"Not only are Russia's regions economically diverse, but the policies that regional governments have adopted to deal with the strains of economic transition also vary widely. Some regions have generally embraced market reforms, while others have sought to preserve enclaves of socialism, with price restrictions, large subsidies, and barriers to trade." Reforms of Russia's budgetary system at the subnational level are vital to preserve macroeconomic stability, improve the efficiency and accountability of government, and enhance incentives for local and regional governments to vigorously support economic growth. Previous analytical and reform efforts have focused on possible changes at the federal level and in the system of center-region relations. An opportunity now exists to make progress by providing reform advice and conditional aid to policymakers at the regional and subregional level. This report focuses on opportunities for reform at the subnational level. It reviews recent trends in fiscal adjustment, budgeting, and government debt at the regional and local levels in Russia. It analyzes major problems and suggests a number of measures and performance indicators that could form part of a reform strategy initiated by the Government of Russia.
Most previous fiscal reforms in Russia have focused on problems at the federal level or in the system of federal transfers to the regional governments. This report focuses instead on opportunities for reform at the subnational level. It reviews recent trends in fiscal adjustment, budgeting, and government debt at the regional and local levels in Russia. It analyzes major problems and suggests a number of measures and performance indicators that could form part of a reform strategy initiated by the Government of Russia.Key directions for subnational fiscal reform include the following.Clarification of Subnational Government Functions. Subnational governments need to complete the clarification of responsibilities between public and private sectors as well as between regional and municipal government levels. Both of these have direct implications for fiscal performance of subnational governments.Developing a Regulatory Framework. Subnational governments need to adopt regional and local laws and regulations that are consistent with federal laws and enhance the transparency, predictability, and accountability of the budget process. Laws and regulations should clarify responsibilities within regional and local governments and legislatures for budget preparation, approval, implementation, and control.Budget Consolidation. Major forms of off-budget activities (especially extrabudgetary funds, tax exemptions, budget guarantees, and noncash government operations) need to be reduced in scope and integrated within the regular budget.Budget Preparation and Expenditure Management. Necessary reforms cover several key areas: (i) reorganization of budget classification system; (ii) introduction of expenditure accounting on the commitment basis; (iii) establishing a treasury system of budget execution; (iv) expansion of competitive tendering for public procurement; (v) introduction of new budgeting principles in key sectors (such as education and health); (vi) improvements in budget preparation to reduce the need for budget sequestration; (vii) strengthening the budget audit function; and (viii) adoption of standards for budget disclosure.
WBI Learning Resources discuss issues in economic development policy and lessons from experience in a way that can be understood by non-specialists. This is the first in a series that will look at governance and decentralisation and looks at the implications of federalism on the growth of Russia's economy. In particular it looks at the impact of fiscal decentralisation as the way intergovernmental finances are resolved influences the transition and macroeconomic stability.
Abstract: April 1999 - Considering the positive impact decentralization has had on regional economic performance and expenditure structure, Russia's federal government should: Decisively protect local self-governance and budget autonomy; Make intergovernmental fiscal relations more transparent; Develop universal models of interactions between regional and municipal governments; Impose stricter limits on total debt and budget deficits of subnational governments. To shed light on decentralization in Russia, Freinkman and Yossifov examine intergovernmental fiscal relations within regions. To analyze trends, they review channels of fiscal allocation within regions-tax sharing and local transfer schemes. To evaluate the potential impact of various fiscal decentralization patterns on regional economic performance (including growth and the budget deficit), they study data on the structure of 89 Russian consolidated regional budgets for 1992-96. They find that local governments' relative share of Russia's consolidated budget, although substantive (roughly a quarter of the total budget), did not expand after 1994. The federal government's relative role in financing public goods and services declined as the relative role of local governments increased substantially. Local governments collected more revenues in 1996 (6.4 percent of GDP) and spent more than regional governments. They also substantially increased social financing (including health, education, and social protection). Russia made no progress toward a more transparent system for tax assignments. The average level of expenditure decentralization is similar for ethnically Russian regions and national republics and okrugs but revenue arrangements differ greatly. True decentralization has taken place in oblasts and krais, where local authorities are provided with a bigger share of subnational tax revenues. A redistribution model applies in republics and autonomous okrugs, where greater local outlays have been financed through larger transfers from regional governments. Regions near each other tend to have similar budget arrangements-the result of intensive interactions between neighbors and probably supported by the activities of regional associations. The size of a region's territory does not influence decentralization outcomes. Fiscal decentralization seems positively related to the share of education spending in regional budgets. And regions with more decentralized finances tend to experience less economic decline. But budget control is weaker in more decentralized regions. Instability and lack of transparency in intergovernmental fiscal relations provide subnational governments little incentive for responsible fiscal policy. Further decentralization without greater transparency could bring greater debt and deficits. This paper-a product of the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region - is part of a larger effort in the unit to study fiscal decentralization in transition economies. Lev Freinkman may be contacted at [email protected].
This Technical Assistance paper on the Russian Federation provides a summary of the changes to Russia’s fiscal transparency practices since 2014 and makes recommendations for further improvements. Russia has made important progress in enhancing the coverage and detail of fiscal reporting since 2014, but assurances of the quality and integrity of fiscal reporting remain incomplete. Reforms to the statistical treatment of taxes and nonfinancial assets have improved the comparability of budgets, statistics, and accounts but transparent reconciliations between the three are still not provided. It is imperative to make Rosstat fully independent of government and produce and publish metadata explaining in an accessible way how the main fiscal indicators or datasets are compiled. The ministry of finance has initiated an annual assessment of the quality of loans and will begin writing-down the value of doubtful debts from 2020. Separate detailed reconciliations of changes to revenue and expenditure are included in the documentation accompanying the annual budget.
This paper discusses key findings of the pilot Fiscal Transparency Evaluation for the Russian Federation. Most aspects of Russia’s fiscal reporting and budgeting practices are in line with good or advanced practice under the July 2013 draft of the Fiscal Transparency Code. The disclosure and management of fiscal risks has significantly improved in recent years. The evaluation highlights a number of important areas where fiscal transparency practices could be further improved. Addressing these gaps in fiscal transparency practices would enable the government to provide a more complete picture of its fiscal position, prospects, and risks.
This report documents the current levels and patterns of public investment in Russia, analyzes the institutional arrangements in place for investment budgeting, and develops short- and medium-term recommendations where policy or institutional strengthening is required for improving the efficiency of investment expenditures. The analysis of public investment is based primarily on the federal government though some issues of subnational investment budgeting are also touched upon In any case, many of the issues and recommendations at the federal level are likely to have relevance for subnational investment budgeting also. While the Government is embarked upon overall budgetary reforms, the special characteristics of multi-year investment programs require special attention in the face of evidence of inefficiencies in the use of public funds for investment purposes, improvements in their efficiency--both in terms of their allocation across sectors and activities, and in terms of their cost-effectiveness--are clearly important. It is also clear that many gains would come from the strengthening of the institutional arrangements for investment budgeting--in the areas of budget preparation, implementation, and ex post evaluation and accountability.
The exposition is based on an analytical framework covering all ?building blocks? of fiscal federalism: size and structure of jurisdictions, expenditures, revenues, transfers, and borrowing. The application of this framework to Russian settings results in a comprehensive assessment of the state of intergovernmental fiscal relations in Russia.
