Advertisement

Budget Planning in Leading Russian Regions

  • Evelina Peshina
  • Natalia Istomina
  • José L. Niño-Amézquita
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Modern economic literature often raises questions about the state and problems of budget planning in certain regions of the Russian Federation, the introduction of new nationwide innovations into the budget planning of regions, and the update of budget legislation. It is worth studying the specifics of budget planning in certain groups of subjects of the Russian Federation, primarily in the regions-leaders and regions-outsiders in the context of the duality of budget planning in a federal state. The article presents the results of the analysis of the budget planning system in the regions-leaders and regions-outsiders of Russia in terms of social and economic development of the territories. It is proved that socioeconomic leadership of the region, first of all, affects the volume of inter-budgetary transfers from the federal budget in the form of subsidies. Subsidies from the federal budget can be received by a regions-leader on a smaller spectrum of directions than the regions-outsider, but with a certain interest of the federal center in the accelerated development of the regions-leaders, the situation can be the opposite. It is described that the leadership of the region in the economic space of the Russian Federation also influences the system of budget planning in terms of assessing the volume of tax revenues to the regional budget.

References

  1. Axelrod D (1989) Jesse Burkhead: an appreciation. Public Budg Financ 9(2):3–10.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5850.00814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayvazya S, Afanasyev M (2016) The size of innovation space as a factor of innovation activity in regions. Montenegrin J Econ 12(2):7–27.  https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845.2016/12-2/11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belousova L, Kritskaya O (2016) Industry-specific factor under the conditions of the Russian economy recession. Econ Ann-XXI 157(3–4):35–37.  https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V157-0010 Google Scholar
  4. Chvátalová I (2016) Social policy in the European Union. Czech J Soc Sci Bus Econ 5(1):37–41.  https://doi.org/10.24984/cjssbe.2016.5.1.4 Google Scholar
  5. Ermacov N, Mikesell J (2016) Fiscal disparity and equalization in the Russian Federation. Post-Communist Econ 28(1):1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2015.1084726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grossman G (1960) Soviet statistics of physical output of industrial commodities; their compilation and quality. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 151 рGoogle Scholar
  7. Jiroudková A, Rovná LA, Strielkowski W, Šlosarčík I (2015) EU accession, transition and further integration for the countries of central and eastern Europe. Econ Soc 8(2):11–25.  https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2015/8-2/1 Google Scholar
  8. Khan A, Hildreth BW (eds) (2002) Budget theory in the public sector, 1st edn. Quorum Books, Westport. 297 рGoogle Scholar
  9. LeLoup LT (1988) From microbudgeting to macrobudgeting: evolution in theory and practice. In: Rubin IS (ed) New directions in budget theory. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, pp 19–42Google Scholar
  10. Levin SN, Sablin KS (2016) Entrepreneurs as a subject of in modern Russian economy development: general characteristics and “resource type” regions specificity. J Inst Stud 8(2):76–86.  https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2016.8.2.076-086 Google Scholar
  11. Levin SN, Kagan ES, Sablin KS (2015) “Resource type” regions in modern Russian economy. J Inst Stud 7(3):92–101.  https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2015.7.3.092-101 Google Scholar
  12. Lukasiewich I, Fedotova M (2016) Analysis of the innovation potential of Russian regions. Proceeding of the 9th international conference European Entrepreneurship Forum 2015: efficiency in the private and the public sector (Prague, Czech Republic), pp 110–117Google Scholar
  13. Moyseyenko I, Ryvak N (2016) Indirect taxes in the mechanism of state regulation. Int Econ Lett 5(2):63–71.  https://doi.org/10.24984/iel.2016.5.2.4 Google Scholar
  14. Nawrot K (2014) Capabilities of leapfrogging and catching up of a developing country – policy implications from theory and practice. Int Econ Lett 3(4):115–123.  https://doi.org/10.24984/iel.2015.3.4.1 Google Scholar
  15. Nikitin AS (2016) Investment rating as an incentive tool for efficiency promotion in development governance of the Russian regions. Ekonomicheskaya Politika 11(6):192–221Google Scholar
  16. Niño-Amézquita J, Dubrovsky V, Jankurová A (2017) Innovations and competitiveness in regional development: a comparison of Latin America, Europe, and China. Czech J Soc Sci Bus Econ 6(1):28–36.  https://doi.org/10.24984/cjssbe.2017.6.1.4 Google Scholar
  17. Nuree RM, Simakovsky SA (2017) Comparative analysis of innovation activity of Russian regions. Terra Economicus 15(1):130–147Google Scholar
  18. Odin N, Savulkin L, Yushkov A (2016) Fiscal federalism in Russia through the lens of government programs implementation. Ekonomicheskaya Politika 11(4):93–114Google Scholar
  19. Pechenskaya MA (2015) Research in the functioning of the regional budgetary system. Econ Soc Changes-Facts Trends Forecast 41(5):147–158Google Scholar
  20. Povarova AI (2015a) Execution of local budgets in 2014: tension is not decreasing. Econ Soc Changes-Facts Trends Forecast 38(2):187–210Google Scholar
  21. Povarova AI (2015b) Passive behavior of the government. Budget problems are aggravating in the regions. Econ Soc Changes-Facts Trends Forecast 39(3):39–55Google Scholar
  22. Povarova AI (2016a) Problems and specific features of sub-federal budgets execution in 2015. Econ Soc Changes-Facts Trends Forecast 46(4):144–164Google Scholar
  23. Povarova AI (2016b) Regional budget-2016: priorities do not change. Econ Soc Changes-Facts Trends Forecast 44(2):133–152Google Scholar
  24. Povarova AI (2017) Regional budget for 2017–2019: surplus or economic growth? Econ Soc Changes-Facts Trends Forecast 50(2):236–258Google Scholar
  25. Schick A (1988) An inquiry into the possibility of a budget theory. In: Rubin IS (ed) New directions in budget theory. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, pp 59–69Google Scholar
  26. Simionescu M, Ciuiu D, Bilan Y, Strielkowski W (2016) GDP and net migration in some Eastern and South-Eastern countries of Europe. A panel data and Bayesian approach. Montenegrin J Econ 12(2):161–175.  https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845.2016/12-1/10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strielkowski W, Tcukanova O, Zarubina Z (2017) Globalization and economic integration: the role of modern management. Polish J Manag Stud 15(1):255–261.  https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2017.15.1.24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yashina N, Ginzburg M, Chesnokova L (2017) Fiscal federalism and personal income tax redistribution: case of Russia’s regions. Proceeding of the 21st international conference “Current trends in public sector research” (Brno: Slapanice, Czech Republic), pp 223–230Google Scholar
  29. Yushkov A (2016) Fiscal decentralization and regional economic growth: theory, empirical studies and Russian experience. Voprosy Economiki 2:94–110Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evelina Peshina
    • 1
  • Natalia Istomina
    • 1
  • José L. Niño-Amézquita
    • 2
  1. 1.Ural State University of EconomicsYekaterinburgRussian Federation
  2. 2.Regional Research Centre for Competiveness and Innovation of BoyacáBoyacáColombia

Personalised recommendations