of spending powers between different levels of government;
• 3. Purposefulness of development of the financial autonomy of local self-government;
• 4. Distribution of income sources on the basis of budgetary agreements;
• 5. Independence from the form of government.

A decentralized model of interbudgetary relations is typical for economically developed countries with a federal state system, which provides for the expansion of the budgetary rights of regional and local authorities and governments, which contributes to an increase in the share of local budgets in the total mass of public spending.

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

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

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

The methods of implementing interbudgetary relations are understood as the ways in which these relations influence the socio-economic situation in the region through their own, fixed and regulating incomes, transfers, withdrawals of funds and lending. There are functional, delegating and balance methods.

The centralized model of interbudgetary relations in terms of revenue provision is characterized by methods of transferring and regulating incomes, while the decentralized model is characterized by methods of own and fixed incomes.

In terms of delimitation of spending powers - with a centralized model, they use a delegating method of distributing responsibility for the provision of public services; The decentralized model is based on a functional method, which provides for a specific delineation of competence and spending powers between all levels of government, but it allows the introduction of delegation of some spending powers, which ensures the flexibility of the mechanism of interbudgetary relations.

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

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

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

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

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