Control over the debt policy of the regions. Debt policy of subjects of the Russian Federation. List of used literature

Each of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, within the limits of the powers granted to it by federal legislation, independently decides on the appropriateness of using one or another source of raising funds, on the place of budget loans in financing budget expenditures. For this reason, there are quite large differences in the policy of state lending carried out at the level of the territories. However, it is possible to single out certain moments and trends inherent in most subjects of the Russian Federation.

These features, in particular, include the important role that government loans play in the formation of financial resources of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Moreover, a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation continue to reduce their budgets with a deficit. The constituent entities of the Russian Federation also need funds to refinance previously formed debts.

The totality of debt obligations of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation forms the state debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. This debt is fully secured by all property owned by the subject of the Russian Federation, which constitutes the treasury of the subject of the Russian Federation. Debt obligations of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation may exist in the form of:

Credit agreements and contracts;

Government loans of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, carried out by issuing securities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation;

Contracts and agreements on the receipt by a subject of the Russian Federation of budget loans from the budgets of other levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation;

Agreements on the provision of state guarantees of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation;

Agreements and contracts, including international ones, concluded on behalf of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, on the prolongation and restructuring of debt obligations of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation of previous years.

Other forms of debt obligations of the subject of the Russian Federation are not provided, and therefore they are illegal.

The state debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation consists of:

1) the principal nominal amount of debt on securities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

2) the amount of the principal debt on loans received by the subject of the Russian Federation;

3) the amount of the principal debt on budget loans and budget credits received by a constituent entity of the Russian Federation from budgets of other levels;

4) the volume of obligations under guarantees provided to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The legislative and executive authorities of the subject of the Russian Federation use all the powers to form regional budget revenues to pay off debt obligations and service the debt.

In accordance with the Law of April 15, 1993, No. 4807-1 “On the Fundamentals of Budgetary Rights and Rights to Form and Use Off-Budget Funds ...”, the subjects of the Russian Federation received the right to borrow funds from other budgets, from commercial banks or issue loans for investment purposes. The same Law provided that the maximum amount of the ratio of the total amount of loans, credits, other debt obligations of the relevant budget and the volume of its expenditures would be established additionally. Such a requirement is fully justified, since the experience of the developed countries of the West gives us numerous examples of the bankruptcy of individual territories, including such large cities as New York. However, for a long time, the borrowing activities of territories within our state were not legally limited.

The Budget Code introduced the following restrictions:

The maximum amount of public debt of a subject of the Russian Federation should not exceed the amount of revenues of the corresponding budget, excluding financial assistance from the budgets of other levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation;

The maximum volume of expenses for servicing the debt of a state subject of the Russian Federation should not exceed 15% of the volume of expenses of its budget.

If the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation violates the requirements governing the maximum amount of expenses for servicing and repaying the state debt, and the constituent entity of the Russian Federation is unable to ensure the servicing and repayment of its debt obligations, the RF BC allows the following measures to be applied:

Appointment of checking the execution of the budget of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation;

Transfer of the execution of the budget of the subject of the Russian Federation under the control of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation;

Adoption of other measures stipulated by the budgetary legislation.

Registration of securities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities is regulated by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated September 30, 2000 No. 754 “On state registration of regulatory legal acts containing the conditions for issuing securities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipal securities, and on reports on the issue.

To register all securities, it is necessary to submit to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation: an application, conditions for issuing securities, a copy of the law of the subject or decision of the local government on the budget for the corresponding year, data on the amount and structure of the debt of the subject of the Russian Federation; data on the fulfillment by issuers of the restrictions established by the budgetary legislation on the amount of debt and budget deficit; existence of overdue debt.

On May 21, 2001, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation No. 2718 approved the “Standards for Disclosing Information on Securities of the Subjects of the Russian Federation or Municipal Securities Contained in the Resolution on the Issue of Securities of the Subjects of the Russian Federation or Municipal Securities and in the Report on the Results of the Issue of These Securities”. In addition to the disclosure of information provided for by the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Peculiarities of the Issue and Circulation of State and Municipal Securities”, the standards require the disclosure of information contained in the decision to issue by distributing data on a server on the Internet, and providing it to the General Agent for the placement of securities.

Another feature of state credit at the level of subjects of the Russian Federation is the low financial discipline of the subjects and the unsatisfactory work of their financial bodies.

A typical violation is also that the indicators of the volume of public debt of the subjects of the Federation and municipalities differ significantly from the data provided by local financial authorities. The reasons for discrepancies in certain types of debt instruments are due to the inclusion in the structure and volume of public debt of debt on non-capitalized interest, coupon payments and other similar types of debt related to servicing public debt.

The mechanism of interaction between different levels of government in the sphere of debt policy is largely determined by the type of state structure of the country and the model of the budget and financial system that has developed in it. In states with a federal structure, the key role is played by the principle of separation of responsibility, according to which the federal government is not responsible for servicing and repaying the debt of a subject of the Federation and, accordingly, the latter is not liable for the obligations of other subjects of the Federation and the state as a whole.

This principle is usually enshrined in law, which in essence should mean full legal responsibility of the administration of a subject of the Federation to creditors. However, as evidenced by the world and domestic practice of government borrowing, the formal declaration of responsibility is by no means always accompanied by the corresponding real responsibility of regional administrations for the debt policy pursued at the subfederal level.

As you know, debts form the relevant authorities and administrations, and ultimately the population has to pay for them, which can be expressed in an excessive tax burden or a reduction in the availability of basic socially significant services. When this affects the fundamental interests of the country's citizens, the federal authorities, as a rule, cannot remain indifferent and are forced to take some of the responsibility upon themselves.

This situation is not accidental. The requirement of full legal liability of the debtor is justified only when: firstly, the borrower is legally and financially independent in making decisions on borrowing and debt management; secondly, the property rights of economic agents are clearly specified and there is a real opportunity and necessary mechanisms for foreclosing the income or other property of the debtor in the event that he does not fulfill his obligations. The application of these provisions in relation to the subjects of the Federation as debtors encounters a number of objective and subjective obstacles.

First, unlike federal authorities, regional administrations cannot directly influence macroeconomic conditions, including the main monetary indicators that form the market borrowing environment. As a rule, they are deprived of the opportunity to resort to the issuance of credit resources as an extreme way to cover their debt.

Second, subfederal entities have a much more limited range of tax and other financial and material sources than federal borrowers that could be used to service and repay debt obligations. This problem becomes especially acute in regions with a narrow industry specialization, where the replenishment of the budget of the territories almost completely depends on tax payments from one or several large taxpayers. In the event of their bankruptcy, the revenue base of the budget may be sharply reduced, which will inevitably lead to the aggravation of the problem of servicing the accumulated debt of the regional administration.

Thirdly, subfederal formations largely depend on the current federal legislation in pursuing their debt policy. By directly or indirectly regulating the main parameters of their debt, the federal authorities thereby become co-defendants in the Federation's debt obligations.

The relationship between the national debt and the debt of the subjects of the Federation is manifested both at the stage of borrowing and during the direct fulfillment of debt obligations. At the first stage, it can be most clearly observed in the process of market placement of loans, where the relationship between sub-federal and federal debt can be realized in two main forms:

Indirectly, through the influence of debt parameters on the conditions of the money and financial markets, and, consequently, on the general conditions for borrowing and investing funds;

Directly, through competition in the market for government debt instruments of various statuses.

At the stage of fulfillment of debt obligations, this relationship is realized primarily in the distribution of responsibility (formal and real) for the fulfillment of obligations to service and repay the debt. Moreover, it is the criterion of distribution of the burden of responsibility that is often fundamental in establishing the rights and boundaries of borrowing for each level of government.

Keywords:

• budgetary policy
• public debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation
• debt policy
• debt financing of the economy
• loans
• budget loans
• regional debt policy
• cost of debt
• policy of budgetary
• debt policy
• regional debt policy
• state debt of subjects of the russian federation
• debt financing of economics
• loans
• budget credits
• cost of the debt

Features of the implementation of the debt policy by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (abstract, term paper, diploma, control)

UDK 336.276 SN Soldatkin Features of the Implementation of the Debt Policy by the Subjects of the Russian Federation It is proposed to give the debt policy an independent legal status. Hard and soft budgetary constraints on the debt activity of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are listed. The issues of developing a mechanism for a responsible regional debt policy are considered.

Key words: budget policy, public debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, debt policy, debt financing of the economy, loans, budget loans, regional debt policy, cost of debt.

The term "debt policy" has quietly entered the lexicon of Russian financiers in recent years and is quite actively used, including in documents developed by the Russian Ministry of Finance. However, this concept cannot yet be considered well-established, and it simply does not exist in Russian budget legislation.

Do not find a clear, comprehensive definition of debt policy definitions in publications. Most often, its essence comes down to the management of state or municipal debt, which is considered, as a rule, as an integral part of budgetary, and therefore, financial policy. Some authors separate budgetary and debt policy, consider it as part of not budgetary, but financial policy1.

In our opinion, it is worth separating debt policy from budget policy, “equalizing them in rights”, giving debt policy an independent legal status along with monetary, credit, price, tax and customs policy.

1 See, for example: Main Provisions of the Code of Best Practice in the Field of Regional and Municipal Finance Management. Ministry of Finance R F. M., 2003. P. 44- Babenko E. N., Mikhailov V. G. On the coordination of parameters of the budget and debt policy of the region // Finance. 2008. No. 11.

At the same time, the main content of the debt policy should be determined by the general objectives of the financial policy. In the context of the implementation in Russia of the mechanism of debt financing of the economy, both at the national, and at the regional and municipal levels, this seems quite logical.

The degree of detail of the debt policy depends on the role played by borrowing in the financial management of the public (municipal) administration sector. The main elements of the debt policy include:

Formation of the mechanism of debt financing of the economy-

Determination of a general strategy for attracting internal and external state, subfederal and municipal borrowings and providing guarantees -

Regulation of the structure of debt obligations in terms of volumes, terms and profitability in order to reduce the cost of borrowing and optimize the cost of debt obligations -

Establishment and control of the parameters of the permissible level of debt burden on the budget and the economy;

Development of regulations and implementation of a set of measures to ensure the timely fulfillment of debt obligations.

Undoubtedly, a significant part of these elements should be inherent in the regional debt policy.

What are the conditions and features of the implementation of the debt policy of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation? To what extent is it independent, systemic, and therefore effective and efficient?

The independence of the debt policy pursued by the Russian regions 2 is significantly affected by the restrictions contained in federal, primarily budgetary, legislation.

The elements of the borrowing and debt activities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, strictly regulated by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, primarily include the establishment of the following:

Purposes of state internal and external borrowing (Article 103 of the Budget Code) -

Limiting volumes of borrowings (Art. 104, 106) —

The procedure for reflecting the provision of guarantees in the amount of 10 million rubles. and more (Art. 110.2) -

The maximum amount of public debt (Article 107) -

Types of debt obligations and their urgency, as well as a quantitative assessment of the volume of debt of the subject as a whole, including internal and external debts (Article 99) -

Limiting volumes of debt service expenses (Article 111) -

The mechanism for terminating debt obligations and writing them off from the debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (Article 99.1) -

Liability mechanism for debt obligations of the subject (Article 102) -

The procedure for accounting and registration of state debt obligations in the state debt book of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (Art. 120−121).

Exceeding the established limits is a serious violation of the budget legislation of the Russian Federation and entails the use of coercive measures.

Softly regulated elements include the establishment of the right to carry out state internal or external borrowing (Article 103), the regulation of the mechanism for managing public debt (Article 101), the procedure for servicing public debt (Article 119).

According to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation as of October 1, 2012, the total public debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (excluding the debt of municipalities) amounted to 1,131.3 billion rubles. At the same time, the debt structure includes only 17.0 billion rubles,

Table Dynamics of the actual growth in the amount of debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for January-September 2012

Indicator Information as of date

Amount of debt, billion rubles 1171.8 1162.0 1171.7 1163.9 1161.9 1147.9 1117.5 1112.1 1125.3 1131.3

Growth rate compared to January 1.00 0.991 0.999 0.993 0.991 0.979 0.954 0.949 0.960 0.965

or 1.5% accounted for external debt3. As of January 1, 2012, the debt of the subjects amounted to 1,171.8 billion rubles. Thus, since the beginning of the year there has been a slight (by 3.5%) decline. The table shows the dynamics of the actual growth in the amount of debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in January-September 2012.

Apparently, the July (2012) meeting of the State Council, which considered, among other things, the situation with regional debts, had a certain impact on the "debt discipline" of the regions. Regional authorities have become more responsible in their debt policy. As a result, by the end of July, the debt fell to a minimum level and amounted to 94.9% compared to January. However, in August-September the growth of regional debts continued.

The pattern is as follows: firstly, in recent years, the amount of regional debt has been steadily growing for a number of objective reasons; secondly, at the end of the calendar year, regions, as a rule, borrow the most significant amounts of money. Therefore, the problem of restraining their debt obligations cannot be solved only by administrative pressure from the federal center on the regional authorities. A radical change is required in the economic conditions for the functioning of the regions, primarily in the system of formation of their revenue base.

In fact, it is not so much the absolute growth of the region's debt that is dangerous, but the relative growth, for example, in comparison with budget revenues, with the size of the gross regional product (GRP). It is very important to measure the amount of expenses for servicing and paying off debt obligations with the possibilities (volume) of the expenditure part of the budget. Undoubtedly, here it is necessary to establish a limiting ratio, the achievement or excess of which should be regarded as inefficient attraction of borrowed funds. It should be noted that since 2011, the costs of servicing and repaying debt obligations have again been allocated as an independent item of budget expenditures.

It is necessary to develop a mechanism for the responsible attitude of regional authorities to their debt policy. It is obvious that such a mechanism should provide a reasonable containment of sub-federal borrowings and the provision of guarantees, as well as help optimize the structure of debt obligations, minimize their cost and, as a result, reduce budget expenditure obligations. But it is also obvious that in the conditions of a chronic shortage of funds, debt financing for the development of regions, borrowing and guarantees have become an important source for them to maintain budget liquidity, attract investment and fulfill social obligations.

The costs of servicing and repaying debt obligations depend on the absolute size of the issue of securities, loans received, guarantees provided (18, https: // site).

3 Today, only two subjects (Moscow and the Republic of Bashkortostan) have an external debt.

In the case of guarantees, for example, a very important and fundamental point is the presence (absence) in the surety agreement of the possibility of presenting recourse claims against the principal. At the same time, the very structure of debt obligations affects the total cost of debt.

It is believed that the most "profitable" debt is "paper" represented by securities, and the most unprofitable is credit. The fact is that the issue of securities involves attracting relatively more "long" money compared to obtaining credit funds. Moreover, the terms of the issue may involve early repayment of obligations (for example, by buying back bonds from investors). There are, however, a number of legislative restrictions on the emission activity of the regions. In addition, some restrictions are of an economic nature and are predetermined by the debt capacity of the regional budget, budgetary opportunities to allocate funds for servicing and repaying debt, and the profitability of the issuing activity of the regional authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In January-September 2012, only 10 entities issued their domestic bonds (10 issues). The average nominal size of the issue amounted to 4,450 million rubles, and the minimum size of a one-time issue was 1,500 million rubles. (Chuvash Republic). For comparison: in 2011, in general, for 14 issuing entities, the average issue amount was 3,630 million rubles. (the Republic of Karelia has the minimum size — 1,000 million rubles), and in 2010 the average issue size of 13 entities was 2,213 million rubles. (the minimum amount is noted in the Republic of Khakassia - 1,200 million rubles.)4. Thus, over the past two years, the average issue size has doubled, and the minimum - 1.5 times.

As for the terms, in 2011 all issuers placed only 5-year securities, and in 2012 - only 3-year ones. It is difficult to explain such "unanimity" of the regional authorities, unless it is the result of the policy of the Russian Ministry of Finance to reduce competition in the domestic borrowing market. In our opinion, the outlined reduction in the terms of placement may indicate, on the one hand, the exhaustion of free funds of investors, on the other hand, a drop in investor interest in securities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation due to a drop in yield on them.

In the future, competition in the domestic securities market will intensify. The state itself (Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation) to finance the federal budget deficit intends to actively and massively raise funds in the domestic market of Russia: in 2012-2014. such borrowings should amount to 1,977.9–2,082.2 and 2,273.6 billion rubles, respectively.5 We are talking specifically about the issue of securities.

In our opinion, a further reduction in the funds allocated in the federal budget for the provision of budget loans to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation will significantly affect the liquidity of regional budgets and the financial condition of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The dynamics here is very indicative: in 2010, 140.0 billion rubles were allocated in the budget for these purposes, in 2011 — 113.6 billion rubles, in 2012 — 105.0 billion rubles, including RUB 8.0 billion to support preschool educational institutions6.

4 Nominal debt on securities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities / Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource] 1Ж1.: http://www.minfin.ru/ru/ public_debt/capital_issue/state_securities/summa_dolgCB/index.php ?id4=17,935 (date of access: 05/17/2013).

5 The main directions of the state debt policy of the Russian Federation for 2012-2014. M.: Ministry of Finance of Russia, August. 2011, p. 6. / Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource] 1Zh1 .: http://www.minfin.ru/common/img/uploaded/library/2011/08/Dolgovaya_politika_na_sayt.pdf (accessed: May 17, 2013).

6 Data taken from Art. 13 federal laws on the federal budget for 2010-2012, 2011-2013 and 20,122,014, respectively. / Official site of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation [Electronic resource] 1Zh1.: http://www. minfin.ru (date of access: 05/14/2013).

The fact is that for a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, attracting budget loans is a very significant source of financing the budget deficit, as well as the implementation of infrastructure investment projects related, for example, to the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of regional public roads. Thus, in the structure of the public debt of the Jewish Autonomous Region, the share of budget loans accounts for 65.4%7, in the structure of the internal public debt of the Republic of Bashkortostan - 66.5%8. The state plans to provide budget credits to the regions mainly to cover temporary cash gaps and liquidate emergencies.

The Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Treasury propose to introduce modern methods of short-term lending to the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in particular, the provision by the Federal Treasury of short-term (up to 30 days) budget loans to replenish balances in the accounts of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets9.

In the coming years, most subjects will be forced to abandon budget loans from the federal budget and intensify their issuing activities, as well as increase the volume of bank loans received, which will lead to an increase in the cost of regional borrowing and, as a result, to an increase in the burden on budgets as a result of an increase in budget spending on service and repayment of debt obligations.

It seems that the complexity of the debt policy of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation can be assessed by the presence / absence of a number of legal documents:

Regional Target Program for Public Finance and Public Debt Management -

Methods for calculating the debt burden on the budget of the subject and the maximum volume of attraction of debt obligations -

Regulations on the provision of guarantees of the subject - the availability of reserve and investment funds of the subject.

The effectiveness and efficiency of the debt policy pursued by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation will largely depend on the complexity and systemic organization of borrowing and the fulfillment of debt obligations.

1. Artyukhin R. E. Tasks and directions of development of the treasury system in Russia // Finance. 2011. No. 3.

2. Babenko E. N., Mikhailov V. G. On the coordination of the parameters of the budgetary and debt policy of the region // Finance. 2008. No. 11.

7 State debt book of the Jewish Autonomous Region as of 01.10.2012 / Official portal of state authorities of the Jewish Autonomous Region [Electronic resource] ІШІ.: http://eao.ru/state/UPR/fin/gosdolg_0110.xls (date of access: 15.05. 2013).

8 Public debt of the Republic of Bashkortostan as of 01.01.2013 / Official website of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Bashkortostan [Electronic resource] URL: http://minfinrb.bashkortostan.ru/11/dolg_2012.htm (date of access: 17.05.2013).

9 Artyukhin R. E. Tasks and directions of development of the treasury system in Russia // Finance. 2011. No. 3. P. 9−10.

Other jobs

Considering the features of the organization of recreational activities in the protected areas of the Crimea, noted a wide range of works on recreational geography of Crimea. Territorial recreational system within protected areas can be represented as a historically established combination of interconnected components of diverse environmental and recreational sector, formed in the...

Acceptance (3OC), the author defines as the product of the number of job cuts and the average cost per 1 employee per month, including wages, the amount of pension and insurance contributions. where Sup - the costs of maintaining the personnel management service (wages, insurance and pension contributions, social payments). When studying the works of modern scientists ...

All this indicates that there is a concentration of a very large number of unknown factors, so it cannot be said with sufficient confidence and strict certainty that it was the effect of the most successful appropriation of property rights that played a decisive role in this case. However, it is too early to rule out that forms of organizations that have been able to...

From the point of view of the essential approach, the competitiveness of an economic entity is the degree to which the productivity of the applied capital (or the number of its turnovers) corresponds to the existing level of organization and technologies for the use of aggregate resources (efficiency) (criteria indicator (6) or indicator (5). Competitiveness of the economic entity involved. ..

Due to the rapid growth in real estate prices at different stages of construction (at the stage of early construction, housing prices are much lower than those for commissioning), an investment is considered more profitable than a bank deposit. Based on the existing investment system, it can be concluded that the main goal of investment activity is to provide the most effective ways to implement ...

As we can see, the commodity market as a barometer of the global economy paints a rather bleak picture for developing countries. In Russia, a weak ruble has so far helped Russian oil and gas companies stay afloat amid low oil and gas prices, but economic sanctions have limited access to long-term external financing in the US and EU markets. Russia in such...

Taking into account the European experience, it is possible to introduce a mechanism to stimulate apartment owners by writing off a certain part of the cost of repairs in case of achieving good results in reducing heat loss in a residential building. Fifth, the principle of PROFESSIONALISM. Social modernization is not done for the "state in general", it must serve and benefit each individual citizen. Considering...

Summing up the course work, it should be noted that borrowed funds should be invested in territorial investment development zones, construction of regional and municipal infrastructure facilities, including the creation of facilities with short payback periods remaining in regional and municipal ownership: hotels, cafes, retail - office centers, service stations, etc. The resulting economic effect (income) from these facilities will make it possible to repay and service the assumed debt obligations, stimulate economic growth, and also solve the problems of employment and provision of social services. As a result, the internal inconsistency of borrowing funds by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation will be resolved, due to the fact that public authorities must, first of all, perform their social functions, which are long-term. At the same time, the maturity of borrowed funds, as a rule, is much less than the time required by regional administrations to solve pressing social problems.

Introduction

One of the main goals defined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 7) is the construction of a social state, the policy of which is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of a person. The achievement of this goal should be ensured, first of all, by the actions of all state authorities, including those at the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which, first of all, should be based on the principle of responsibility to their own people. This equally applies to the actions of regional administrations in the financial sector, including in relation to issues of public debt management. The insufficiency of financial resources to fulfill their social obligations, which is currently characteristic of most constituent entities of the Russian Federation, however, should not justify the thoughtless actions of the authorities, leading to a sharp increase in public debt, for which the next generations of citizens will have to pay. Priority should be such a policy when borrowed funds will be directed not to solve current problems, but to implement the strategic goals of the region's development (construction of infrastructure and social facilities, maintaining economic potential), the main result of which will be a significant improvement in the quality of life of the population. The purpose of this work is to study the public debt of the subject of the Russian Federation in modern conditions and analyze its management. Achievement of this general goal is ensured by the solution of the following specific tasks: 1. To reveal a new economic category - "public debt of the subject of the Russian Federation", to identify its main forms and characteristics. 2. Assess the current state of public debt management on the example of the Republic of Bashkortostan, first of all, its effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of measures taken by the executive authorities of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation in this direction, consider the servicing and repayment of debt obligations. 3. To identify opportunities for effective management of public debt by regional executive authorities, contributing to an increase in the standard of living of the population and a general improvement in the socio-economic condition of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. 4. Propose a number of specific measures and tools of an economic, legal and administrative nature to improve the management of the public debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The object of the study is the mechanism for managing the public debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in modern conditions. The subject of the study is economic, organizational and managerial relations that arise in the process of managing the public debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

Introduction 3 Chapter 1. Public debt of the subject of the Russian Federation as an object of management. 5 1.1 Essence, forms and structure of the public debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, its main characteristics. 5 1.2 Peculiarities of public debt management in the Russian regions 17 Chapter 2. Policy of regulation of debt obligations of subjects of the Russian Federation 26 Conclusion 42 References 45

Bibliography

1. Gorbunova O.N. Financial law, - M.; Jurist, 2010. 2. Nikiforova V.D., Ostrovskaya V.Yu. State and municipal securities. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2010. 3. Finance, money circulation and credit. Textbook: Short Course / Ed. e. n., prof. N. F. Samsonova. – M.: INFRA-M, 2008. 4. Galanov V.A. Stocks and bods market. - M.: INFRA-M, 2007. 5. Milyakov N. V. Finance. - 2nd ed. - M.: INFRA-M, 2009. 6. BUDGET CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION dated July 31, 1998 N 145-FZ (adopted by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on July 17, 1998) (as amended on December 19, 2008) 7. Finance: textbook. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional / ed. V.V. Kovalev. - M.: Prospekt, 2005. 8. Budget Code of the Russian Federation of July 31, 1998 No. 145-FZ (as amended on July 24, 2007) 9. Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 19, 2006 No. 238 - FZ On the federal budget for 2007 10. Federal Law No. 198-FZ dated July 24, 2007. (as amended on November 8, 2008) “On the federal budget for 2008 and for the planning period of 2009 and 2010” (adopted by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on July 6, 2007). The main characteristics of the federal budget for 2008–2010 were approved. 11. Federal Constitutional Law of December 17, 1997 No. 2-FKZ "On the Government of the Russian Federation" (with amendments and additions). (As amended by the Federal Constitutional Law of December 31, 1997 No. 3-FKZ) 12. Astapov K. Management of external and internal public debt in Russia // Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. - 2008. - No. 2. – P. 26–35. 13. Beskova I.A. Analysis of public debt management in the Russian Federation // Finance. - 2007. - No. 2. – S. 72–73. 14. Vavilov A. Public debt: Lessons of the crisis and management principles. - M., 2009. - 304 p. 15. Vavilov A. Principles of state debt policy / A. Vavilov, E. Kovalishin // Questions of Economics. - 2007. - No. 8. – P. 46–63 16. Voronin Yu. Public debt management / Yu. Voronin, V. Kabashkin // The Economist. - 2010. - No. 1. – P. 58–67. 17. Drobozina L.A. Finance. - M.: UNITI, 2011 18. Zaitsev A., Treskov V. Problems of budgetary federalism. // Finance. – 2007., p. 4–10. 19. Lavrushin I.O. "Money, credit, banks". - M.: Finance and statistics, 2008. 20. Lomakin V.K. World economy. Textbook. "Finance", Publishing Association "UNITI", 2007. 21. Rodionova V.M. Public debt management - M.: "Finance and statistics", 2012 22. Finance. Money turnover. Credit / ed. doctor of economic sciences prof. Polyaka G.B. - M., UNITY-DANA, 2007, p. 287. 23. Khaikhadaeva O.D. State debt of the Russian Federation. - FROM. St. Petersburg: Norma, 2012. 24. L. G. Khodov. State regulation of the national economy. - M.: Economist, 2008 25. Economics and business. Under the editorship of Kamaev V.D. - M., 2013. 26. Economic and political situation in Russia. - M.: IET, 2009 27. Official website of the Ministry of Finance. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: www.minfin 28. Official website of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: www.ach.gov 29. Official website of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: www.cbr 30. Official website of the Government of the Russian Federation. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: www.government 31. The program of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term (2009-2012). [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: www.akdi 32. Draft program for the socio-economic development of the country. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: www.lib.eruditio

An excerpt from work

Chapter 1. Public debt of the subject of the Russian Federation as an object of management. 1.1 The essence, forms and structure of the public debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, its main characteristics. The Budget Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the state debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is the totality of its debt obligations. The state debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is fully and unconditionally secured by all property owned by a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and constituting the treasury of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Debt obligations arise from the subject of the Russian Federation through two channels: 1) as a result of the conclusion of state borrowing agreements; 2) as a result of providing guarantees for the obligations of third parties. From this follow the forms of debt obligations. In case of state borrowings, debt obligations of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation may exist in the form of: 1) loan agreements and contracts; 2) government loans of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, carried out by issuing securities of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation; 3) contracts and agreements on the receipt by the subject of the Russian Federation of budget loans and budget credits from the budgets of other levels of the budget system of the Russian Federation. When providing state guarantees, the form of a debt obligation is an agreement on the provision of state guarantees of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. In addition, the debt obligations of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation may take the form of agreements and contracts, including international ones, concluded on behalf of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, on the prolongation and restructuring of debt obligations of constituent entities of the Russian Federation of previous years.

Debt policy is the activity of the authorities in the management of public debt. It forms the ideology of public borrowing management, determines the strategy and tactics of public debt management and the main directions of the authorities for their implementation.

Development of the concept of debt policy;

Definition of strategic directions, goals and main objectives of the debt policy;

Creation of an adequate mechanism for the implementation of the debt policy;

Management of the activities of the state in planning borrowing, organizing the placement of loans, providing state guarantees, guarantees;

Control over the targeted use of attracted resources, as well as the timely repayment of public debt.

In accordance with the approved debt policy of Russia for 2013-2015. its main goals are:

Maintaining a moderate debt burden as Russia's most important competitive advantage;

Transformation of the national capital market into a stable source of meeting the needs of the budget;

When analyzing the effectiveness of debt policy at the level of a constituent entity of the Federation, the structure of the total public debt is considered, which consists of direct debt, which includes obligations on credits, loans and contracts, as well as guarantees and guarantees from the administration on loans or loans issued to lower budgets or organizations with related obligations.

The system of criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the debt policy is shown in Figure 8.3.

The problem of efficiency is most relevant when considering the incremental characteristics of public debt and the amount of payments for its servicing. By analogy with the central level of government, it would be logical to suggest using the ratio of the amount of accumulated subfederal public debt and the annual value of the gross regional product (GRP) as a base indicator in determining the effectiveness of debt policy.

Consider the indicators characterizing the efficiency of the borrowing process.

The debt/income ratio (GRP) determines for the territorial authorities the possibility of repaying payments for servicing the state debt at the expense of the produced regional product of the given year and, in this capacity, reflects the aspect of the general economic liquidity of the subject of the Federation.

Fig.8.3. A system of criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of debt policy

Thus, even single (annual) data on this ratio acquire practical significance. The same indicators for a number of years are much more informative. If the increase in public debt systematically outstrips the rate of economic growth, then a paradox arises: new government loans of the subject of the Federation are increasingly being placed in order to refinance old debts.

The ratio of interest payments / income (GRP) and its dynamics are one of the indicators of the degree of efficiency of the borrowing process in the constituent entity of the Federation, since minimizing the cost of servicing public debt relative to the annual volume of the product produced in the region or the tendency to such minimization over a certain period of time serve as a criterion for the degree of manageability subnational debt.

The balance of the current budget means that all newly attracted funds are directed to investments. Therefore, it is logical to compare the increase in borrowing during the period under consideration (for example, a fiscal year) with the volume of investment in the public finance sector over the same period.

The implementation of the infrastructural function of the public debt at the subfederal level involves the expansion of the tax base due to the intensification of economic activity in the territory of the subject of the Federation and the growth of tax revenues of the regional budget, as well as the growth of budget revenues in general in the financial year under review.

The implementation of the social function of public debt at the subfederal level is to provide the population with budgetary social services on an ongoing basis, so it is advisable to compare the increase in borrowing during the period under consideration (for example, a financial year) with the budget output.

The ratio of profitability / reliability of subnational

borrowing becomes a competitive advantage in the fight for investors' funds.

Managing the real dynamics of debt obligations involves monitoring two important indicators - the amount of public debt and the cost of servicing it. In conditions of economic growth, it is not their absolute size that is important, but the share of public debt in GDP and the ratio of real interest and economic growth rates.

The main burden of debt lies precisely in the need to annually deduct interest payments arising from borrowing. When a certain level of payments for servicing the public debt in relation to the GRP is reached, the subject of the Federation loses the possibility of further economic growth.

The second group of indicators is used in analytical practice in order to reflect the burden on the budget and economy of the region of the debt policy pursued on its territory. In this case, it is most appropriate to use just the traditional indicators of the debt burden, since the condition of comparability of the levels of the debt burden of subjects within the state is observed.

The most important indicators characterizing the level of the debt burden of a constituent entity of the Federation include:

The ratio of the amount of debt service payments to the amount of tax revenues to the regional budget (reflects the level of the current debt burden on business entities and the household sector in the region);

The ratio of the amount of accumulated (outstanding) debt and net (real and financial) assets of the public sector of the subject of the Federation (reflects the possibility of full repayment of debt obligations on time). This ratio is inversely proportional to the solvency ratio: the lower its value, the higher the solvency of the regional government;

The indicator of the ratio of debt service payments to the revenue side of the regional budget (characterizes debt service in a given financial year) is inversely proportional to the liquidity ratio: the lower its value, the higher the liquidity of the regional government's debt obligations;

The amount of accumulated (outstanding) debt per capita (directly proportional to the degree of dependence of the present and future socio-economic development of the region on the past debt policy);

The ratio of interest and non-interest expenses of the budget of the subject of the Federation (characterizes the impact of servicing the regional debt on the provision of all other, including social, budgetary services).

The question remains debatable. what threshold values ​​should the proposed indicators take so that the debt burden on the subject is not recognized as excessive, requiring adjustment of the borrowing strategies of the territorial authorities. This question can be considered open for all other categories of public debt. For example, the World Bank experts, who use a certain set of coefficients to measure solvency, believe that there can be no firmly established critical thresholds, the excess of which would pose a threat to the borrowing country. However, the set of parameters proposed by them still makes it possible to divide debtors into countries with moderate and high levels of indebtedness.

By analogy, for the classification and grouping of subjects of the Federation according to the degree of debt burden, it is advisable to use the interval values ​​of the five above indicators.

Many of the proposed debt indicators are closely related or even included in the number of indicators traditionally used in the formation of regional credit ratings.

The financial reputation of the borrowing region is important for assessing the effectiveness of subfederal borrowing management. In the financial market, it is expressed in a rating assigned by special agents in accordance with international rules. The credit rating of the region significantly affects the debt capacity and. consequently, on the availability of loans and the possible volumes of borrowed resources for the authorities of the territory.

Debt capacity (profile of borrowed capacity) of the budget is defined as the excess of budget revenues of a subject of the Russian Federation (municipal formation) over its current expenses, excluding the costs of servicing existing debt obligations in each period of the selected time interval. This interval cannot be shorter than the duration of the long-term financial plan, and the period cannot exceed the financial year.

In fact, the debt capacity of the budget determines the maximum volumes of repayment and servicing of debt obligations that can be carried out at the expense of budget revenues. The debt capacity of the budget is determined within the framework of the budget planning system. The boundaries of the debt capacity of financial markets for subnational governments can be expanded within certain limits by manipulating the offer price (yield) of their debt instruments. However, an increase in borrowing at a higher interest rate makes economic sense only if the effectiveness of specific investments (for which funds are raised) within the public sector of the region (both investments of a productive nature, and investments in human capital and future generations) turns out to be higher than the efficiency of investments in other financial instruments or the average profitability of projects in the real sector of the economy.

The debt capacity of financial markets for the administration of a constituent entity of the Federation should vary in a range that satisfies the demand for industrial and social investments through debt financing, but does not limit the competitiveness of debt instruments other than subfederal securities. To assess the quality of the debt policy of a subject of the Federation, the following indicative indicators can be calculated:

The ratio of direct and total debt to household income. This indicator makes it possible to assess the debt service reserves of a region (city) and to compare the subjects of the Russian Federation with each other.

Federations and municipalities with different socio-economic situation;

The ratio of the volume of short-term and long-term debt. A significant excess of short-term debt over long-term negatively affects the creditworthiness of the local administration, as it indicates an irrational debt policy and a lack of investment borrowing;

The share of debt obligations denominated in foreign currency in the structure of debt obligations. In conditions of high currency risk, a large share of debt denominated in foreign currency significantly increases the likelihood of the administration failing to fulfill its obligations, since budgets have ruble sources of income;

The share of the main components of direct debt in its structure makes it possible to assess the priorities of the administration's debt policy. It is believed that the size and quality of the debt burden on the budget largely characterizes the creditworthiness of the administration, since it determines the amount of funds that must be allocated by the administration for the timely fulfillment of its debt obligations in full;

The share of payments on short-term obligations in the structure of the debt burden. Large values ​​indicate the insufficiency of budgetary funds to fulfill their own obligations and, as a result, an excessive number of loans to cover cash gaps;

The share of payments on long-term obligations in the structure of the debt burden shows the debt burden of the administration on

investment loans;

The share of servicing debt obligations in the structure of the debt burden characterizes the profitability of borrowing conditions and the size of the additional burden on the budget as a result of the use of borrowed funds;

The ratio of full debt repayments to cash receipts less mandatory cash expenditures measures the administration's technical ability to meet

obligations on own debts after the implementation of the current mandatory cash outlays. A value greater than zero means that the administration does not have enough funds to repay debts this year and they can only be repaid through on-lending, which significantly increases credit risk.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the debt policy can be significantly limited due to the lack of available information or the lack of specialists working in this area. Such restrictions often do not allow obtaining data on sub-federal public debt immediately and in an optimal form, therefore, in many cases, obtaining an adequate data system can only be achieved through palliative decisions and with some delay.

State debt policy in 2013 - 2015 will be aimed at ensuring the financing of the state budget deficit by attracting resources in the Russian and international capital markets on favorable terms, maintaining a high level of the country's credit ratings, and creating adequate benchmarks for the level of credit risk for Russian corporate borrowers.

Debt policy is considered as a set of measures to manage debt obligations, attract government borrowings in order to provide financial resources for expenditure obligations, service them, refinance and repay not only the whole state, but also the subject in particular. It forms the ideology of public borrowing management, determines the strategy and tactics of public debt management and the main directions of the authorities for their implementation. In this chapter, we will attempt to characterize and analyze the main criteria for evaluating the debt policy of the Russian Federation and its subjects.

The effectiveness of the debt policy of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is generally understood as the efficiency of using financial resources and managing the state debt of the region. Public debt management is a systematic continuous process of selecting forms of borrowing by public authorities by attracting, servicing and repaying debt obligations in order to form and structure an optimal debt portfolio based on an assessment of the riskiness, price and terms of borrowing debt obligations.

Effective public debt management involves:

Creation of a transparent system using clear procedures and mechanisms;

Public disclosure of information about the debt policy of both the country as a whole and the region in particular.

In the conditions of extreme debt load and debt dependence of the regions, a new model of public debt management is needed. At the meeting of the expert-advisory group of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation (02.09.2011) it was noted that the Government of Russia should determine the real and valid instruments of control over the growing public debt. 2013 can safely be called the year of auditing the effectiveness of the debt policy of the regions. However, to determine the real state of affairs in this area, it is advisable to use the appropriate criteria for managing the public debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

The developed methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of the debt policy of the Russian Federation includes the evaluation of two groups of criteria:

quantitative;

Quality.

Within the framework of this work, a model for a qualitative assessment of the effectiveness of the debt policy based on six criteria indicators is presented.

Criterion I. Compliance with the requirements of budgetary legislation and the regional regulatory framework in relation to ongoing public debt management operations.

1. Article 106 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation states that the maximum amount of borrowings of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipal borrowings in the current financial year should not exceed the amount allocated in the current financial year to finance the deficit of the corresponding budget and repay the debt obligations of the corresponding budget.

2. Article 107 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation determines that the maximum amount of public debt of a subject of the Russian Federation should not exceed the approved total annual budget revenues of a subject of the Russian Federation, excluding the approved amount of gratuitous receipts.

3. Article 111 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation states: the maximum amount of expenses for servicing the state debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or municipal debt in the next financial year (and planning period), approved by the law (decision) on the relevant budget, according to the report on the execution of the corresponding budget for the reporting the financial year should not exceed 15% of the volume of expenditures of the corresponding budget, with the exception of the volume of expenditures that are carried out at the expense of subventions provided from the budgets of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation.

4. Article 112.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation 15 defines that the volume (size) of overdue debt on debt obligations is understood as the total volume of debt obligations that have not been fulfilled within the established period, the due date for which has come, including the volume of obligations to repay the amount of the loan (credit), to pay interest on the amount of the loan (credit), other payments stipulated by the terms of the loan, agreements concluded on behalf of the Russian Federation, a subject of the Russian Federation or a municipality. The amount of overdue debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation also includes the amount of forfeit (fines, penalties) and interest accrued for the delay in fulfilling debt obligations.

The requirements of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation in terms of limiting the parameters of the state internal debt of the region, the cost of servicing it and the budget deficit, as analysis shows (in accordance with the order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 03.12.2010 552 "On the procedure for monitoring and assessing the quality of regional finance management" 16 ) are observed. The existing budgetary restrictions cannot be called sufficiently complete and provide effective control over the level of credit risk in the region. This was actually confirmed during the crisis: a number of regions of the Russian Federation avoided default only thanks to the intervention of the federal center.

In this regard, additional criteria for a quality debt policy of the Russian Federation are proposed.

Criterion II. Introduction by the subject of the Russian Federation of its own restrictions (indicators, standards).

The development and implementation of modern methods of risk management in the field of debt policy into the practice of managing regional finances has become one of the most important goals of the programs for reforming the system of regional finances, implemented in the framework of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Legislative acts of individual subjects of the Russian Federation define their own restrictions:

The Murmansk region provides for planning when drafting the regional budget for the next financial year and for the planned period of the amount of public debt not exceeding 50% of the total annual revenue of the regional budget, excluding gratuitous receipts;

The Government of the Republic of Mari El has also set an economically safe level of public debt at a level not exceeding 40-45% of budget revenues, excluding gratuitous receipts;

In the Vologda Oblast, when calculating the volume of planned debt obligations, the indicator of budget revenues minus the planned volume of gratuitous receipts is 0.7 or 70%.

However, this practice is not universal. Moreover, it is alarming that regions with the greatest debt problems do not introduce additional restrictions. Our region is a vivid example of this situation.

Criterion III. Conducting monitoring of the state debt of the subject of the Russian Federation.

Conducting such monitoring in order to adjust the debt policy and economic policy of the region and the state as a whole can be entrusted to a specialized structure in the financial body. Moreover, the monitoring of public debt is based on the developed system of evaluation indicators - criteria for the effectiveness of the debt policy of the Russian Federation. According to many respected economists, the procedure for monitoring the state debt of the region should become an integral element of budget planning.

Criterion IV. Availability of a methodology for calculating the debt burden on the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

Due to the lack of a systematic approach to solving the problem of risk management, an excessively growing public debt becomes difficult to manage, and interest payments affect the increase in the budget deficit. At present, the regions are guided solely by the requirements of budget legislation and the parameters for evaluating the effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities. The manual is in no hurry to set additional parameters for itself.

Criterion V. Openness of information about the state of the public debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation through regular (annually at the beginning and end of the budget year) publication of information on the volume, structure of debt, maturities and interest rates, and the cost of servicing the public debt of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

An insufficient level of transparency in regional debt policy increases the risk of misuse of loans and reduces the confidence in regional borrowing on the part of potential investors. Consequently, the possibility of attracting investments to the region decreases.

Debt policy transparency should be understood as:

The ability of the general public to have access to information about the state of debt, the structure of borrowings;

Openness of information about debt for public attention and control.

This transparency is ensured by the implementation of an active information policy by the authorities and administration of the subject of the Federation and the development of information disclosure standards. Providing transparent and reliable information on debt policy is a necessary condition for ensuring effective and sustainable management of regional finances. The basis for the process of achieving this goal should be the requirements for public disclosure of information about the plans, conditions and results of sub-federal borrowing. Public information about the state of the debt of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, plans and results of its management should be reliable, understandable, timely and complete. Not only the bodies that manage subfederal finances, but also citizens, investors, creditors, and other business entities are interested in obtaining it.

guarantees greater information transparency of the debtor;

Allows you to monitor its financial situation;

Discloses existing debt instruments;

Allows you to judge investment opportunities in a particular region.

There is a statistically significant relationship between the credit rating and the risks associated with the acquisition of obligations in a given region, which affects the market level of interest rates on these obligations. Subjects of the Russian Federation are entitled to carry out external bonded loans subject to receiving ratings from at least two leading international rating agencies.

The result of an effective debt policy is an increase in the credit rating of the Russian Federation.

The economic logic underlying the proposed model is as follows. Each criterion is assigned a sum of points depending on the compliance with the requirements for the debt policy of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

If the subject of the Russian Federation has the established elements and the budget restrictions are observed, then the criterion is assigned 1 point. In the absence of relevant elements or non-compliance with regulatory requirements, points are assigned. Taking into account the complexity of the formation of the criterion "Compliance with the requirements of budget legislation and the regional regulatory framework", consisting of four indicators, its total maximum positive value is 1 point (0.25 points for compliance with each of the requirements of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation).

The next step in the framework of the developed methodology is to sum up the scores obtained and assign a qualitative level of effectiveness of the debt policy of the region: high, medium or low.

A low level is associated with the risk of default on obligations and requires urgent measures to be taken to improve performance in accordance with established standards, justify and develop steps to bring performance in line with established limitations in the short term.

In order to maintain the financial stability of the country, it is advisable to adhere to balanced debt management strategies and best risk management practices, to implement the correct data disclosure policy.

The effectiveness of the ongoing debt policy of the subject of the Russian Federation is determined by the reduction of public debt, which can significantly reduce the cost of servicing it and direct the saved money to development.