The effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds of the article. Methodology for assessing the effectiveness of the use of budget funds allocated within the framework of the implementation of anti-crisis programs and projects

The problem of effective use of budgetary funds is one of the most pressing and discussed problems in the scientific community. Many scientists note the fundamental role of the principle of efficiency for budget law as a financial and legal institution, and also pay attention to the study of the system of legal regulation of the efficiency of budget expenditures - one of the key aspects of the implementation of the principle of efficiency in the use of budget funds.

Significant amount research works is devoted to the analysis of the concepts of "efficiency" and "efficiency", their relationship in the framework of the budgetary sphere.

As N.N. Boyko "the philosophical concept of efficiency includes a generalized expression of the problem of rational ways to achieve a goal."

The term "effective" according to Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language is defined through the concept of "effective", i.e. giving the best result. Thus, the concepts of "result", "efficiency" of budget expenditures fix the connection between the goal financial activities the first order (execution of financial appointments) with the aim of the second order, the socio-economic effect of this activity.

Thus, according to T.A. Ultimately, "the effectiveness shows whether the final result was achieved or not from the performed activity or the service provided, efficiency - how or with the help of what the result was achieved."

Effectiveness and efficiency in budgetary sphere are the basis of the financial stability of the state, therefore they represent one of the key principles budgetary activities fixed in the Budget Code Russian Federation(hereinafter - BC RF).

According to Article 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the principle of efficient use of budgetary funds means that “when drawing up and executing budgets, participants in the budgetary process within the framework of the budgetary powers established by them should proceed from the need to achieve the specified results using the least amount of funds (economy) and (or) achieve the best result using the amount of funds (efficiency) determined by the budget ”.

It should be noted that the content of the above principle has undergone certain changes. Thus, initially, the RF BC established the principle of efficiency and economy in the use of budgetary funds. Then, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Law of 26.04.2007 No. 63-FZ "On Amendments to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation in Regarding the Regulation of the Budget Process and Bringing Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in Accordance with the Budget Legislation of the Russian Federation", the name of the principle was changed - the principle the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of budgetary funds. The new edition of Article 34 of the RF Budget Code made it possible to adjust the benchmarks for budget execution, highlighting the achievement of the maximum result when using budget funds.

At the same time, within the framework of the study of the principles of budgetary law, most of the authors have repeatedly emphasized the impossibility of identifying the concepts of "efficiency" and "effectiveness" of the use of budgetary funds. So, for example, O.I. Karepina classifies performance indicators as "intermediate (internal) or qualitative" and notes their impact on the final result from their spending. The effectiveness is considered by the author as an indicator of efficiency and "is determined by the ratio of the invested funds and the results obtained."

Another approach is presented in the work of A.V. Golubeva, who concludes that the effectiveness (secondary) criterion is derived from the effectiveness criterion. The article draws attention to the fact that, according to paragraph 9 of Article 31 of the RF Budget Code, "the resulting cost savings are considered by the legislator as one of the signs of effective budget execution." Thus, the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds is equated to savings in budget execution. At the same time, the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds appears as a consequence of the manifestation of effectiveness.

When considering the concept of "efficiency" through the prism of performance, it seems appropriate to outline the position of N.A. Povetkina, who emphasizes that “sometimes the qualitative aspect of the issue comes first, to the detriment of economy, i.e. it is not always possible to speak of efficiency in achieving a result for minimal funds to the detriment of quality, and also it is not immediately possible to determine the effectiveness and efficiency, as required by the norm of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. "

Returning to the content of Article 34 of the RF BC, it should be noted that current edition was introduced by the Federal Law of 07.05.2013 No. 104-FZ "On Amendments to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and certain legislative acts Of the Russian Federation in connection with the improvement of the budgetary process ”. In this article, the legislator has characterized the principle of efficiency in the use of budgetary funds by fulfilling the conditions of economy and (or) efficiency, thereby differentiating the concepts of “efficiency” and “effectiveness”, as well as defining the derivative nature of efficiency from the economical and efficient use of budgetary funds.

The implementation of the principle of efficiency in the area of ​​budget expenditures involves the implementation of a whole range of measures. At present, researchers identify the target-oriented method of planning expenditures as a priority tool for increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures. This method is the main one in the implementation of performance-based budgeting. Effective budgeting is part of a broader and more general model of effective management and implies that budget allocation should be mandatory imply the achievement of certain goals.

In accordance with the target program method, budget funds are allocated systematically, on the basis of approved target programs, and has a strict target orientation, provided by financial control over the use of funds. According to the general opinion of scientists, it is the programs that make it possible to solve the most pressing problem in the field of public finance management - the lack of interconnection between the application of budget policy instruments and the assessment of the effectiveness of the use of public finance in the budgetary sphere.

Target-programmed methods are actively used when the main administrators of federal budget funds are responsible for the formation of justifications for budget allocations. Justification of budget expenditures is important for all budgetary activities of the state and allows us to see the need to finance one or another of its powers in a strictly defined volume, in a strictly defined form, in a certain period of time and by a specific entity (main manager).

General list government programs The Russian Federation is enshrined in the order of the Government of the Russian Federation of 11.11.2010 No. 1950-r "On approval of the list of state programs of the Russian Federation" and includes 44 existing programs.

Updating state programs and bringing them in line with the approved parameters of the federal budget for 2015 and the planning period for 2016–2017. was not carried out due to the suspension until January 1, 2016 of the effect of the corresponding norm of the BC RF.

The most important for ensuring long-term balance and sustainability of the budget system, as well as improving the quality of management public finance, are government programs: "Public Financial Management and Regulation financial markets"," Development of federal relations and creation of conditions for effective and responsible management of regional and municipal finances. "

Within the framework of the above-mentioned state programs, the following measures are envisaged: development of the foundations of regulatory and legal and methodological support for the provision of state (municipal) services, improvement of the remuneration system in the state civil service, improvement of mechanisms financial security social support of the population, improving budgetary legislation, increasing the openness and accessibility of information on the activities of public legal entities in the field of public finance management, and others.

In addition, each state program approved the expected results from the implementation of measures, as well as established indicators (indicators) that must be achieved within a certain time interval.

In spite of high level implementation of state programs in certain areas, it should be noted that in their practical implementation, a number of problems inevitably arise.

So, first of all, it is necessary to indicate the significant administrative time required to agree on the introduction of changes to the program (if necessary). For example, new edition of the state program "Management of public finances and regulation of financial markets", the interdepartmental coordination of which began by its executor (Ministry of Finance of Russia), co-executor (Rosalkogolregulirovanie) and participants (Treasury of Russia, Federal Tax Service of Russia, Rosfinnadzor) in December 2014, as of May 1, 2016 and approved by the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation. In addition, in connection with the liquidation of Rosfinnadzor and the transfer of its functions to other departments, the implementation of a significant part of the activities of this program has actually been suspended until the completion of liquidation procedures and the harmonization of all regulatory legal acts. Also, the implementation of the measures declared in the program is often formal, not aimed at achieving new levels of development, and the indicators (indicators) established by state authorities do not meet the requirements of objectivity and effectiveness.

An equally important area of ​​implementation of the principle of efficient use of budgetary funds is to increase the efficiency of public procurement. According to the report of the Ministry of Finance of Russia on the main directions of increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation at the end of 2015, the most common problems in this area are excessive regulation of procurement procedures, lack of uniformity of application, unambiguity and clarity of legislation on the contract system, impossibility of effective and complete control from the procurement planning stage to its execution. Also, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation highlighted the problem of the lack of integration of regional information systems in the field of procurement with information systems budget planning, which does not allow to ensure full interconnection of the procurement process with the budgetary process to build an effective system for managing the region's budgetary funds.

To a large extent, the implementation of the principle of efficiency of budget expenditures depends on the processes of formation, provision and distribution of interbudgetary transfers. The current situation in this area can be characterized both by the relative successes of the regions in terms of increasing the efficiency of the distribution of interbudgetary transfers, and by the presence of a significant number of problems associated with macroeconomic changes, as well as with changes to federal legislation. The most pressing problems and challenges in the field interbudgetary relations can be grouped in the following areas: consolidation of interbudgetary transfers; procedures for the provision of interbudgetary transfers; the change budget parameters; methodology for calculating interbudgetary transfers; legislation and legal regulation... Considering that the constituent entities of the Russian Federation from 2016 are obliged to draw up regional budgets in a "program" format, budget allocations are planned in strict connection with the goals, objectives and indicators of state programs. The provision of subsidies and other targeted interbudgetary transfers from the federal budget is already in the process of implementation regional budgets forces the regions to significantly adjust state programs in the course of their implementation.

Having outlined the key areas of implementation of the principle of efficient use of budgetary funds, it should be noted that building responsible public finance management is a laborious and multifactorial process due to following principles: financial (fiscal) transparency, stability and long-term sustainability of budgets, an effective and fair system of inter-budgetary relations, consolidation of the budget and the budgetary process, effective financial control, reporting and monitoring.

Bibliography:

1. Arbatskaya Yu.V. Problems of implementation of the principle of efficiency in budget law // Academic legal journal. -2013. - No. 1. - P. 28 - 32.
2. Bogacheva O.V., Lavrov A.M., Yastrebova O.K. international experience program budgeting // Finance. -2010. - No. 12. - P. 4 - 14.
3. Boyko N.N. On the question of defining the concept of the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds // Financial right... -2014. - No. 1. - P. 4 - 7.
4. Boltinova O.V. On the issue of increasing the efficiency of budgetary expenditures in the Russian Federation // Actual problems of Russian law. -2014. -№ 3. - С.84-89.
5. Vershilo T.A. The principle of efficiency and effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds: legal problems of implementation // Financial Law. -2013. - No. 5. - S. 21-28.
6. A.V. Golubev Legal expression of targeting budget expenditures // Financial Law. - 2012.- No. 7. - P.18-22.
7. Efremova T.F. New dictionary of the Russian language. Explanatory and derivational. - M .: Russian language, 2000. URL: http: //www.efremova.info/word/dejstvennyj.html#.Vz11v_mLTIU (date of access: 05/10/2016).
8. O.I. Karepina Development of the Audit of the Efficiency of Public Expenditures // International Accounting. - 2014. - No. 30 (324). - S. 42-51.

The issues of the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds are always of great importance in the implementation of state (municipal) financial control. Recall that the principle of the effectiveness of the use of funds, given in Art. 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation means that when drawing up and executing budgets, participants in the budgetary process, within the framework of the budgetary powers established by them, must proceed from the need to achieve the specified results using the least amount of funds or achieve the best results using the amount of funds specified by the budget.

In addition to the designated article, there is not a single regulatory document, giving an answer to the question of what is ineffective use of funds. Moreover, neither the Ministry of Finance nor the legislators took the trouble to develop and approve the criteria for that very efficiency. In other words, any inspector, when carrying out a control event, determines the degree of efficiency or inefficiency of the use of funds based solely on his own understanding of the named term. In this article, we will provide an overview of several judgments concerning control activities in which the auditors identified cases of ineffective use of funds. We hope that the material will be of interest to our readers.

Is it possible to apply the provisions of Art. 34 BC RF?

By virtue of Art. 6 BC RF recipients of budgetary funds (funds of the corresponding budget) - body state power(state body), governing body of the state extra-budgetary fund, local self-government body, local administration, under the jurisdiction of the main manager (manager) of budgetary funds, a state institution that has the right to accept and (or) fulfill budgetary obligations on behalf of public law education at the expense of funds the corresponding budget.

Since neither budget nor autonomous institutions are not recipients of budgetary funds, the requirement for compliance with Art. 34 of the RF BC, the principle of efficiency cannot be applied to them. This conclusion was reached by the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal in decisions dated 01.12.2015 No. 09AP-42351/2015, 09AP-42588/2015.

In addition, clause 23 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of June 22, 2006 No. 23 "On some issues of the application by arbitration courts of the norms of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation" the implementation of the tasks assigned to them and within the limits of budget funds allocated for certain purposes independently determine the need, expediency and economic feasibility of performing a specific expenditure transaction. In this regard, a specific expenditure transaction can be recognized as ineffective spending of budgetary funds only in the case when the control body will prove

It turns out to conclude about not effective use funds, the auditor must collect and attach to the act documentary evidence confirming the fact of the violation.

Is the payment of fines and penalties ineffective?

Based on the results of the audit carried out by the department of the financial and economic activities of the institution in 2013, an act of 10.07.2014 was drawn up, from the content of which it follows that, in violation of the requirements of Art. 34, 162 of the RF Budget Code of the federal budget in the amount of 90 611 thousand rubles. were directed by the institution to pay a fine for late return of the rented premises (27,312 thousand rubles), interest for the use of other people's funds (38,055 thousand rubles) and for late payment of payment for reimbursement of utilities and maintenance services (9,244 thousand rubles .), state duty on legal costs (16,000 thousand rubles).

Recall that a forfeit (fine, penalty interest) is defined by law or contract sum of money which the debtor is obliged to pay to the creditor in the event of default or improper performance obligations, in particular in case of delay in performance. Upon a claim for payment of a penalty, the creditor is not obliged to prove the damage caused to him (clause 1 of article 330 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). An agreement on a forfeit must be drawn up in writing, otherwise it is invalid (Article 331 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for the use of other people's funds due to their unlawful withholding, evasion of their return, other delay in their payment, or unjustified receipt or savings at the expense of another person, interest is payable on the amount of these funds. It should be noted that, in contrast to the forfeit, interest for the use of other people's funds may be collected even if the specified condition is not included in the agreement (contract).

On the basis of the inspection report, the department issued a submission dated 08/07/2014 No. 50, in which the institution was proposed to take measures to eliminate the causes and conditions conducive to the commission of violations identified by the inspection within 30 days from the date of receipt of the submission. Disagreeing with the findings of the inspectors, the institution went to court.

Refusing to satisfy the institution's demand to invalidate the above submission, the courts relied on the following. Established by Art. 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the principle of the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds means that when drawing up and executing budgets, participants in the budgetary process within the framework of the budgetary powers established by them should proceed from the need to achieve the specified results using the least amount of funds (economy) and (or) the need to achieve the best result using the amount of funds determined by the budget (effectiveness).

According to Art. 162 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the recipient of budget funds ensures the effectiveness, targeted use of the budget allocations provided for him.

Based on the meaning and content of the aforementioned legal norms, the courts noted that the costs of paying a fine for the late return of the rented premises, interest for the use of other people's funds and for late payment of payment for reimbursement of utilities and maintenance services, as well as court costs are not considered a predetermined result of the activity. institutions, and the costs of these needs are ineffective.

In view of the above, the amount of any fines and penalties paid by the recipient of budget funds may be deemed ineffective.

Payment of travel on a business trip in excess of the established size

Considering the above, we note that state (municipal) institutions, when sending employees on business trips, are obliged to be guided by the rules of compensation travel expenses approved by the Government of the Russian Federation, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation or local authorities. To independently establish such norms, even at the expense of funds received from income-generating activities, they not entitled.

For example, federal state civil servants are reimbursed for business travel expenses in accordance with the norms specified in clause 21 of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 18, 2005 No. 813 "On the procedure and conditions for sending federal state civil servants". Persons who are not federal civil servants, but who work in institutions financed from the federal budget, are reimbursed for business travel expenses in the amounts established by the Government of the Russian Federation dated 02.10.2002 No. 729 "On the amount of reimbursement of expenses related to business trips in the territory Of the Russian Federation, employees of organizations financed from the federal budget ”(hereinafter - Resolution No. 729).

When checking the correctness of reimbursement of funds when sending employees on business trips, controllers always pay attention to compliance with established standards. So, according to paragraphs. "C" clause 1 of Resolution No. 729 travel expenses to the place of business trip and back to the place of permanent work are reimbursed in the amount of actual expenses confirmed by travel documents, but not higher than the cost of travel:

• by rail - in the compartment carriage of a fast branded train;
• by water transport - in the cabin of the V group of a sea vessel of regular transport lines and lines with integrated passenger services, in the cabin of the II category of a river vessel of all lines of communication, in a cabin of the I category of a ferry vessel;
• by air- in the economy class cabin;
• by road - in a public transport vehicle (except for taxis).

The Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 01.02.2016 No. 09AP-55065/2015 considered the complaint of the Federal State Treasury Institution "Directorate for the Construction and Operation of Rosgranitsa Objects" (hereinafter in the section - the institution) to Rosfinnadzor on invalidating the order dated 04.06.2015 No. AS -03-24 / 3438.

As established by the court, Rosfinnadzor in the period from 03/11/2015 to 04/07/2015 audited the use of federal budget funds in 2013 - 2014, including those aimed at the implementation of the federal target program "State Border of the Russian Federation (2012 - 2020)" (State the program of the Russian Federation "Provision state security"), At the Institution.

During the audit of the use of federal budget funds in 2013-2014, Rosfinnadzor revealed facts of acceptance and reimbursement of expenses to employees for the period to the place of business trip and back to actual cost travel by air in business class cabins and reimbursement of the costs of using the lounges of officials and delegations at airports (VIP lounges), as well as unreasonable reimbursement of travel costs to the place of work and back for persons whose work is traveling in nature, without approving the order and size reimbursement of travel expenses for employees by local regulations institutions.

Thus, during the audit, it was revealed that in the audited period, the expenses of employees of the institution for travel to the place of business trip and back were accepted and reimbursed at the actual cost of air travel in business class cabins, and the costs of using the lounges of officials of delegations at airports (VIP lounges) were reimbursed. ).

In connection with the foregoing, Rosfinnadzor concluded that the institution violated the principle of the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds, established by Art. 34 BC RF.

Based on the results of the consideration of the case, the court concluded that the institution in 2013 - 2014 violated the principle of the effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds, established by Art. 34 of the RF BC, in terms of accepting and reimbursing employees for travel expenses to the place of business trip and back at the actual cost of air travel in business class cabins and reimbursement of expenses for using lounges for officials of delegations at airports (VIP lounges).

At the same time, the court noted that paragraph 1 of Government Resolution No. 729 provides for reimbursement of travel expenses to the place of business trip and back in the amount of actual expenses confirmed by travel documents, but not higher than the cost of air travel in an economy class cabin.

Thus, the payment of expenses in this category should be made regardless of the category of staff of the institution.

When considering the argument of the institution about the consent of the higher authority (Rosgranitsa) to reimburse the costs of travel to the place of business travel and back in business class, the court took into account that the institution sent memorandums long before sending employees on a business trip, as well as without the attachment of supporting documents for the absence of economy class tickets, or the impossibility of acquiring them... In addition, the memoranda lacks information about the sending person, about the place and time of the trip, as well as information justifying the real reasons for the need to fly in business class, etc.

Taking into account that the memoranda are based on the personal desire of the head of the institution to fly in business class, as well as in the absence of documents confirming the impossibility of purchasing economy class tickets, which is directly provided for by Resolution No. 729, the institution's link to Rosgranitsa's consent was rejected by the court.

Thus, the payment of the cost of both travel and accommodation on a business trip in excess of the established norms without the application of supporting documents for the absence of tickets according to the established norms (at the established cost of living or in the case of living not in a single room) or the impossibility of purchasing them may be considered ineffective.

In conclusion, we note once again: when assessing the observance of this principle by the participants in the budgetary process, the courts need to take into account that the participants in the budgetary process, within the framework of the implementation of the tasks assigned to them and within the limits of budget funds allocated for certain purposes, independently determine the need, expediency and economic feasibility of performing a specific expenditure transaction ... In this regard, a specific expenditure transaction can be recognized as ineffective spending of budgetary funds only in the case when the control body will prove that the tasks assigned to the participant in the budgetary process could be accomplished using less funds, or that, using the amount of funds determined by the budget, the participant in the budgetary process could achieve a better result.

STATE REGULATION

Cand. legal entity Sciences E. A. Chegrinets

PRINCIPLE OF PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY OF USE OF BUDGET FUNDS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

The purpose of this article is to describe some approaches to understanding one of the basic principles of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation - the principle of the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of budgetary funds.

Key words: budgetary system, the principle of efficiency and effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds, a model of communal pastures.

The legislation of the Russian Federation enshrines not the principles of budgets, but the principles of the budgetary system, which is the totality of all the independent budgets of the state. In accordance with Article 10 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the budgetary system of our country consists of the federal budget and the budgets of state extra-budgetary funds of the Russian Federation; the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the budgets of territorial state off-budget funds; as well as local, municipal budgets.

In accordance with Article 28 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the budgetary system of Russia is based on the principles of the unity of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation; delineation of income, expenses and sources of financing budget deficits between the budgets of the budgetary system; independence of budgets; equality of budgetary rights of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities; completeness of reflection of income, expenses and sources of financing of budget deficits; balance of the budget; the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of budgetary funds; general (aggregate) coverage of budget expenditures; transparency (openness); reliability of the budget; targeting and targeted nature of budget funds; jurisdiction of budget expenditures; the unity of the cash register.

Obviously, the principles of the budgetary system are understood as the principles of building such a budgetary system (for example, the unity of the budgetary system of the Russian Federation, the independence of budgets, the equality of budgetary rights of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities), and the principles of building and using

replenishment of the budgets themselves included in budget system(for example, the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of budget funds, the reliability of the budget, the balance of the budget).

The most important principle for budget execution is the principle of effectiveness and efficiency of spending budget funds. Its foundations are laid down in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. So, in the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of March 21, 2007 No. 3-P on the case "On checking the constitutionality of a number of provisions of Articles 6 and 15 of the federal constitutional law" On the referendum of the Russian Federation "in connection with the complaint of citizens V. I. Lakeev, V. G. Solovyov and V. D. Ulas "clearly indicates the existence of" the obligation of the state to spend public finances on the implementation of its functions effectively, as required by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in particular its Articles 104 (part 3) and 114 (paragraphs "a "," B "part 1)".

The direct normative consolidation of the principle of efficiency and effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds is contained in Article 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, indicating that “when drawing up and executing budgets, the participants in the budgetary process within the framework of the budgetary powers established by them should proceed from the need to achieve the specified results using the smallest amount funds or achieving the best result using a budget defined amount of funds ”. Note that currently said principle applies only to the process of spending budget funds and does not apply either to activities to obtain budget revenues, or to activities to attract and manage sources of financing the budget deficit, which, in our opinion, is a serious omission.

Another significant problem in relation to this principle is the identification of the relationship between the concepts of "efficiency" and "efficiency". In domestic science and practice, there are two fundamentally different approaches to this issue. Proponents of one argue that performance and effectiveness are two distinct phenomena. Another point of view is to understand performance as the foundation and integral element of effectiveness, without which effectiveness cannot exist.

It seems that the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court has now put a normative end to this dispute. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of February 26, 2009 No. 17 included in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of June 22, 2006 No. 23 no-

paragraph 23, which provides a clear and definition of what requirements a particular expenditure transaction must meet and what the actions of the control body must be in order for the transaction to be recognized as an ineffective spending of budgetary funds.

In accordance with paragraph 23 of the resolution, “the participants in the budget process, within the framework of the implementation of the tasks assigned to them and within the limits of budget funds allocated for certain purposes, independently determine the need, expediency and economic feasibility of performing a specific expenditure transaction.<...>a specific expenditure transaction can be recognized as ineffective spending of budgetary funds only if the authorized body proves that the tasks assigned to the participant in the budget process could be performed using less funds or that using the amount of funds determined by the budget, the participant in the budget process could achieve better result ".

V this definition contains two fundamental points.

First, the signs of ineffective use of budgetary funds are violations of both elements of the formulation of the principle of efficiency and effectiveness of the use of budgetary funds, enshrined in Article 34 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, including the requirement to achieve the best result using the amount of funds determined by the budget, i.e., performance. Thus, the resolution clearly indicates not only the inextricable link between the efficiency and effectiveness of spending budget funds, but also that efficiency is only one of the essential elements of efficiency, a necessary but not sufficient condition for it. Indeed, without efficiency there can be no efficiency, but effective activity can be ineffective if the economy of the use of funds is not ensured.

Secondly, the Plenary pointed out the need for the supervisory body to prove the very possibility of performing tasks using less funds or achieving a better result using available funds. Thus, the resolution confirms fundamental difference lack (ineffective activity) from violation, since no evidence of the possibility of other behavior is required to establish the fact of violation, it is enough to fix the deviation from the normative model. Accordingly, violation of the principle of effectiveness and efficiency of spending budget funds is not a violation, but only a shortcoming in the activities of state bodies.

What is the importance of this principle? Obviously, no budget expenditures should be made solely for the sake of incurring these expenditures. As SI Lushin noted: “The ultimate goal of budget financing is to obtain a certain efficiency from these expenses, which, in essence, means the need to clarify the meaning of this monetary expenditure, the real consequences of this monetary expenditure. ... Waste of budget money does not always lead to an effect. Money is one thing, and getting an effect from it is another economic phenomenon. "

Practice shows that the state is almost always a less efficient business executive than a private owner. To explain this phenomenon from the standpoint of the theory of public choice and constitutional economics, it seems appropriate to cite the main provisions of the theory of "budgetary pastures", or "nobody's budgets", developed by J. Baden and R. Fort and substantiating the "innate" reasons for the growth of the state apparatus and deliberate inefficiency use of budgetary funds.

Within the framework of their concept of "budgetary pastures" J. Baden and R. Fort applied to the budget the theory of communal pastures, developed originally by William Foster Lloyd (1794-1852) and developed by G. Hardin.

In his famous essay "The Tragedy of Communal Pastures," G. Hardin considered the reasons why resources that do not belong to anyone, or, more precisely, belong to an unlimited number of people, are always ineffectively used. He cites communal pastures as an example. Naturally, the pasture can only support a strictly defined number of livestock. At the same time, it is assumed that each of the shepherds strives to make the most of the pasture to their advantage. Sooner or later, any shepherd seeking to maximize the usefulness of the pasture will begin to consider releasing one more sheep into the pasture than the pasture can provide. Analyzing the pros and cons of such an act, the shepherd will come to the conclusion that all the advantages in the form of income from grazing an extra sheep will go to him personally, and the negative consequences will be evenly distributed among all shepherds who use the pasture. After all, the grass that the extra sheep eats will not go to all the sheep grazing in the pasture, and not just the sheep of the shepherd with the extra sheep. Accordingly, since the distribution of income and costs will be unequal (costs are shared among everyone, and income goes to only one), the shepherd will decide to put an extra sheep on the pasture. But this logic applies to all shepherds, each of whom will

release more and more extra sheep into the pasture until the pasture dies.

G. Hardin believed that such an example well illustrates the general laws and the fate of any resource that does not belong to anyone or does not belong to users, and extended the concept of the tragedy of communal pastures to fishing resources, reserves and the land in general. At the same time, using the analogy of public pastures, he argued that the problems uneven distribution incomes and costs on communal pastures can be addressed either by selling such pastures to private individuals, who will bear the full income and costs, or by regulating the right of access to such pastures, which would prevent herders from unbalancing them. ...

J. Baden and R. Fort applied the communal pasture model to public budgets and came to the following conclusions. On the one hand, bureaucrats1 (regardless of whether they are good or bad) in favor of maximizing personal interest, which can have both material (additional financial resources for the agency headed by a bureaucrat) and non-material aspects (for example, political weight, influence, power ), strive to get maximum access to "budgetary pastures", that is, to budgetary funds and other public resources that are formed by the whole society (and not exclusively by these bureaucrats), but from the use of which the bureaucrats who have gained access to them will have the maximum profit and their agencies, as well as the recipients of public resources associated with them (for example, target categories of recipients of certain payments, grants, subsidies, benefits, etc.).

Thus, an ideal analogy with communal pastures arises: the bureaucracy practically does not bear any losses from the attraction or use of budget funds, since all costs are distributed among the widest circle of people (all taxpayers). On the other hand, using public resources to their advantage gives those bureaucrats who have access to them a profit without any significant costs.

The picture becomes even worse for ordinary citizens if we take into account that the interests of specific bureaucrats are always associated with obtaining maximum support from target groups,

1 Usually the term "bureaucrat" in a significant number of languages ​​has a negative connotation, or at least negative connotations. In this case, the word "bureaucrat" means senior civil servants or other public persons who are heads of certain public bodies, primarily related to the executive branch and making decisions for such bodies.

giving a personal interest in his activities. And since a significant part of the activities of various structures of the executive power on the present stage is an activity of redistributing general resources “grown” on “budgetary pastures” to specific recipients, it is obvious that the more such resources specific recipients receive, the more they will support the bureaucrat (or politician) who provided them with such access. Accordingly, the bureaucrat will be interested in increasing his own access and control over public resources.

The logic of a rational bureaucrat in relation to budgetary resources will be approximately the following: “Every bureaucrat understands that he has access to the treasury. You can imagine that he is asking himself the question: "What will be the income for my organization (and therefore for me), if I can get another share of the treasury?" All the income received will go to finance the activities of his agency (which will increase the control of the bureaucrat over the allocation of resources), while the costs of such a seizure will be distributed evenly among all bureaucrats in the form of lost seizure opportunities. "

This logic is used by all bureaucrats, each of whom strives to maximize the functions and powers of his organization in order to gain control over a greater share of public resources, which inevitably leads to the growth of state functions and the state apparatus.

Moreover, absolutely expected, predictable and rational logical conclusions of bureaucrats lead to the fact that they become disinterested in the effective use of budgetary resources, since it leads to a reduction in the bureaucratic apparatus, the volume of redistributed budgetary resources and a drop in interest in specific bureaucrats and public bodies on the part of targeted groups of recipients of public resources.

This can be confirmed by the chronic non-use by the executive authorities of the proposals of representatives of science to improve the spending of budgetary funds, the adoption of deliberately ineffective, if not in principle unrealizable managerial decisions, excessive and unreasonable budget planning, as well as ignoring the requirements of higher authorities to improve the efficiency of their work, which are characteristic of bureaucratic machines in almost all countries of the world.

The explanation for this is very simple. Any decisions are made on the basis of two factors: information and positive consequences from the decisions made. But since for each individual bureaucrat the positive consequences of increasing the efficiency of spending

budget funds and a decrease in the volume of budget expenditures are equal to zero (and in fact, such consequences will be negative), and the positive consequences of ignoring or not making such decisions are great (or at least allow maintaining the status quo), then there are no reasons for making or implementing decisions on there is no increase in the efficiency of budget expenditures for bureaucrats.

A way out of this situation can be not only formal consolidation of the relevant requirements for the effective and efficient use of budgetary resources, but also the creation of external mechanisms for forcing the bureaucracy to actually comply with this principle. The options for such external mechanisms may be different, but basically they boil down to one of the following mechanisms: either to the creation of specialized reporting, which makes it possible to measure specific results of activities and the real costs of achieving them, or to the creation of a body independent of the bureaucracy, interested not in obtaining its own the share of "budgetary pastures", and in the reduction of access to them by other public authorities. Note that in practice, both mechanisms are usually used together.

The most radical version of such an external body aimed at improving budget efficiency is the “budget predator” proposed by J. Baden and R. Fort - an independent agency financed by a share of the budget expenditures reduced due to its participation. main task which is the justification for the reduction of requirements for the allocation of budgetary funds and other public resources from other public authorities.

The author is not aware of any cases practical application such a radical proposal, but in fact and in a milder form (since they have no financial interest), the role of such a “budget predator” is performed by governmental audit bodies, especially if, as in Russia, they have the right to examine draft regulatory legal acts, target programs and budget acts. legislation. In addition, the most important mechanism for enhancing the efficiency of spending budget funds is the transition from estimated financing, "sharpened" for the development of allocated budget funds in the necessary areas without determining a specific end result, to budgeting, based on results. The latter method of budget execution involves a combination of greater freedom in the use of budgetary funds on the part of recipients, subject to the achievement of clearly defined measurable results.

In the context of performance-based budgeting, the state budget itself and reporting on its implementation are essential

change their character. In the traditional execution of the budget, first of all, issues are resolved about the amount of funds that are going to be spent in certain areas. Accordingly, the traditional report on budget execution informs the public about how much money was spent, by whom and in what directions. The question of what will be done for money and what was done as a result is not discussed either during the adoption of the budget, or during the preparation and consideration of the report on its implementation.

When budgeting, the situation changes dramatically. As S. D. Styveling noted, in this situation “in state budget there should be clear answers to three questions, asked in the following sequence:

What tasks does the government intend to solve?

What action does it intend to take to achieve this?

What costs will be required for their implementation?

In turn, the annual report should provide clear answers to the following questions:

Have the tasks set for the budget been solved?

Has the budgeted action plan been implemented?

Have the costs exceeded the budget estimate? " ...

As we can see, the formulation of questions here is already completely different than in the traditional execution of the budget, and society can get a specific answer to the question of what exactly will be done for it for the money given to it by the state. Note that, in our opinion, only a complex combination of the transition to performance-based budgeting with effective government audit can significantly increase the efficiency of spending public funds.

Bibliography

1. Government audit in Europe. Achievements and prospects. - M., 2005.

2. Finance: textbook / ed. S. I. Lushin, V. A. Slepova. -M. : Economist, 2003.

3. Baden J., Fort R. Natural Resources and Bureaucratic Predators // Policy Review. - 1980. - N 11.

4. Hardin H. The Tragedy of the Commons // Science. - 1968. -Vol. 162. -N 3859.

5. Lloyd W. F. Two Lectures on the Checks to Population. - Oxford: OUP, 1833.

Increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures is one of the most important tasks facing government and local government bodies. At the same time, oddly enough, there is no common understanding of what the efficiency of budget expenditures is. There are also no formalized criteria by which one can draw a conclusion about whether public (budget) funds have been effectively spent. As a matter of fact, at what level of cost aggregation it is necessary to evaluate their efficiency, everyone also understands in his own way. Vladimir Vasilievich MIKHEEV, Deputy Head of the Department for Interaction with Regional Authorities of the Center for the Study of Budgetary Relations

The Budget Code contains Art. 34 "The principle of efficiency and effectiveness in the use of budgetary funds", according to which "when drawing up and executing budgets, the participants in the budgetary process, within the framework of the budgetary powers established by them, should proceed from the need to achieve the specified results using the least amount of funds or achieve the best result using the amount of funds specified by the budget. ". In short, the principle of cost effectiveness is “the same result for less money” or “more result for the same money”. That is, the legislator sees the result obtained when spending funds in comparison with costs as the basis for assessing the effectiveness.

And one more important point arising from the mentioned principle: to assess efficiency, you need to compare costs. Either the costs of one GRBS (institution) for different periods, or the costs of different, approximately the same, GRBS (institutions) in one financial year. The assessment from this comparison cannot be expressed in numbers, but can only be made in the phrases "more efficiently than" or "less efficiently than".

Control but not evaluate

In accordance with the Program of the Government of the Russian Federation to improve the efficiency of budget expenditures for the period up to 2012 at the federal level, ministries and departments have developed and are implementing sectoral (departmental) plans for increasing the efficiency of budget expenditures, guidelines on the development and implementation of regional and municipal programs to improve the efficiency of budget expenditures. Many regions and municipalities have developed and are implementing such programs. But today there is no answer to the questions of who and, most importantly, how should assess the effectiveness of budget expenditures.

If we turn to federal legislation, we will see that only for the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, the law defines, among the tasks for which it was created, “to determine the effectiveness and expediency of spending public funds and the use of federal property”, and to the powers of the control and accounting bodies of the constituent entities RF includes "the organization and implementation of control over the legality, effectiveness (efficiency and economy) of the use of funds from the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, funds from the budgets of territorial state extra-budgetary funds and other sources stipulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation."

As for the federal executive bodies of state power, the function (authority, responsibility) for assessing the effectiveness of spending budget funds is not assigned to any of them - not to Federal Service financial and budgetary supervision, neither over the Ministry of Finance of Russia, nor over the main administrators of federal budget funds. At the regional and municipal levels, the regulations on public authorities and local self-government bodies contain norms on increasing efficiency, ensuring efficiency, developing a set of measures, etc. But not on assessment.

Article 270.1 of the Budget Code gives executive authorities the right to create internal financial audit units ( internal control), it would seem - that's it! Who, if not an auditor, will be able to assess the effectiveness of costs. But the provisions of this article speak about the preparation and organization of "measures aimed at increasing the effectiveness (efficiency and economy) of the use of budgetary funds", but not about the assessment of effectiveness.

It would be wrong to say that there is no normative consolidation There are no questions of assessing the effectiveness of budget expenditures by executive bodies. Until January 1, 2013, the evaluation methodology approved by the RF Government Decree of April 15, 2009 No. 322 "On measures to implement the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 825 dated June 28, 2007" On the assessment of the effectiveness of the executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation "is in force the effectiveness of the executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The methodology operates with such an indicator as the share of ineffective expenditures in the total expenditures of regional budgets. Here, an approach is applied in which certain types of expenses are called ineffective.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of subsidies

In accordance with the Rules for the formation, provision and distribution of subsidies from the federal budget to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 392 dated May 26, 2008), the regulations for the provision of a specific type of subsidies should contain a procedure for assessing the effectiveness of the use of subsidies. Almost all the rules contain provisions according to which the assessment of the efficiency of expenditures of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the source of financial support for which are subsidies from the federal budget, is carried out on the basis of a comparison of the established and actually achieved values ​​of performance indicators for the provision of subsidies, which are contained in the List of Priority expenditure obligations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities co-financed from the federal budget (approved by the Government of the Russian Federation of October 13, 2011 No. 1801-r).

In this case, to assess the effectiveness of the use of subsidies, performance indicators are taken and the achieved values ​​of the indicator are compared with the planned ones. It would seem that there is both a result and a comparison. But in terms of meaning, only the result of a specific constituent entity of the Russian Federation is used, since there is no comparison either with other constituent entities (who achieved greater or lesser results for the same money), or with the values ​​of performance indicators achieved by the same constituent entity of the Russian Federation in previous financial years (how the constituent entity worked in the reporting year - the result was achieved for a lot of money, for less or in comparable prices for the same money, the same result was obtained). It should be emphasized that it comes only about subsidies to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which have a small weight in the total volume of federal budget expenditures.

Rosfinnadzor approach

More complex is the approach that Rosfinnadzor uses in practice when carrying out inspections. On the official website of this service, in the "Results of inspections" section, there are a number of information references and information in which you can see what Rosfinnadzor considers ineffective spending of budget funds. Once again, we note that this is the position of only Rosfinnadzor, which is not enshrined in any regulatory legal act. Ineffective expenses, according to the Chief Comptroller from among the federal executive bodies, are:

• definition by the Fund social insurance RF needs for funds excluding unused balances of previous years;
• prolonged non-use of the purchased equipment and other material values;
• the acquisition of inventories in the presence of undeveloped remnants of materials for previously completed and commissioned reconstruction facilities and overhaul(the acquisition of material assets in excess of the need);
• conclusion and payment of contracts for participation in shared construction apartments at a price per 1 sq. m higher than the one established by the order of the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia;
• payment of the contract in violation of the terms of the payment procedure and the timing of the work;
• consumption of electrical energy in an amount that exceeds the amount and quantity specified in the contract;
• payment utilities actually consumed by the tenant;
• conclusion of state contracts without or in violation of the stipulated federal law competitive procedures;
• unjustified payment for the repair of the system, while under the terms of contracts for the installation of the system, the contractor is obliged to eliminate the defects at the expense of own funds;
• payment for a service not provided for by a government contract;
• spending money on certification of workplaces, the results of which were not actually used;
• payment for repair work in the premises not accepted by the acceptance certificate;
• payment for storage facilities used for storing unused equipment;
• usage federal funds to hold a sports event, taking into account the missing positions declared in the act of work performed;
• making advance payments that are not provided for by the terms of the contract or in excess of the maximum established amount;
• payment for services for the implementation of technical supervision over the construction of a building that was not subsequently put into operation due to violations identified during the acceptance of works;
• write-off of receivables for settlements with suppliers;
• spending funds to pay for services without taking into account the actual ratio of the average number of employees, the content of which was carried out at the expense of the federal and regional budgets;
• payment for the service of mechanized digging of potatoes using the KPK-2-01 combine if you have your own potato harvesting equipment;
• failure to reduce, in comparable conditions, the volume of consumed resources in 2010 from the volume actually consumed in 2009 by at least 3%;
• purchases at prices exceeding market prices;
• shortfall lease payments under lease agreements;
• payment for the location of the helicopter while it is being repaired in another constituent entity of the Russian Federation;
• non-utilization of budgetary funds in the presence of a need for the purchase of goods, works, services;
• lost profits as a result of non-application of penalties for violation of obligations stipulated by government contracts;
• non-use of subsidies for a long time, as a result of which the principle of efficiency and effectiveness of the use of budget funds is violated.

The list, although far from complete, turned out to be impressive, but the classification of the listed expenses as ineffective is very, very controversial, rather it is the misuse of funds, violation of procurement legislation and non-compliance with the conditions for the provision of budget funds. And the classification of lost income or incomplete spending of funds as ineffective expenses looks completely illogical in this context. Returning to the above definition of the principle of efficiency in spending, we note that only some of the examples indicate low results of spending. And none is about comparison.

Program budget and performance measurement

Despite the great attention paid to increasing the efficiency of spending budget funds by the leadership of the country, regions and municipalities, a system for assessing efficiency has not yet been developed. In principle, with the help of planning mechanisms and assessing the results of spending funds and correct comparison methods, it is possible to build a system for assessing efficiency at all levels of cost aggregation, from the target item to the state program. It is only important to understand that the effectiveness of expenditures within the target item characterizes specific transactions with funds, and the effectiveness of expenditures on the implementation of the state program is the activity of a government body in terms of strategic planning and the ability to achieve planned results. That is why the approaches should be different.

Starting in 2014, the federal budget will be formed in a programmatic context, in which budget allocations will be distributed according to state programs, subprograms and main activities, therefore it is advisable to build a system for assessing the effectiveness of spending budget funds in relation to such a budget structure. That is, to assess the effectiveness of spending on non-program activities, on the implementation of state programs in general, on the implementation of subprograms, on the implementation of the main activities that make up the subprograms, and on the assessment of activities.

It is necessary to clarify what activities are being discussed. Formally, in the composition of state programs, the most detailed element is the main measures. However, with the transition to the program budget, the budget classification will also be changed, since the structure of the expenditure classification code requires the inclusion of indicators intended to separate the activities of state programs (non-program activities). The number of subprograms and federal target programs in one state program is in the range from 2 to 11, the number of main activities in one subprogram of the state program varies from 1 to 54. Thus, for coding state programs, federal target programs and subprograms, as well as departmental target programs and main activities, at least six digits are required in the structure of the code for classifying budget expenditures. The Ministry of Finance of Russia is preparing changes to the budget classification, providing for the transition to letter coding of sections and subsections of the classification of budget expenditures, which will increase the bit width of the target item code to nine digits, while maintaining the bit width of the code for classifying budget expenditures.

With a nine-digit target article code, the first two characters will be used to encode state programs and non-programmed expenditures of the federal budget, the second two characters - to encode subprograms, the fifth and sixth characters - to encode the main activities and federal target programs included in state programs. Seventh - ninth characters will be used to code events. Thus, an activity for the program budget is analogous to the subprogramme in the existing earmarked line items.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of costs for the implementation of measures

Who should evaluate the effectiveness of expenditures for the implementation of activities (in the current sense - expenditures for the target item)? Here you can suggest such an approach. Since 2004, the role of the main administrators of budgetary funds in budget process: expanded their powers to distribute budget allocations and limits budget commitments, they have been given the right to approve state assignments, in connection with the next amendments to the Budget Code, they will be responsible for organizing internal control and internal audit... Therefore, it is logical to give them the right to assess the efficiency of spending by subordinate institutions. Moreover, if for state programs, subprograms and federal target programs, performance indicators are established by the Government of the Russian Federation, then for activities that are not approved as part of the state program itself, but appear in the program budget, performance indicators should be established by analogy with state tasks of the GRBS. That is, at the level of events, the principle should be implemented: who gives money (allocates appropriations and limits) determines what result the recipient of budget funds should achieve with the help of this money.

With regard to how to assess the effectiveness of costs for the implementation of activities, we can say the following. We remember that in order to evaluate effectiveness, we need a result and a comparison. Suppose that in the formation of the budget list, the GRBS established performance indicators for their subordinate institutions, and when summing up the results of the year, it is possible to measure the actual result. What to do with comparison, what to compare with? There may be several options, depending on the purpose of the assessment.

If we want to assess the effectiveness of the cost of providing any public service, then it is necessary to compare the cost of a unit of service in different institutions that provide it. At the same time, we understand that if the funds are spent, and the performance indicators established by the state task are not met, then the spending of funds must be immediately recognized as ineffective. Even if this happened as a result of improper planning, incorrect standards, etc. Then the fact of recognizing expenses as ineffective should be used not to punish everyone and everything, but to analyze the reasons with their subsequent elimination (adjusting financial security standards, methods for calculating the need for services, etc. etc.). Or another component of the assessment: if the result is achieved, but the quality indicators of public services do not correspond to those established in the state task, we can talk about low efficiency of spending. However, if the qualitative component of the result at some time stage (for example, at the stage of the first two years after the implementation of the efficiency assessment system), in the opinion of the GRBS, is not so important, then this GRBS may not take it into account.

If we want to evaluate the efficiency of expenditures, the result of which is measured binary, that is, either met or not, for example, expenditures on social benefits, which are fixed in size and are a priority regardless of how the budget is filled with income, it is necessary to compare not so much the completeness of payments as the qualitative component result - timeliness (compliance with deadlines) of accrual and transfer, the number of complaints, the number of accrual errors, etc. And if the result is achieved, that is, payments are made in full, there are no errors or complaints, the cost efficiency is high, if there failures, expenses are carried out efficiently. Even if the result is achieved, but organizational problems led to a large number of complaints, the cost efficiency can be considered low. Again, this should be decided by the GRBS.

It should be noted that the examples cited are about assessing the cost-effectiveness of different institutions under one activity (one target line). If we want to build a system for assessing the effectiveness of budget expenditures for the implementation of state programs, then, in the author's opinion, it should be built on the basis of evaluating the effectiveness of expenditures for the implementation of the measure (target item) as a whole.

The question arises again: who will evaluate? After all, one and the same event within the framework of one state program can be performed by different GRBS. And then the establishment of performance indicators for this activity by different GRBS will lead to ambiguity in the assessment results. The same is with the main activities - various GRBSs can also participate in their implementation. And the way out of this situation can be the establishment of performance indicators for the implementation of the main measures and activities (for targeted items) by the federal executive body, which is entrusted with the function of the responsible executor of the state program.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of spending on the implementation of government programs

The very same system for assessing the effectiveness of spending on the implementation of government programs may look like this. The executive in charge of the state program evaluates the effectiveness of expenditures on the basis of the performance indicators of state programs, subprograms and federal target programs established by the Government of the Russian Federation and the performance indicators of the main activities and events (target items) established by the executive executive of the state program. This is the answer to the question of who is evaluating.

Now let's answer the question, what are we comparing. Let's take into account a number of circumstances. Firstly, in the implementation of one event can be involved a large number of institutions subordinate to different GRBS, which leads to the need to establish consolidated (generalized) performance indicators. Secondly, the composition of activities and main activities can vary depending on a number of reasons, which may lead to the impossibility of uniform comparison of the costs of implementing activities and main activities over time, especially at the first stage of the implementation of the assessment system. If for a number of activities the basis for comparison with the previous financial year will not, then it will be impossible to assess their effectiveness in the same way as for events that are repeated every year. Taking into account these circumstances, it is possible to propose to compare the volumes of spent financial resources with the originally established volumes. For convenience, we will summarize such a comparison in a table.

This is just one of the possible options. You can set other ranges of values, enter not a six-step assessment system, but a three-step, seven-step, etc. You can ignore any types of costs in the calculations, or, conversely, take something into account additionally. For example, to consider expenses as ineffective regardless of the result, if there is a misappropriation of funds related to the reporting period. This is already decided by the responsible executor of the state program, who will establish performance indicators.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of costs for the implementation of the main activity will consist of a set of assessments of activities. For example, if the result is achieved, at least half of the activities received a very high and high cost effectiveness assessment, and there is not a single activity that was rated “ineffective”, then the cost effectiveness for the implementation of the main activity is assigned the value “high efficiency”.

Further, from evaluations of the effectiveness of expenditures for the main event, an evaluation of the effectiveness of expenditures for the implementation of subprograms is formed, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the implementation of the state program as a whole - from the evaluations of subprograms. Once again, I note that the principle should work here as well: the result is not achieved - the costs are ineffective.

conclusions

First. Evaluating the effectiveness of spending can be applied to government programs and their components, and to individual institutions and to industries, and to government institutions, and to autonomous and budgetary ones. The main thing is to learn how to correctly determine the result to be achieved by the object whose cost effectiveness is being evaluated.

Second. The Ministry of Finance of Russia and (or) the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia should be obliged to provide methodological assistance to the GRBS in building a system for assessing the effectiveness of budget expenditures at the departmental level.

Third. Rosfinnadzor, the control bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities, when checking the efficiency of spending budget funds, should be guided not by their subjective understanding of efficiency, but to evaluate it based on the performance indicators established by the State Regional Statistics Service or the responsible executors of state programs. And form proposals for adjusting such indicators, if for any reason they consider them incorrect.

From the editor. This article reflects the position of the author. We invite our readers to discuss the problem of assessing the effectiveness of budget spending. Your opinions will be published on the pages of the "Budget" magazine.