TY  - BOOK
AU  - Freinkman,Lev
AU  - Freinkman,Lev
AU  - Yossifov,Plamen
TI  - Decentralization in Regional Fiscal Systems in Russia: Trends and Links to Economic Performance 
PY  - 1999///
CY  - Washington, D.C.
PB  - The World Bank
KW  - Accounting
KW  - Accounting Standards
KW  - Budget
KW  - Budget Defic Budgets
KW  - Debt Markets
KW  - Debts
KW  - Decentralization
KW  - Expenditure
KW  - Expenditures
KW  - Federal Budget
KW  - Finance
KW  - Finance and Financial Sector Development
KW  - Fiscal Decentralization
KW  - Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and Local Finance Management
KW  - Local Governments
KW  - Municipal Financial Management
KW  - Pension
KW  - Pension Fund
KW  - Public and Municipal Finance
KW  - Revenue
KW  - Revenues
KW  - Share
KW  - Shares
KW  - Tax
KW  - Urban Development
KW  - Urban Economics
N2  - 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 lfreinkman@worldbank.org
UR  - http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-2100
ER  -