Анализ бюджетного финансирования отраслей социально-культурной сферы
The article considers attempts to transform economic mechanisms of culture, which were made since the latest years of Soviet period. The main point of the transformations analyzed was to achieve a rational balance between the freedom of initiative of cultural goods producers and public control of their activities. Transformations were brought into action under three main directions: 1) economic empowerment of cultural organizations, including privatization of a part of state institutions; 2) implementation of normative principles of budgetary funding of state cultural institutions: 3) development of the alternative to state funding sources of cultural activities. In the article, the three stages of transformation are distinguished: the one dating back to before the collapse of the USSR, the second comprises the nineties years of the last century and the third includes the recent time. In this paper, it is shown that at each stage, in fact, the same objectives were set and the attempts to achieve them were unsuccessful leaving economic mechanisms of culture in their initial condition. In other words, there was a sort of “motion in a circle” instead of gradual development in the intended direction.
In the analytical material prepared by the Institute of public resource management, HSE, analyzed comparable from year to year indicators of budget spending by industry socio-cultural sphere. Used materials of the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of economic development of Russia, Federal Treasury, Federal state statistics service, Eurostat and analytical materials of the Institute of public resource management,HSE. The publication is aimed at a wide range of readers; researchers, University professors, representatives Federal and regional authorities, who in their professional activities interested in issues of development of the socio-cultural sphere, as well as students and postgraduates.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.