Бюджетная децентрализация в России

Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 22 Марта 2012 в 17:15, доклад

Краткое описание

Применительно к развивающимся странам оценки преимуществ децентрализации часто оказываются менее убедительными, чем аргументы в пользу бюджетной централизации. В соответствии с (1)[1], примерно до середины 90-х годов экономисты Всемирного Банка и Международного валютного фонда придерживались мнения, что для развивающихся стран самым важным является сильная, целенаправленная политика центрального правительства, субнациональным правительствам отводилась роль исполнителей стратегии Центра.

Содержимое работы - 1 файл

Чернявский - доклад.doc

— 291.00 Кб (Скачать файл)

1

 



 

Приложения.(Таблицы из материала Fiscal Design across Levels of Government. Framework and SurveyFindings) OECD Tax Policy Series, 2001, no 6)

Table 3.1              Profile of subnational revenues: Composition by revenue source.  Share of national government revenue and GDP, 1997-99

Country / Year

Composition of subnational revenues (%)

tax revenues

non-tax revenues

grants

 

1997

1998

1999

2001

1997

1998

1999

2001

1997

1998

1999

2001

Czech Republic 

 

54.9

55.6

47.7

 

26.4

26.8

36.3

 

18.7

17.5

16.0

 

Hungary 

 

28.1

30.6

33.0

 

18.1

18.0

17.0

 

53.7

51.3

50.0

 

Poland 

 

37.6

36.4

24.5

 

28.0

27.8

24.2

 

34.3

35.8

51.3

 

Estonia 

 

64.6

67.7

68.4

 

12.9

9.3

9.1

 

22.5

23.0

22.5

 

Latvia 

 

53.9

54.0

56.0

 

20.7

21.4

20.4

 

25.3

24.6

23.6

 

Lithuania 

 

65.7

74.1

91.0

 

4.7

4.0

4.8

 

29.6

21.8

4.1

 

Russian Federation 

 

 

69.7

615

 

 

3.6

 

 

 

26.7

34.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OECD. Unweighted average.

Unitary states (1)

 

43.4

-

-

 

21.7

-

-

 

38.3

-

-

 

Note (1)              Source: Revenue Statistics, 1965-1999, Paris 2000.


Table 3.3              Tax autonomy at the subnational government level:  degrees of control given as percentages out of all tax categories

Category

Subnational government taxes as % of total tax revenue

 

a

 

b

 

c

 

d.1

 

d.2

 

d.3

 

d.4

 

e

Czech Republic 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

10.8

2.2

6.0

-

-

-

91.8

-

-

1999

11.1

2.7

5.6

-

-

-

91.7

-

-

Hungary 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

8.9

 

43.5

-

-

-

-

-

56.0

1999

10.4

 

49.2

-

-

-

-

-

50.8

Poland 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

9.1

-

39.3

0.7

-

-

60.0

-

-

1999

8.3

-

41.9

0.6

-

-

57.6

-

-

Estonia 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

14.6

-

9.8

-

-

-

90.2

-

-

1999

16.2

-

9.2

-

-

-

90.8

-

-

Latvia 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

15.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100

1999

17.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100

Lithuania 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

1997

16.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100

1999

22.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100

Russin Federation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001

8.7

 

8.7

 

15.6

 

 

75.7

 

 

Table 3.4              Profile of grants to subnational governments (in %)

Country/ Year

Specific grants

General purpose grant

Total

Grants as proportion of total local revenue

Current

Objective criteria

Discretionary

Total

Conditional

Not conditional

Total

Without own tax effort

With

own tax effort

 

 

Standard costs

Actual

Costs

Czech Republic 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

12.8

41.2

46.0

100

 

 

 

 

100

18.7

1999

16.0

37.2

46.8

100

 

 

 

 

 

100

16.0

Hungary 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

95.0

1.7

0.6

97.3

 

0.6

2.1

3.7

100

53.7

1999

94.2

0.6

1.8

96.6

 

0.6

2.8

3.4

100

50.0

Poland 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

12.5

24.4

 

36.9

63.1

 

 

63.1

100

34.3

1999

14.3

25.1

 

39.4

60.6

 

 

60.6

100

51.3

Estonia 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

35.6

 

 

35.6

 

64.4

 

64.4

100

22.5

1999

40.2

 

 

40.2

 

59.8

 

59.8

100

22.5

Latvia 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

87.2

 

 

87.2

12.7

 

 

12.7

100

25.3

1999

90.0

 

 

90.0

10.0

 

 

10.0

100

23.6

Lithuania 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

57.0

4.6

 

61.6

38.4

 

 

38.4

100

29.6

1999

12.7

32.5

 

45.2

54.7

 

 

54.7

100

4.1

Russin Federation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

28.2

 

 

 

71.8

100

33.9

 

Table 3.5              Local government. Summary of profiles of current revenue, 1999

 

% of financing

 

Czech Republic 1)

Hungary 

Poland 

Estonia 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Russian

Federation

I  Own revenues:

    own taxes, category a - c

    non-tax revenue

40.2

(3.9)

(36.3)

33.3

(16.3)

(17.0)

35.2

(10.6)

(24.6)

15.4

(6.3)

(9.1)

20.4

(0.0)

(20.4)

4.8

(0)

(4.8)

12.9

II  Other free revenues:

    general grants

    tax sharing , category d – e

43.8

(-)

(43.8)

18.5

(1.7)

(16.8)

44.9

(30.5)

(14.4)

75.5

(13.4)

(62.1)

58.4

(2.4)

(56.0)

93.3

(2.3)

(91.0)

77.5

III  Tied revenues

    specific grants

16.0

(16.0)

48.2

(48.2)

19.9

(19.9)

9.1

(9.1)

21.2

(21.2)

1.9

(1.9)

9.6

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

 

Note 1: The proportion of non-tax revenue out of total revenue was extraordinarily high in 1999. For the figures on 1997-98, please refer to

Table 3.6              Current subnational expenditures by function, as a percentage of subnational government expenditure (A) and as a share of consolidated general government expenditure by expenditure issue (B)              (1999)

 

 

 

Czech Republic 

Hungary 

Poland 

Estonia 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Russian

Federation

(2001)

OECD-benchmark

- Denmark –

(1996)   1)

 

 

A

B

A

B

A

B

A

B

A

B

A

B

A

B

A

B

1

General public services

13.5

42.9

14.3

47.2

8.8

44.0

13.5

37.5

13.0

42.2

4.6

20.8

6.5

33.7

5.2

29.0

2

Defence

0.05

0.2

0.05

0.6

0.02

0.2

0.02

0.2

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Public order & safety

2.5

9.8

1.2

7.6

5.1

32.6

0.3

0.9

1.6

6.3

0.8

2.6

1.5

4.7

0.3

9.3

4

Education

10.0

18.1

32.6

66.2

33.9

71.2

40.8

49.2

49.5

73.2

56.3

68.0

28.0

57.5

16.2

52.3

5

Health

1.1

1.3

18.6

43.8

2.5

7.0

1.2

1.5

1.1

2.6

0.5

0.7

14.9

45.9

21.5

98.1

6

Social Security & Welfare

9.3

5.1

16.1

11.1

10.9

6.8

12.5

7.5

8.7

4.9

16.1

8.7

6.5

17.3

43.9

48.8

7

Housing & community amenities

31.7

79.1

8.6

*

22.8

88.5

10.4

97.7

10.4

80.1

7.9

100

24.6

62.8

0.7

22.0

8

Recreational, cultural & religious affairs

6.8

54.6

4.6

46.5

5.1

74.4

9.0

40.6

5.6

47.1

4.9

36.2

2.6

42.3

3.5

57.0

9

Fuel & energy

0.04

1.8

-

-

-

-

1.0

100

0.06

50.0

3.1

94.3

 

 

0

0.2

10

Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting

0.6

5.1

0.7

5.2

2.2

32.5

0.07

0.6

0.1

0.6

0.01

0.02

 

 

0.04

4.8

11

Mining, manufacturing & construction, except fuel & energy

0.2

9.3

0.07

12.7

0.6

28.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

6.7

16.2

0.1

12.9

12

Transportation & communication

17.7

43.7

1.2

12.2

7.1

64.0

5.5

18.4

4.5

23.0

3.4

15.4

2.2

14.7

4.6

48.0

13

Other economic affairs

0.6

3.5

1.0

10.6

0.3

18.0

1.7

39.4

0.2

4.2

0.04

1.8

 

 

2.7

35.5

14

Other functions

5.7

42.9

0.8

1.0

0.6

2.3

3.8

26.8

5.1

39.0

2.2

6.2

 

 

1.2

4.3

15

Total

100

18.3

100

23.7

100

27.6

100

19.7

100

23.1

100

19.6

 

 

100

43.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total current government expenditure.  Consolidated % of GDP

43.0

 

44.0

 

43.6

 

36.2

 

41.4

 

32.1

 

 

26.7

 

 

 

Total current subnational government expenditure. % of GDP

7.9

 

10.4

 

12.1

 

7.1

 

9.5

 

6.3

 

 

6.4

 

 

Информация о работе Бюджетная децентрализация в России