Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 24 Марта 2012 в 00:21, доклад
Во второй половине XX – го века и начале XXI века в большинстве развитых стран происходили процессы бюджетной децентрализации. С этими процессами часто связывают увеличение эффективности общественного производства, экономический рост, рост благосостояния населения.
Применительно к развивающимся странам оценки преимуществ децентрализации часто оказываются менее убедительными, чем аргументы в пользу бюджетной централизации. В соответствии с (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.
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 |
|
|