Assessing Regional Inequality based on Revenues of the Federal Budget using the Pareto Principle
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2020-4-25Keywords:
inter-budgetary reallocation, Pareto principle, budget tax revenues, tax exemptions, interbudgetary relations, fiscal federalism, regional budget, interregional differentiation, equalising, stimulationAbstract
The use of fiscal instruments for regulating territorial development has both positive and negative macroeconomic effects related to the withdrawal of revenue from more economically developed regions. Therefore, using the Pareto principle, this paper assesses the negative effects of budgetary reallocation. This study considers inter-budgetary reallocation as an annually recurring four-stage process of regional budgets reproduction. The article analyses the first stage of the process, namely, the creation of resource allocation base. A hypothesis has been tested to examine whether the centralisation of tax revenues in the federal budget and, consequently, an increase in inter-budgetary reallocation does not reduce, but exacerbates inequality in regions due to their revenue depletion and limited self-development. The study assessed the contribution of federal districts and individual constituent entities of the Russian Federation to the federal budget, withdrawal of regional revenues, and the concentration of territorial revenues to the federal budget. Based on the ranking of regional contributions to federal revenues, I built a Pareto diagram, checking the 80/20 rule for grouped and non-grouped data. Calculations and comparison of the data for 2017 and 2010 confirm numerous negative effects. For example, there is an increase in the withdrawal of regional revenues and a significant concentration of federal revenues for a limited number of regions. Additionally, negative effects include the existence of a direct relationship between regional revenues and the rate of their withdrawal, as well as the predominance of the equalising component over the stimulating one in regional socio-economic development. These effects lead to revenue depletion in the territories and increased centralisation of budgetary resources, contradicting the principles of fiscal federalism. Authorities can use the research results, conclusions and suggestions for managerial decision-making to improve intergovernmental relations in the Russian Federation.
References
Yushkov, A., Oding, N. & Savulkin, L. (2017). The trajеctories of donor regions in Russia. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 9, 75–78. (In Russ.)
Yushkov, A., Oding, N. & Savulkin, L. (2016). The role of subventions in Russian fiscal federalism. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 10, 49–64. DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736–2016–10–49–64 (In Russ.)
Pechenskaya, M. A. (2017). Development of interbudgetary relations in Russia in 2000–2015. Problemy prognozirovaniya [Studies on Russian Economic Development], 2(161), 117–130. (In Russ.)
Alandarov, R. A. (2017). Assessment of Inter-Budgetary Relations Compliance with the Strategic Goals of the Russian Federation Development. Ekonomika. Nalogi. Pravo [Economics, taxes & law], 10(1), 75–82. (In Russ.)
Golovanova, N. V. (2018). Intergovernmental Transfers: Diversity of Terms and Russian Practice. Finansovyy zhurnal [Financial Journal], 2(42), 24–35. DOI: 10.31107 / 2075–1990–2018–2-24–35 (In Russ.)
Deryugin, A. N. & Proka, K. A. (2017). Scale Effect Consideration in the Methodologies of Equalization Grants Distribution. Finansovyy zhurnal [Financial Journal], 4(38), 98–112. (In Russ.)
Bukharsky, V. V. & Lavrov, A. M. (2017). Impact Evaluation of the Equalizing and Stimulating Effects of Intergovernmental Transfers to the Subjects of the Russian Federation. Finansovyy zhurnal [Financial Journal], 1(35), 9–21. (In Russ.)
Epstein, G. S. & Gang, I. N. (2018). Taxation and social protection under governance decentralization. European Journal of Political Economy, 10, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.08.007.
Mikhaylova, A. A. (2017). Interbudgetary Transfers as a Stimulation Mechanism of Regional Growth. Finansovyy zhurnal [Financial Journal], 3(37), 49–56. (In Russ.)
Kudrin, A. L. & Knobel, A. Yu. (2017). Fiscal policy as a source of economic growth. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 10, 5–26. (In Russ.)
Shirov, A. A. (Ed.). (2018). Transformatsiya struktury ekonomiki. Mekhanizmy i upravlenie [Transformation of the structure of the economy: mechanisms and management]. Moscow: MAX Press, 264. ISBN 978–5-317–05985–9. DOI: 10.29003 / m221.978–5-317–05985–9 (In Russ.)
Arlashkin, I. & Gangan, A. (2016) Consolidation of Federal Matching Grants to Russian Regions. Finansovyy zhurnal [Financial Journal], 1(29), 50–60. (In Russ.)
Karagöz, K. & Keskin, R. (2016). Impact of Fiscal Policy on the Macroeconomic Aggregates in Turkey: Evidence from BVAR Model. Procedia Economics and Finance, 38, 408–420. DOI: 10.1016/S2212–5671(16)30212-X.
Oprea, F. & Bilan, I. (2015). An Evaluation of the Economic and Financial Crisis’s Impact on Local Budgetary Aggregates: The Romanian Case. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 467–477. DOI: 10.1016/S2212- 5671(15)00098–2.
Baklaeva, N. M. (2016). Coordinating the economic interests of the subjects of inter-budget relations under fiscal federalism development in Russia. Finansy i kredit [Finance and Credit], 10, 46–57. (In Russ.)
Baklaeva, N. M. (2017). System contradictions of inter-budgetary relations. Finansy i kredit [Finance and Credit], 23(31), 1863–1872. DOI: 10.24891/fc.23.31.1862 (In Russ.)
Mamedov, A. A., Nazarov, V. S., Siluanov. A. G., Alaev, A. A. & Zarubin, A. V. (2012). Problemy mezhbyudzhetnykh otnosheniy v Rossii [Issues of Interbudgetary Relations in Russia]. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Press, 188. ISBN 978–5-93255–341–1. (In Russ.)
Shvetsov, Yu. G. (2017). A deadlock of Russian fiscal federalism. Finansy i kredit [Finance and Credit], 23(19(739)), 1094–1107. DOI: 10.24891/fc.23.19.1094 (In Russ.)
Fidrmuc, J. (2015). Political economy of fiscal unions. European Journal of Political Economy, 40(А), 147–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.09.002.
Alves, J., Peralta, S. & Perelman, J. (2013). Efficiency and equity consequences of decentralization in health: an economic perspective. Revista Portuguesa de Saúde Pública, 31(1), 74–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpsp.2013.01.002.
Matějová, L., Plaček, M., Krápek, M., Půček, M. & Ochrana, F. (2014). Economies of scale — empirical evidence from the Czech Republic. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 403–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212–5671(14)00361-X.
Afonso, J. R., Araújo, E. C. & Fajardo, B. G. (2016). The role of fiscal and monetary policies in the Brazilian economy: Understanding recent institutional reforms and economic changes. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 11(62), 41–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2016.07.005.
Busygina, I., Filippov, M. & Taukebaeva, E. (2018). To decentralize or to continue on the centralization track: The cases of authoritarian regimes in Russia and Kazakhstan. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 9(1), 61–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2017.12.008.
Sipos, A. (2015). Determining factors of tax-morale with special emphasis on the tax revenues of local self-governments. Procedia Economics and Finance, 30, 758–767. DOI: 10.1016/S2212–5671(15)01325–8.
Akindinova, N., Chernyavsky, A. & Chepel, A. (2016) Analysis of regional fiscal balance. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 10, 31–48. DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736–2016–10–31–48 (In Russ.)
Tatarkin, D. A., Sidorova, E. N. & Trynov, A. V. (2015). Optimization of Financial Flow Management Based on Estimates of Regional Multiplicative Effects. Еconomy of Region [Ekonomika regiona], 4(44), 323–335. DOI: 10.17059/2015–4-25 (In Russ.)
Klimanov, V. V. & Korotkikh, A. M. (2016). The Allocation of Intergovernmental Transfers: Theoretical Background and the Russian Practice. Finansovyy zhurnal [Financial Journal], 5(33), 7–15. (In Russ.)
Timushev, E. N. (2018). Revenues, grants, and fiscal incentives-evaluation and the causes of decentralization effectsin the budgetary system of Russia. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 1, 71–90. (In Russ.)
Mokhnatkina, L. B. (2014). Methodological aspects of the impact of financial aid on economic growth in Regions. Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Vestnik of the Orenburg State University], 8(169), 163–168. (In Russ.)
Grachev, G. A. (2011). Assessment of the effectiveness of structural expenditure side of public budgets. Terra Economicus, 9(3), 10–20. (In Russ.)
Grachev, G. A. (2013). Managing the structure of monetary income of the population on the basis of the Pareto principle. Terra Economicus, 11(1), 57–63. (In Russ.)
Aziz, R. W. A., Shuib, A., Aziz, W. N. H. W. A., Tawil, N. M. & Nawawi, A. H. M. (2013). Pareto Analysis on Budget Allocation for Different Categories of Faculties in Higher Education Institution. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 10(90), 686–694. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.141.
Chen, Y. S., Chong, P. P. & Tong, M. Y. (1994). Mathematical and computer modelling of the Pareto principle. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 19(9), 61–80.
Donichev, O. A., Mishchenko, Z. V. & Molchanova, O. G. (2014). Evaluation of the parameters of formation of socio-economic cluster based on the method of Pareto optimization. Ekonomicheskiy analiz: Teoriya i praktika [Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice], 6(357), 17–24. (In Russ.)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Leyla B. Mokhnatkina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
