Экономические
наук/Финансовые отношения
Higher doctorate, professor Sembiyeva L. M.,
Higher doctorate, professor Madiyarova D. M.
ENU
of L.Gumilev, Kazakhstan
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
STATE BUDGET OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN IN DETERMINING PRIORITIES FOR BUDGET
SPENDING
Kazakhstan was the first in the former Soviet
spacechosenthe way of strategic planning, which includes long-term priorities
of the country. In this case long-term priorities are permanent landmarks in
the development of plans and programs of development for the near future [1].
The first document describing the development of
the Republic of Kazakhstan for the long term, was the strategy
"Kazakhstan-2030". In turn, an important tool to implement the
Strategy "Kazakhstan-2030" serves the state budget. Therefore, to
assess the impact of state budget expenditures on these or other priorities of
the strategy, the functional groups can be correlated with spending priorities
of the Strategy "Kazakhstan-2030 [2].
Functional Groups "Debt Service" and
"transfer" referred to the priority "Economic growth based on an
open market economy with high levels of foreign investment and domestic
savings," since costs within those groups affected primarily by macroeconomic
indicators of the country, providing for equitable distribution resources
within the country and the financial stability of the state.
Functional group "Other" assigned to
the priority of the "Professional State," because the costs for this
group is divided between different ministries and departments and are designed
to ensure that their activities in those areas which are not covered in other
groups, which ultimately affects the professionalism of the executive branch. In
accordance with the distribution of expenditures of state budget priorities of
the Strategy "Kazakhstan-2030" is presented in Table 2 [3], [4], [5].
Table 2. The expenditure
of the state budget of Kazakhstan on long-term priorities of the Strategy
"Kazakhstan-2030" for 2009-2011
|
Functional group cost the state budget |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
«Kazakhstan-2030» Strategy's Priorities |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
|
Military
Defense |
187 615,3 |
221 345,1 |
264 503,3 |
National security |
503 805,0 |
590 121,4 |
712 998,6 |
|
Public
order, security, legislative, judicial & criminal executing activity |
316 189,7 |
368 776,3 |
448 495,3 |
||||
|
Agriculture,
water, forestry, fisheries, protected areas, environmental protection &
wildlife and land relations |
168 117,9 |
207 073,8 |
270 763,4 |
Economic
growth based on an open market economy with high levels of foreign investment
and domestic savings |
268 245,5 |
329 926,6 |
417 255,3 |
|
Industry,
architectural, town planning & building activities |
30 920,7 |
28 236,0 |
24 816,7 |
||||
|
Debt
service |
69 206,9 |
94 616,8 |
121 675,2 |
||||
|
Transfers |
- |
- |
|
||||
|
Education |
660 917,1 |
755 294,8 |
986 773,4 |
Health,
education & welfare of the citizens of Kazakhstan |
2 347 784,9 |
2 773 612,3 |
3 337 534,1 |
|
Health
Care |
450 892,5 |
551 325,7 |
626 309,9 |
||||
|
Social care
& social security |
758 308,4 |
905 272,7 |
1 133 573,0 |
||||
|
Housing
&communal facilities |
304 048,8 |
334 154,8 |
389 238,2 |
||||
|
Culture,
sport, tourism & information space |
173 618,1 |
227 564,3 |
201 639,6 |
||||
|
Fuel and
energy complex & use of mineral resources |
58 577,0 |
79 720,0 |
112 490,7 |
Power
resources |
58 577,0 |
79 720,0 |
112 490,7 |
|
Transport
and communications |
337 511,5 |
390 669,5 |
449 210,7 |
Infrastructure,
particularly transport and communications |
337 511,5 |
390 669,5 |
449 210,7 |
|
Public
services general nature |
166 062,7 |
224 944,3 |
296 481,2 |
Professional
state |
230 916,1 |
293 114,7 |
393 745,1 |
|
Other |
64 853,4 |
68 170,4 |
97 263,9 |
||||
|
Total |
3 746
840,2 |
4 457
164,6 |
5 423 234,6 |
Total |
3 746
840,2 |
4 457
164,6 |
5 423 234,6 |
Currently,
the priority of this or that direction of budgetary funds can be determined
based on the growth of specific weights in the total cost of the state budget.
We
present the analyzed data for 2009-2011, to a comparable sort through the index
of consumer prices (the deflator factor), which in 2009 - 107.3% (or 1.073), in
2010 - 107.1% (or 1.071), in 2011 was 108.4% (or 1.084),) [6]. The calculations
are as follows:
Table 3. The expenditure
of the state budget of Kazakhstan on long-term priorities that have been
adjusted by a factor deflator
|
«Kazakhstan-2030» Strategy's Priorities |
2009 |
Corrected rates of year 2010 to 2010 FD |
2010 |
Corrected rates of year 2011 to 2011 FD |
2011 год |
|
National security |
503 805,0 |
551000,4 |
590 121,4 |
657747,8 |
712 998,6 |
|
Health,
education & welfare of the citizens of Kazakhstan |
268 245,5 |
308054,7 |
329 926,6 |
384921,9 |
417 255,3 |
|
Health,
education & welfare of the citizens of Kazakhstan |
2 347 784,9 |
2589740,7 |
2 773 612,3 |
3078906,0 |
3 337 534,1 |
|
Power
resources |
58 577,0 |
74435,1 |
79 720,0 |
103773,7 |
112 490,7 |
|
Infrastructure,
particularly transport and communications |
337 511,5 |
364770,8 |
390 669,5 |
414401,0 |
449 210,7 |
|
Professional
state |
230 916,1 |
273683,2 |
293 114,7 |
363233,5 |
393 745,1 |
|
Total |
3 746
840,2 |
4161685,0 |
4 457
164,6 |
5002983,9 |
5 423 234,6 |
Next, you need to find the shares of each
expense of the state budget of the Republic of Kazakhstan on long-term
priorities of the Strategy "Kazakhstan-2030" that year in total
expenditure budget. After that you should calculate the growth rate of the
specific weights given long-term priority of the Strategy
"Kazakhstan-2030".
Table 4. The dynamics of
the state budget of the Republic of Kazakhstan on long-term priorities that
have been adjusted by a factor deflator
|
«Kazakhstan-2030» Strategy's Priorities |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
growth temp of sp.gr. |
||||
|
mln tenge |
sp.gr., % |
mln tenge |
sp.gr., % |
mln tenge |
sp.gr., % |
2010/2009 |
2011/ 2010 |
|
|
National security |
469529,4 |
13,4 |
551000,4 |
13,2 |
657747,8 |
3,1 |
0,99 |
0,99 |
|
Health,
education & welfare of the citizens of Kazakhstan |
249995,8 |
7,2 |
308054,7 |
7,4 |
384921,9 |
7,7 |
1,03 |
1,04 |
|
Health,
education & welfare of the citizens of Kazakhstan |
2188056,8 |
62,7 |
2589740,7 |
62,2 |
3078906,0 |
1,5 |
0,99 |
0,99 |
|
Power
resources |
54591,8 |
1,6 |
74435,1 |
1,8 |
103773,7 |
2,1 |
1,13 |
1,17 |
|
Infrastructure,
particularly transport and communications |
314549,4 |
9,0 |
364770,8 |
8,8 |
414401,0 |
8,3 |
0,98 |
0,94 |
|
Professional
state |
215206,1 |
6,2 |
273683,2 |
6,6 |
363233,5 |
7,3 |
1,06 |
1,11 |
|
Total |
3491929,4 |
100,0 |
4161685,0 |
100,0 |
5002983,9 |
100,0 |
- |
- |
Based on the data of Table 4 can be seen on the
priority items of public spending. Based on the analysis, we can conclude on
the priority of the social orientation of the state budget of Kazakhstan [7].
Cost-effectiveness from a social point of view
can be calculated using the coefficient of fiscal capacity of the population (CFCP),
which shows the amount of the per capita expenditure. To do this, find the
ratio of state budget expenditures on long-term priority, "Health,
education and welfare of the citizens of Kazakhstan" and the population.
The calculation of the fiscal capacity of the population over the period 2009-2011
are shown in Table 5:
Table 5. The calculation
of the fiscal capacity of the population over the period 2009-2011
|
State of «Health, education and welfare of the citizens of
Kazakhstan», млн. тенге |
population, mln |
CFCP tenge/man |
growth temp of CFCP |
|||||||
|
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2010/ 2009 |
2011/ 2010 |
|
2188056,8 |
2589740,7 |
3078906,0 |
16,2 |
16,5 |
16,7 |
135065 |
156954 |
184366 |
1,1 |
1,2 |
Analyzing the data in Table 5, we can note the
tendency of growth factor availability to the public budget for 2009-2011: the
growth rate in 2010 was 1.1 in 2011 increased to 1.2. At the same time in 2009
accounted for 1 person 135 065 tenge, in 2010 - 156 954 tenge, in 2011 - 184366
tenge The above amounts are per person per year are sufficient to fund all
necessary expenses.
However, since this indicator shows the
effectiveness of public expenditure in the whole social sphere, it should be
noted that the budget funds in certain areas of long-term priority,
"Health, education and welfare of the citizens of Kazakhstan"
(education, health, social care and social security, housing and utilities;
culture, sports, tourism and information space) can be spent inefficiently.
Thus, for a more accurate calculation of the
efficiency of budgetary funds should be considered the direction of their use
in certain areas at specific goals [8].
Currently in the Republic of Kazakhstan formed
the main base (platform) target program method of budget planning. In particular,
the planning of budgets of all levels are based on an evaluation of their
effectiveness and efficiency, incorporating socially meaningful outcomes of
public spending. This in turn implies:
•
Harmonization of strategic, economic and budgetary planning;
•
Transition from "managing costs" to "performance
management", i.e. the reorientation of public authorities with a formal
budget implementation to achieve specific outcomes;
•
Improving the quality of public services;
•
improving the efficiency of budget expenditures.
However, in the course of the program-target
method in practice, identified the main reasons for the lack of tangible
progress on its implementation:
•
Lack of or insufficient study of the effectiveness and efficiency indicators
(indicators);
•
Restriction of independence administrators;
•
Human factors (lack of understanding of new methods of work, lack of trained
personnel).
Given currently have the problem of increased
use of budget funds can offer the following recommendations to address them:
1.
Improving the regulatory framework for the development, implementation,
monitoring execution of budget programs;
2.
Strict adherence to the current budget legislation of the budget process,
budget holders;
3.
Conducting workshops and master classes for administrators of budgetary
programs to raise awareness of changes and additions to existing regulations.
Thus, to improve the efficiency of budget funds
necessary to actually achieved results consistent with the planned and actual
expenditures were less than planned, or that in fact the results achieved
exceeded the target level for the immutability of the actual expenditures.
References
1. Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan № 827 dated
June 18, 2009 http://www.akorda.kz/ru/official_documents/decrees_of_the_president/o_sisteme_goswdarstvennogo_planirovaniya_v_respwblike
2. Nazarbayev
N.A. Strategy “Kazakhstan-2030” // http://www.akorda.kz/en/kazakhstan/kazakhstan2030/strategy_2030
3. Приказ Министра финансов Республики
Казахстан от 15.06.2010 года № 287 «О методике оценки реализации бюджетных программ
при исполнении бюджета» – 23 с. //
http://www.minfin.kz/index.php?lang=eng&uin=1180582704&act=ek_budjet&vb=3®ion=&year=2010&month=5
4. Бюджетирование, ориентированное на результат: в чем заключаются
выгоды для Казахстана при внедрении новых методов бюджетирования / Информационный бюллетень Министерства
Финансов Республики Казахстан: Астана, 2009 г. – 7 с.
5. Стратегическое
планирование в государственных органах: опыт Республики Казахстан / Информационный
бюллетень Министерства экономики и бюджетного планирования Республики
Казахстан: Астана, 2008 г. – 188 с.
6. Ministry of Finance of the
Republic of Kazakhstan // http://www.minfin.gov.kz/irj/portal/anonymous?guest_user=english
7. Основные макроэкономические показатели Республики Казахстан – 3 с. / The Agency of Statistics of
the Republic of Kazakhstan – Main socio-economic indicators // http://www.eng.stat.kz/Pages/default.aspx
8. Демографический
ежегодник Казахстана / Статистический сборник / Под редакцией Смаилова А. А.: Астана,
2011 г. – 592с.