UDC 336.14(477); JEL E62, O18, R58 Vlasyuk, O. S. (2017). Reforma byudzhetnoyi detsentralizatsiyi v Ukrayini: rezul'taty, ryzyky ta perspektyvy [The Reform of budget decentralization in Ukraine: results, risks and perspectives]. Rehional'na ekonomika - Regional Economy, 84(2), 39-45. [in Ukrainian].
Authors
Resume
The system of budget decentralization risks in Ukraine is defined. Major problems of budget decentralization are outlined as following: unbalance of local budgets’ income and expenses due to the lack of sources to cover the liabilities transferred to the local budgets; absence of social standards and criteria on liabilities set and delegated by the state to local self-governing bodies in descriptive and value terms; violation of social justice principle in terms of repayment of privileges approved by Verhovna Rada of Ukraine; initiative on elimination of excise tax on retail trade in excisable goods; unfinished process of territorial communities combining stipulates additional burden in terms of budget system balancing. The ways to improve the mechanisms of budget regulation for maintenance of further accomplishment of budget decentralization reform’s tasks and achievement of its goal are suggested. The major directions are: development of state social standards; maintenance of correspondence between local budgets’ financial resources and the delegated liabilities; assurance of social privileges targeting; improvement of local taxes and fees efficiency; maintenance of inter-budgetary relations efficiency; solution of the issues on debt repayment of State Budget on Privileges and Subsidies; assurance of sectoral decentralization in the health care sphere; maintenance of sectoral decentralization in the educational sphere; provision of budget costs’ efficient management.
Keywords:
budget decentralization, expenses, income, local budgets, local self-governing bodies
Current condition and major problems of administrative and administrative-territorial reforms implementation in Ukraine are outlined. Actions of executive and legislative authorities in Ukraine in terms of conducting the abovementioned reforms are analyzed. On this basis the following facts were proven: the entire previous process of reforms conducting was reduced to solution of decentralization issues and voluntary automatic creation of combined communities; not the main reforms are implemented (administrative and administrative-territorial), but rather а spotted sectoral reform; decentralization by itself conducted according to nowadays patterns does not solve anything fundamentally. The drastic change of approach to elaboration of reform strategy and to selection of targets achievement ways is suggested. As a rule without exceptions, this should be our own domestic product with consideration of historic and political heritage as well as economic and demographic condition. This is why the level of local municipal management in each European country fundamentally differs by its institutional structure, volumes, scope of liabilities and number of management levels. Major recommendations on implementation of administrative and administrative-territorial reforms are suggested. The author proves the fact that these reforms’ final goal should be the creation of modern state management and regulation system, with local self-governing being one of its subsystems as the bottom and especially democratic subtype of state management.
administrative reform, administrative-territorial reform, decentralization, local self-governing, territorial communities
Analysis of scientific approaches to interpretation of investment capacity is conducted. Definition of the term «investment capacity of territorial community» is suggested. Special attention is paid to its specific features – concrete territorial context and dependence on peculiarities of local natural, social, economic and other factors and on the efficiency and adequacy of territorial management bodies’ activity directed at the use of community’s investment capacity. The structure of territorial community’s investment capacity is examined and its major components are outlined: natural conditions and resources, raw materials base, human resources, economic base, financial resources, investment climate and scientific, technological, innovative, institutional, infrastructural and management maintenance. The problems of forming and exploitation of territorial communities’ investment capacity are emphasized. Low management capacity and promotion activity of local governing bodies, absence of efficient incentives for investors and poor quality of local development programs are among them. The scheme of investment capacity management mechanism at the level of territorial community is suggested in order to outline the directions of management influences of local governing bodies on implementation of territorial communities’ investment capacity.
УКР 
ENG
