№ 1/2020

Fìnansi Ukr. 2020 (1): 58–72https://doi.org/10.33763/finukr2020.01.058

BUDGET POLICY

OPARIN Valerij ¹, SARNETSKA Yana ²

¹SHEE “Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman”
OrcID ID : https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5181-4333
²SHEE “Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman”

Budget regulatory imperatives in Ukraine under conditions of fiscal decentralization

The article is devoted to the problems of creating a balanced budget system of Ukraine. Such a budgetary system should underpin the existing regional development imbalances. The need to address these challenges is growing significantly in the context of the ongoing fiscal decentralization. There are two main areas for addressing existing problems. The first is financial equalization. We have explored this problem in a previous article [1]. The second is budgetary regulation, the essence of which is to carry out territorial redistribution of revenues on the basis of intergovernmental transfers or to use individual standards for splitting certain types of national taxes between levels of the budgetary system. The purpose of the article is to identify the main imperatives of fiscal regulation in the context of fiscal decentralization. Therefore, two key questions arise. The first is what kind of fiscal regulation should be exercised, and what imperatives underlie it. The second is which regulatory tools should be used to actively influence the activities of local authorities. The article explores the theoretical foundations and practical aspects of creating a system of budgetary regulation that is based on the ideology of promoting the activity of local governments in gathering financing resources rather than the passive expectation of funds from the center. According to the results of the study, four main imperatives of fiscal regulation in terms of fiscal decentralization are formulated: optimization of the delimitation of revenues and expenditures between the levels of the budget system, ensuring the effectiveness of investment subsidies, increasing accountability of central and local governments, balancing budgetary equalization mechanisms. The prospects for further research are to conduct an empirical analysis of the distribution of revenues and expenditures between the levels of the budgetary system and to justify the criteria for their optimization in terms of fiscal decentralization.

Keywords:budget regulation, decentralization, public goods, constitutional rights, budgetary subventions, subsidies, regulatory income

JEL: H71, H77

Oparin V. . Budget regulatory imperatives in Ukraine under conditions of fiscal decentralization / V. . Oparin, Y. Sarnetska // Фінанси України. - 2020. - № 1. - C. 58-72.

Article original in Ukrainian (pp. 58 - 72)

Download

Downloads :187

1. Fedosov V., Oparin V., Safonova L. (2004). Budget management. Kyiv: KNEU [in Ukrainian].
2. Scutariu, A. L., Scutariu P. (2015). The link between financial autonomy and local development: The case of Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 542–549.
doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01430-6
3. Baskaran, Th., Feld L. P. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in the OECD countries: Is there a relationship? Public Finance Review, 41, 421–445.
doi.org/10.1177/1091142112463726
4. Hanif, I., Sharif, I. C., Wallace, S. (2014). Fiscal autonomy and economic growth nexus: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 34, 767–780.
5. Yongzheng, L., Martinez-Vazquez, J., Wu, A. M. (2017). Fiscal decentralization, equalization, and intra-provincial inequality in China. International Tax Public Finance, 24, 248–81.
doi.org/10.1007/s10797-016-9416-1
6. Martinez-Vazquez J., Lago-Peñas S., Sacchi A. 2016. The impact of fiscal decentralisation: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys 31: 1095–129.
doi.org/10.1111/joes.12182
7. Rodriguez-Pose, Andres, and Anne Krøijer. (2009). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in Central and Eastern Europe. Growth and Change, 40, 387–417.
doi.org/10.1111/joes.12182
8. Cahyaningsih, A., & Fitrady, A. (2019). The impact of asymmetric fiscal decentralization on education and health outcomes: Evidence from Papua Province, Indonesia. Economics and Sociology, 12 (2), 48–63.
doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-2/3
9. Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country. American economic review, 93(1), 113–132.
doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455188
10. Cantarero, D., & Pascual, M. (2008). Analysing the impact of fiscal decentralization on health outcomes: empirical evidence from Spain. Applied Economics Letters, 15 (2), 109–111.
doi.org/10.1080/13504850600770913
11. Asfaw, A., Frohberg, K., James, K. S., & Jütting, J. (2007). Fiscal decentralization and infant mortality: empirical evidence from rural India. The Journal of Developing Areas, 41 (1), 17–35.
doi.org/10.1353/jda.2008.0026
12. Faguet, J.P., & Sánchez, F. (2014). Decentralization and access to social services in Colombia. Public Choice, 160 (1-2), 227–249.
doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0077-7
13. Prud’homme, R. (1995). The dangers of decentralization. World Bank Research Observer, 10, 201–220.
doi.org/10.1093/wbro/10.2.201
14. Madubun, J., Akib, H., & Jasruddin. (2017). The Prototype Model of Asymmetric Decentralization in Providing Public Services to the Island Areas. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8 (2), 209–218.
doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2017.v8n2p209
15. Salinas, P. & Solé-Ollé, A. (2018). Partial Fiscal Decentralization Reforms and Educational Outcomes: A Difference-in-differences Analysis for Spain. Journal of Urban Economics, 107 (9), 31–46.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2018.08.003
16. Garcia-Milà, T., & McGuire, T. (2007). Fiscal decentralization in Spain: an asymmetric transition to democracy. Fiscal Fragmentation in Decentralized Countries, 208–223.
doi.org/10.4337/9781781007617.00015
17. Kraemer, M. (1997). Intergovernmental transfers and political representation: empirical evidence from Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. Working Paper, 345. Retrieved from www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/87929/1/idb-wp_345.pdf.
18. Oparin, V. M., Piontko, N. B. (2017). The State Fund for Regional Development in the system of financial equalization. Finance of Ukraine, 7, 25–42 [in Ukrainian].
doi.org/10.33763/finukr2017.07.025
19. Stefaniuk, I. B. (2012). Budget investment subventions:the challenges of meeting the goals. RFI Scientific Papers, 2, 44–53 [in Ukrainian].
20. Fedosov V., & Paientko T. (2017). Ukrainian Government Bureaucracy: Benefits and Costs for the Society. Business and Management Studies, 3 (2), 8–19.
doi.org/10.11114/bms.v3i2.2358
21. Fedosov V. & Paientko T. (2019). Opportunistic government behavior: How controlling approaches in public management can prevent it. Theoretical Journal of Accounting, 104 (160), 37–54.
doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.4355