Draft Law on the Budget Code is not about decentralization, although it has some positive developments.
By Ilona Sologub
(Kyiv School of Economics, Ukraine)
On August 8th, the government registered the Draft Law on changes to the Budget Code concerning
decentralization. The draft law has already received some complimentary
as well as some negative (here and here) feedback. Since the Draft Law was supposed to
become an integral part of the decentralization reform package, this post analyzes
it from this point of view. The main conclusions are:
- The proposed amendments to the Budget Code do not correspond with the logic of the reform and with the Decentralization Concept adopted by the government.
- It seems that the main motivation behind the proposed Budget Code amendments was “making the central government look good” by transferring all problematic issues, such as cultural and ecological projects, renovation of housing, etc. to the local level while keeping the most “electorally valuable” spheres, such as education, healthcare, and social protection under the central government hand.
- The Draft Law contains some positive developments, such as the new system of calculating inter-budgetary subsidies and somewhat eased procedures for obtaining external loans by local governments.
The more detailed analysis is presented below.
Redistribution of expenditures between central and local governments
Following the experience of other countries that introduced
decentralization reforms, the Ukrainian Decentralization Concept foresees three
levels of local government – community (C), raion (R) and oblast (O), with the
major competences and corresponding budget expenditures transferred to the
lowest (community) level. The table below compares the distribution of public
functions (and corresponding public budget expenditures) between different
levels of government in the current system, the decentralized system as
proposed by the Decentralization Concept, and the system proposed by the Draft
Law on changes to the Budget Code.
The first striking inconsistency between the Draft Law and the Concept
of Decentralization is that the former actually foresees two instead of three
levels of local budgets: (1) oblast (ARC, cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol) and
(2) raion/city/”united territorial community”. Obviously, the authors of the
Draft Law assume that given a big “carrot” in the form of higher revenue base,
and an equally big “stick” in the form of depriving villages and towns from the
PIT revenues, “united territorial communities” will be formed quickly on the
basis of the law “On the voluntary union of
territorial communities”
adopted in the first reading
in July 2014.
This is a very strong assumption given that, even if the law is adopted,
the officials of local councils may well be reluctant to “voluntarily
unite” their communities in order not to lose their jobs. Moreover, the “united
territorial communities” would be financially equal to raions (i.e. have the
same range of revenue sources and expenditures). Hence, their heads would
demand political equality with the raion heads, which may result in prolonged
local political conflicts. While these conflicts are resolved, villages and
towns would remain underfinanced.
Table 1. Distribution of expenses between
budgets of different levels: C = community level (villages, towns); R = raion or city level; O
- oblast level; S - state level; U - “united community”/raion/city
level (proposed in the Draft Law)
| |||
public function (expenditures)
|
Current system
(Budget Code)
|
Proposed system
(Draft Law on changes to the Budget Code)
|
Decentralized system (Decentralization
Concept)
|
Education
| |||
Kindergartens
|
C R
|
U
|
C
|
Primary schools
|
C R
|
U
|
C
|
Secondary schools
|
U R
|
U S O
|
C
|
Out-of-school facilities
|
C U R O
|
U O
|
C
|
Boarding schools and orphanages
|
R O
|
U O
|
R
|
Vocational/ technical schools
|
U R O
|
S O
|
O
|
Universities
|
U R O
|
S O
|
Not
defined*
|
Post-graduate education
|
U O
|
S O
|
Not
defined*
|
Healthcare
| |||
Primary healthcare
|
U R
|
U S
|
C
|
Emergency healthcare
|
O
|
O
|
C
|
Specialized hospitals
|
U O
|
S O
|
R O
|
Health resorts/rehabilitation
|
U O
|
O
|
Not
defined*
|
Sanitary supervision
|
U O
|
S O
|
Not
defined*
|
Social security
| |||
Payments and privileges to eligible
social groups
|
C U R O
|
U S O
|
C***
|
Foster families
|
R
|
U
|
Not
defined**
|
Social services for families
and youth
|
R O
|
U O
|
Not
defined**
|
Other
| |||
Cultural and sports facilities
|
C U R O
|
U S O
|
C***
|
Infrastructure and amenities
|
C U R O
|
U S O
|
C*** O
|
Ecological programs
|
U R O
|
U S O
|
O***
|
Administrative services
|
C U R O
|
U S O
|
C***
|
Fire security
|
C R
|
U
|
U
|
Civil security in emergency
states
|
C R O
|
U
|
C
|
Police
|
U
|
U S
|
C ***
|
* presumably state and/or oblast level
** presumably local (community) level
*** presumably also state (central) level
|
In summary, the Draft Law proposes delegation of some responsibilities from state to
local level, at the same time centralizing other spheres. Namely,
- state-owned health resorts, educational (except for institutes and universities), cultural (theatres, museums etc.) institutions, as well as natural parks are transferred from state to oblast or city property;
- some state ecological programs (care for forests, liquidation of ore mines and chemical mines etc.) are transferred from state to oblast level;
- some state infrastructure programs (introduction of energy-saving technologies into communal services provision, (re)construction of water pipes and wastewater disposal systems, (re)construction of housing and street lighting etc.) are transferred from state to raion/city/ “united community” level.
Two things remain unclear, however: whether local governments get enough
funding to support these programs and whether they will be allowed to decide on
the distribution of these funds.
At the same time, the government centralizes financing of education
(except for pre-school and out-of-school) and healthcare. Although the medical
and educational institutions themselves will belong to local communities, the
government will fully finance their operation through subventions. This contradicts
the logic of decentralization, since a local community knows better whether to
keep a given school or a clinic or to repair the road and introduce a regular
bus route to the nearest town instead – and so should be able to make this
decision.
A positive change proposed by the Draft Law is the transfer of
responsibility to provide social security payments (to veterans, to those
suffered from Chornobyl, to former coal miners and many others – the complete
list is one-page long) from raion budgets to the central budget. These
privileges have been granted by different laws and are financed from the
central budget (raion administrations are only distributing the central budget
subventions to eligible people). Hence, it is logical to pass on the administering
of these payments from raion administrations to local offices of the Labour
Ministry.
Redistribution of revenues
Under this new distribution of responsibilities, the government proposes
redistribution of some taxes. The declared purpose of this redistribution is
providing more revenues to the local budgets. However, it seems that this
purpose cannot be achieved with the current Draft Law. The Draft Law proposes
redistribution of the following taxes:
1. Person income tax (PIT). The primary source of local budgets revenues
is personal income tax. Currently PIT revenues are fully allocated to the local
budgets (except for Kyiv). The Draft Law proposes to allocate 25% to the central
budget (and in Kyiv – 80%).
Table 2. Proposed redistribution of PIT revenues
| ||
Source of tax: incomes of people living in
|
Current distribution
|
Proposed distribution
|
- villages and towns (містa районного значення)
|
25%
– village/town budget
|
0%
- village/town budget
|
50%
- raion budget
|
60%
- raion / united territorial community budget
| |
25%
- oblast budget
|
15%
- oblast budget
| |
0%
- central budget
|
25%
- central budget
| |
-
cities (містa обласного значення)
|
75% - city budget
|
60%
- city budget
|
25%
- oblast budget
|
15%
- oblast budget
| |
0%
- central budget
|
25%
- central budget
| |
-
Kyiv
|
50%
- Kyiv budget
|
20%
- Kyiv budget
|
50%
- central budget
|
80%
- central budget
| |
-
Sevastopol
|
100%
- Sevastopol budget
|
100%
- Sevastopol budget
|
0%
- central budget
|
0%
- central budget
| |
Source: Budget Code, Draft Law
on the Budget Code
|
2. Enterprise Profit Tax (EPT). Currently EPT revenues (except for EPT on
communal enterprises) belong to the State Budget. The Draft Law suggests to leave
10% of EPT revenues at the oblast level (including Kyiv and Sevastopol).
3. Payments for licenses,
including licenses on production and trade in alcohol are transferred from
city/town to oblast (Kyiv and Sevastopol) budgets.
4. The proposed redistribution of ecological
tax (except for tax on creation and keeping of radioactive waste) is shown
in the following table:
Table 3. Proposed redistribution of ecologic
tax revenues
| ||
Budget
|
Current share
|
Proposed share
|
Central
|
65%
|
20%
|
Village/town/city
|
25%
|
25%
|
Oblast
|
10%
|
55%
|
Kyiv,
Sevastopol
|
35%
|
80%
|
Source: Budget Code, Draft Law on the Budget Code
|
5. Currently, the rent for
extraction of mineral resources (except for oil and gas) is divided 50/50
between central and local budgets. The Draft Law proposes to leave 100% of this
rent at the state level.
6. It is proposed to leave payments for administrative services
that currently belong to the central budget at the raion level (except for
payments for registration services that will be divided 50/50, as now).
7. The Draft Law proposes to cancel the fee for the development of
orchards, wine-growing and hop-growing (currently belongs to the central budget),
and to levy a 2% tax on retail sales of alcohol, tobacco and oil products,
revenues from which will go to local budgets. Perhaps, entrepreneurs will be
very unhappy with this new tax.
To sum up, let’s make a very rough calculation of what local budgets would
gain or lose if the proposed changes are adopted (the table below uses 2012
data).
Table 4. Potential gains/losses of local
budgets from proposed tax redistribution
| ||||
Tax
|
Tax revenues, billion UAH
|
Current central/local distribution, %
|
Proposed central/local distribution, %
|
Possible gain/loss of local budgets, billion
UAH
|
PIT, except Kyiv
|
47
|
0/100
|
25/75
|
-11.8
|
PIT, Kyiv
|
14
|
50/50
|
80/20
|
-4.2
|
EPT
|
44
|
100/0
|
90/10
|
+4.4
|
Ecologic tax*
|
1.3
|
35/65
|
80/20
|
+0.6
|
Rent for extraction of mineral
resources
|
1.5
|
50/50
|
100/0
|
-0.75
|
Payments for administrative
services
|
2.2
|
100/0
|
0/100
|
2.2
|
2% sales tax
|
2.5
|
-
|
0/100
|
2.5
|
Total
|
112.5
|
-
|
-
|
-6.0
|
Source:
Treasury, State Statistics Committee data, own calculations
* The government forecasts revenues from this
tax to increase almost three-fold in 2015, which is (1) unrealistic and (2)
does not cover projected loss of other taxes.
|
Thus, the proposed tax redistribution, holding everything else constant,
is likely to result in lower local budget revenues, which, in turn, will cause
underfinancing of central government programs delegated to the local level.
The main positive development of the proposed Draft Law is the new methodology
for calculation of transfers from the central to local budgets. Under current
legislation, transfers cover the gap between local budgets’ expected revenues
and expenditures defined by the Budget Code. Therefore, local budgets can be
adopted only after the central budget is adopted, since local governments don’t
know in advance the volume of transfers, subsidies and subventions provided to
them from the central budget.
The proposed Draft Law replaces transfers with subsidies, and the
subsidies take into account only the sum of EPT and PIT revenues received by
local budgets. These revenues per person are compared to Ukrainian average, and
the index of taxability is formed. If the index is lower than 0.9, a region
receives a subsidy - 80% of amount necessary for the index to reach 0.9.
Regions, where this index is higher than 1.1, transfer 50% of excess tax
revenues to the central budget. Under this scheme, local budgets can be adopted
even if the central budget is not, since the approximate volume of subsidy is known
in advance, and correction, if any, will be minor.
Other issues
Except for redistribution of some revenues and expenditures (which is
not a real decentralization, as we have seen), the proposed Draft Law concerns
other issues briefly discussed below.
1. Budgetary institutions are allowed to place
own revenues and the funds of the “development budget” into banks, rather than
Treasury accounts (the list of eligible banks is formed by the CMU according to
the criteria of size and state property – currently, 13 banks would be
eligible). However, if a budgetary institution does so, it loses the status of
a “budgetary institution” and becomes an economic agent. How does this change
of status happen in reality, and how does the backward change happen, is not
clear. So, this “liberalization clause” is designed in such a way that no
budgetary institution would be willing to use it.
2. The draft Law further develops the mechanism of
financing local government investment projects from the State Regional
Development Fund of the State Budget. This Fund was introduced in 2012 and
should have been no lower than 1% of General Budget Fund revenues, but in
reality it has been five times smaller.
The Draft Law proposes to transfer the right to select investment
projects to the Ministry of Regional Development from the Ministry of Economy,
and also slightly change the criteria for distribution of funds: 80% based on
regional population and 20% based on regional GDP (currently the proportion is
70/30). Although theoretically this Fund is a good idea, it offers high
opportunities for rent-seeking, which in Ukrainian conditions will most likely
be realized.
3. A very positive thing proposed by the Draft
Law is limiting state guarantees
provision: they will be provided to economic agents only for implementation
of investment projects, and annual amount of state guarantees would not exceed
5% of the General Budget Fund revenues.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. Currently, the law states that
combined volume of state and guaranteed debt should not exceed of 60% of GDP.
The Draft Law proposes to exclude guaranteed debt from this calculation. While
currently this is not a problem, since Ukrainian government debt is much lower
than the threshold, this may cause problems in the long run because the
guaranteed debt is also a state liability.
4. The procedure of obtaining loans by local governments is somewhat relaxed (as prescribed
by the Decentralization Concept) – under the Draft Law, a local government is
allowed to proceed with the loan if the Ministry of Finance does not provide
its objections within a month after it receives the information about local
government’s intentions to borrow.
Conclusion
If the government really wants to proceed with the decentralization
reform, changes to the Budget Code should be developed simultaneously with:
- the tax reform (to account for potential tax revenues change);
- changes to the Law on self-government (the redistribution of powers
and responsibilities between different levels of local authorities, changing
the role of state administrations);
- and, perhaps, the administrative-territorial reform (in our opinion,
very small share of communities would be willing to “voluntarily unite”, so
this process should be imposed from above).
However, some clauses of the current Draft Law, such as the new approach
to calculation of central to local budget transfers, can be adopted
immediately.
P.S. A cherry on the cake. The government Decentralization Concept foresees that a local budget
would receive a share of EPT revenues from newly created enterprises during
five years after their creation. However, there is nothing about this issue in
the proposed changes to the Budget Code.
No comments:
Post a Comment