voprecotestВопросы экономикиVoprosy Ekonomiki0042-8736Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP10.32609/0042-8736-2021-11-89-107voprecotest-3189Research ArticleБЮДЖЕТНО-НАЛОГОВАЯ ПОЛИТИКАFISCAL POLICYБюджетная децентрализация в России и мире: тенденции и эффектыFiscal decentralization in Russia and the world: trends and effectshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5220-3841ТимушевЕ. Н.TimushevE. N.

Тимушев Евгений Николаевич, научный сотрудник лаборатории финансово-экономических проблем 

SPIN-код: 2445-0220

Сыктывкар

Evgeny N. Timushev

Syktyvkar

evgeny_timushev@mail.ruИнститут социально-экономических и энергетических проблем Севера ФИЦ Коми научный центр Уральского отделения РАНРоссияInstitute of Socio-economic and Energy Problems of the North of the Komi Science Centre, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Federation20210211202101189107Copyright © Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP, 20212021Voprosy Ekonomiki, NPVoprosy Ekonomiki, NPhttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/about/submissions#copyrightNoticehttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/article/view/3189

В работе оценены состояние федеральной и внутрирегиональной бюджетной децентрализации в России на фоне других стран и ее эффекты (последствия). Предложено классифицировать показатели децентрализации, широко применяемые в научных исследованиях, как показатели консолидированного параметра и параметра одного уровня (фискальной автономии). Показатель вертикальной несбалансированности не входит в эти группы и рассматривается отдельно. Несмотря на усиление бюджетной децентрализации в мире, федеральная бюджетная децентрализация (размер бюджетных полномочий органов власти регионов) в России не увеличивается и отстает от большинства других федераций. Однако состояние внутрирегиональной децентрализации (размер полномочий органов местной власти во внутрирегиональных межбюджетных отношениях) намного хуже, поскольку в 2008—2018 гг. местные полномочия существенно сократились, а внутрирегиональная доходная децентрализация минимальная по сравнению с другими федерациями. Это может указывать на недостаточное использование потенциала бюджетной децентрализации для обеспечения эффективности бюджетной системы. Снижение внутрирегиональной децентрализации мог вызывать рост долга субъектов РФ, однако вопрос о факторах ее динамики по-прежнему открытый. Подтверждены благоприятное влияние значимых бюджетных полномочий регионов и муниципалитетов на развитие бизнеса и наличие предела положительного влияния децентрализации на макропоказатели.

The paper identifies the state of federal and local fiscal decentralization in Russia and its effects. Original classification of decentralization indicators by a consolidated parameter indicator and a single-level parameter indicator (fiscal autonomy) is proposed. The indicator of vertical imbalance is allocated to a separate group. Despite the upward trend of fiscal decentralization in the world, Russian federal fiscal decentralization (the size of fiscal powers of regional authorities) has not increased and lags most other federations. However, the state of local decentralization (the size of fiscal powers of local authorities) is much worse, since for 2008-2018 there was a significant reduction and local revenue decentralization is minimal compared to other federations. The results obtained may indicate that fiscal decentralization could not contribute to the efficiency of the Russian budgetary system. The decrease in local decentralization may have been caused by the growth of the regional debt, but the question of why there was a decrease remains open. Favorable role of significant local fiscal powers on business and alleged existence of a threshold in decentralization-macroindicators relationship are also confirmed.

бюджетная децентрализациявнутрирегиональная бюджетная децентрализациявертикальная несбалансированностьфедеративные государствадолг регионовintraregional fiscal decentralizationconsolidated parameter indicatorsingle-level parameter indicatorvertical imbalancefederal statesregional debtoptimal fiscal decentralizationReferencesДерюгин А. Н., Алексеев М. В., Мамедов А. А., Фомина Е. Г. (2017). Влияние основных характеристик межбюджетных отношений на показатели экономического развития субъектов Российской Федерации. М.: РАНХиГС.Deryugin A. N. Alekseev M. V., Mamedov A. A., Fomina E. G. (2017). Influence of the main characteristics of intergovernmental relations on the indicators of economic development in the subjects of the Russian Federation. Moscow: RANEPA. (In Russian).Adam A., Delis M. D., Kammas P. (2014). Fiscal decentralization and public sector efficiency: Evidence from OECD countries. Economics of Governance, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 17—49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-013-0131-4Adam A., Delis M. D., Kammas P. (2014). Fiscal decentralization and public sector efficiency: Evidence from OECD countries. Economics of Governance, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 17—49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-013-0131-4Aldasoro I., Seiferling M. (2014). Vertical fiscal imbalances and the accumulation of government debt. IMF Working Papers, No. 14/209. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484357552.001Aldasoro I., Seiferling M. (2014). Vertical fiscal imbalances and the accumulation of government debt. IMF Working Papers, No. 14/209. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484357552.001Canaleta C. G., Arzoz P. P., Gárate M. R. (2004). Regional economic disparities and decentralization. Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 71—94. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000155696Canaleta C. G., Arzoz P. P., Gárate M. R. (2004). Regional economic disparities and decentralization. Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 71—94. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000155696de Mello L. (2011). Does fiscal decentralisation strengthen social capital? Cross-country evidence and the experiences of Brazil and Indonesia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 281—296. https://doi.org/10.1068/c10102rde Mello L. (2011). Does fiscal decentralisation strengthen social capital? Cross-country evidence and the experiences of Brazil and Indonesia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 281—296. https://doi.org/10.1068/c10102rEzcurra R., Pascual P. (2008). Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: Evidence from several European Union countries. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 1185—1201. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39195Ezcurra R., Pascual P. (2008). Fiscal decentralization and regional disparities: Evidence from several European Union countries. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 1185—1201. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39195Fiva J. H. (2006). New evidence on the effect of fiscal decentralization on the size and composition of government spending. FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 250—280. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522106X120659Fiva J. H. (2006). New evidence on the effect of fiscal decentralization on the size and composition of government spending. FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 250—280. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522106X120659Gemmell N., Kneller R., Sanz I. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: Spending versus revenue decentralization. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 1915—1931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00508.xGemmell N., Kneller R., Sanz I. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: Spending versus revenue decentralization. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 1915—1931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00508.xHarguindéguy J. B. P., Cole A., Pasquier R. (2021). The variety of decentralization indexes: A review of the literature. Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 185—208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2019.1566126Harguindéguy J. B. P., Cole A., Pasquier R. (2021). The variety of decentralization indexes: A review of the literature. Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 185—208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2019.1566126Hooghe L. et al. (2016). Measuring regional authority: A postfunctionalist theory of Governance, Vol. I. Oxford University Press.Hooghe L. et al. (2016). Measuring regional authority: A postfunctionalist theory of Governance, Vol. I. Oxford University Press.Jin J., Zou H. F. (2002). How does fiscal decentralization affect aggregate, national, and subnational government size? Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 270—293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-1190(02)00004-9Jin J., Zou H. F. (2002). How does fiscal decentralization affect aggregate, national, and subnational government size? Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 270—293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-1190(02)00004-9Ligthart J. E., van Oudheusden P. (2017). The fiscal decentralisation and economic growth nexus revisited. Fiscal Studies, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 141—171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12099Ligthart J. E., van Oudheusden P. (2017). The fiscal decentralisation and economic growth nexus revisited. Fiscal Studies, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 141—171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12099Liu L., Tan K. S. (2009). Subnational credit ratings: A comparative review. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers, No. 5013. https://doi.org/doi:10.1596/18139450-5013Liu L., Tan K. S. (2009). Subnational credit ratings: A comparative review. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers, No. 5013. https://doi.org/doi:10.1596/18139450-5013Martinez-Vazquez J., Lago-Peсas S., Sacchi A. (2017). The impact of fiscal decentralization: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 1095—1129. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12182Martinez-Vazquez J., Lago-Peсas S., Sacchi A. (2017). The impact of fiscal decentralization: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 1095—1129. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12182Oates W. E. (2006). On the theory and practice of fiscal decentralization. IFIR Working Paper, No. 2006-05.Oates W. E. (2006). On the theory and practice of fiscal decentralization. IFIR Working Paper, No. 2006-05.Rodríguez-Pose A., Ezcurra R. (2011). Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries. Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 619—643. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq025Rodríguez-Pose A., Ezcurra R. (2011). Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries. Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 619—643. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq025Schild C. J., Wrede M. (2015). Cultural identity, mobility and decentralization. Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 323—333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2014.05.002Schild C. J., Wrede M. (2015). Cultural identity, mobility and decentralization. Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 323—333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2014.05.002Stegarescu D. (2005). Public sector decentralisation: Measurement concepts and recent international trends. Fiscal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 301—333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2005.00014.xStegarescu D. (2005). Public sector decentralisation: Measurement concepts and recent international trends. Fiscal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 301—333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2005.00014.xThornton J. (2007). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth reconsidered. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 64—70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.06.001Thornton J. (2007). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth reconsidered. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 64—70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.06.001Tiebout C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp. 416—424.Tiebout C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp. 416—424.Yushkov A. (2015). Fiscal decentralization and regional economic growth: Theory, empirics, and the Russian experience. Russian Journal of Economics, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 404—418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruje.2016.02.004Yushkov A. (2015). Fiscal decentralization and regional economic growth: Theory, empirics, and the Russian experience. Russian Journal of Economics, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 404—418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruje.2016.02.004

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.