<<
>>

THE QUANTITATIVE FORECAST OF DYNAMICS VRP ON THE BASIS OF THE DEVELOPED MACROEKONOMICHSKY FACTORIAL MODEL OF MANAGEMENT OF THE STATE OWNERSHIP OF KHABAROVSK TERRITORY.

Absence of an optimum of patterns of ownership on which depends ravnoyovesnyj (stable) growth VRP. Leads interphase razbalansirovannosti reyogionalnogo reproduction when it is compelled to be defined by external factors - budgetary vozdejst viem (table 10):

Table 10.

Indicators of budgetary dependence of Khabarovsk territory in 2000 - 2004 of ’*

Years Deficiency reyogionalnogo

The budget,

! Thousand rbl.

Gratuitous transfers from the federal budget, thousand rbl. Edge Habarovskoju incomes, thousand rbl. Share

In aggregate profits of the budget of Khabarovsk territory, %

2000 - 369170 2125697 6956328 30,6
2001 - 330284 4215875 12116031 34,8
2002 - 726295 4701494 13981826 33,6
2003

1

-2591468

1

5465487

³

16749799 32,6!

³

2004 j -2976179 1

' 1

³ 5831286 19944900 29,2 ³

rasschitano on: Khabarovsk territory. Reports on performance konsolidirovannoju bjud - zheta the subject of the Russian Federation for 2002 - 2004 of given for December are calculated as of 01.01.2004 - the Mode letuna: ’ lulu. _ gp _³ pjp, ï³.

As we see, a general tendency are growth deficiency of the regional budget and significant degree of budgetary dependence of region. Net cost of a state ownership against growth of costs on upravleyonie it (table 11, lines 10,11) decreases.

For approbatsii models was the following statistical data presented in table 11 are used: data of Territorial body gosuyodarstvennoj statisticans across Khabarovsk territory (lines I, 2,3, 6, 11, 17); reports on outturn of the budget of Khabarovsk territory, the passport of Khabarovsk territory (a line 12,17).

For convenience at accounts all factors have been shown in one table (tab. 12):

Table 12.

Items

1 "

Factor The account mechanism
To - actual growth VRP counting on 1 rouble funktsioniyorujushchej a state ownership on the beginning of year. A

G (Z)

2 Ki a-indicator, which schhnnesig gain VRP, poluchenyonyj for scheg state properties with:òà tragami on uprtvlenie To "

' AND / (0

Ê2 - A share of costs for management of a state ownership in VRP. To And / (t + 1)

2 2 (0

4

~5 ~....

Kj — the relation of incomes or economic dejatelyonosti in region in the course of the year, received in reyogione for a management set to management cost in

The current period. __________________

K a;-share budgetary investments in VRP predshestyovujushchego the period

To _ P/+ 0

5 ma +1)

, G/ABOUT "|

' 1

Algorithm of definition of reliability of model (on an example of Khabarovsk territory).

1 stage. Account of the basic macroeconomic indicators. Account of the basic makroyoekonomicheskih indicators with allowance for a deflator and definition of size of gain Âв1 (Q), state sobsgvennosti (G) and to management (N4) at cost in million rbl. ò³ðîâåäåí with use of official statistical data, where s - cost on the beginning of year, e - cost on a close of the year, And - transfers from the budget druyogogo level. Results are presented in tables:

1 G°D ³ AND Gs I Ge dG ³
1 2001 3777,665771 19002,548000 ' 18764,800000 -237748000 I
2002 3616,144415 18764,800000 15824.846000 -2939954000 \
1_ 2003 3636.477557 15824,846000 I 26897,000500 1107220000
2004 ' | 3221.044760 26897.005000 26697,551000 -199454000

Year Qs Qe dQ
2001 67836,000000 73441,756272 5606,756272,
2002 73441,756272 | 78336,179181 I 4894.422908
2003

2004 '

78336,179181

81538,996359

81538,996359 79500,521450, 3202.817179

-2038474909

2 stage. Account of factors for 2001 - 2003 of All accounts were made from data of previous year in comparable prices. For 2001 account was made from statiyosticheskoj estimations of volume VRP for 2000, all other data are taken for 2001 in roubles. Results of accounts are presented in table 13:

Table 13.

Significances of factors in 2001 - 2003 of

To ê1 1 ê2 1 kz ê4 1
2001 0,298791 2,87631069865323 Å-10 0,015314 6,87134022 0,029478996 1
' 2002 ' 0,460828 4,09748627248112 Å-10 0,015314 6,675840714 0,031763861
2003 0,131061 1,06007623337117 Å-10 0,015782 9,293211226 0.033957592

3 stage. Account of the basic macroeconomic indicators of the predicted period with use of factors (table 13).

4 stage. Updating of the received results with allowance for factors and temyopa inflations in the current year and comparison to available statistical data. Results are presented in the calculation table:

Year Statistical significance VRP (Q), rbl. Forecast VRP on factorial model (Qn), rbl. Change

Costs (dQn), rbl.

Deviation from

statisticheskoju

Significances VRP

Deviation from

Statistical significance VRP, %

2002 7S336179181 80734285278 2398106097 0,03
2003 81538996359 84259431516 2720435157 0,03 3
2004 | 79500521450, 89425104212, 1 9924582762 0,12 _ 12
Average error of approximation: L = 6 %

Deviation from predicted significance on model for 2004 pokazyyovaet the economic losses of company carried on quality of management. At the same time the increasing bias between volume is marked gosudarstven - ache properties and expenses for management. Data on management ()

Let's present in the form of the calculation table:

Goal The statistical

Significance

Costs for management (), million rbl.

The forecast of costs for management io models

(Mp), ³ million rbl.

Deviation

On

Costs

(povysheyo

nie),

| Million rbl.

Deviation from

The statistical

Significances

Deviation from |

The statistical

Significances,

%

200 ³ 1038,8 1
2002 1553,0 1124,659784 ' 428,3403 0,2758147 27.6
2003 1967,5 1236,334865 731,1652 0,3716214 37.2
2004 2707,0 1329,818150 | 1377,1819 0,5087483 50,9
Average error of approximation:/\= 38,7 %

The data obtained as a result of account (Mp) by comparison with stayotisticheskimi (show, that the over-expenditure of means on upravyolenie or for the management account takes place, that is confirmed with the performance analysis kraeyovogo the budget on years:

Year Statisticheyosky significance of costs ia

Management

(), million rbl.

The forecast of costs for management but models (Mp), million rbl. Deviation

On stoimoyosti,

Million rbl.

Deviation

From the statistical

Significances

2001 1038,8
2002 1553 1124,659784 428,3403 0,2758147
2003 1967,5 1236.334865 731,1652 0,3716214
2004 2707 1329.818150 1377, 1819 0.5087483
Average error of approximation: And = 38,7 %

So, in 2004 the growth of costs connected with attraction dopolniyotelnyh of means for settlement of deficiency of the regional budget is observed. The volume of credits of business banks has exceeded the appointments confirmed by the law in 4,6 times, for 01.01.2005 budget settings on granting bjudyozhetnyh loans and credits in 33,9 times (4217,6 million rbl. against the confirmed 124,4 million rbl.) are exceeded. Credits are granted at low performing disyotsipline creditors, in the presence of the outstanding indebtedness. The task on return and debt servicing is executed on 33,0 %.

Excess of annual budget settings under the article obyorazovanie - 112,1 %, on improvement of professional skill of shots - 143,9 % is observed. On kapiyotalnoe building, including a gas pipeline credits kommeryocheskih banks in the volumes exceeding appointments confirmed by the law in 4,6 times etc. Thus are directed, administrative decisions next year will have lowering effect on net cost of a state ownership on size of paying interest io ïî³à³ïåíèþ a public debt etc.

Let's analyse the reasons of deviations under the factor management (tab. 14)

Table 14.

Ka/

¹

Kinds

Deviation

Display

Deviations

1 ²ðè÷èíü ¿ deviations Consequences
1 Deviation by an estimation obekyotov (estimated activity) Object fixing of the price more low ryyonochnoj the prices, otsutyostvie estimations obekyota

³

Condition of estimated activity, otsutyostvie divisions by an estimation or otsenyoshchika, methods priyovatizatsii Reduction poyostupleny in bjudyozhet (nedopolucheyonie), deficiency

The budget

2 Deviation on organizatsionyonym protseduyoram Duration to a soya

glasovany on proyotsedurnym to questions

Hierarchy upravyolenija, double podyochinenie, restrictions of the economic rights of the subject of the Russian Federation Decrease operayotivnosti upravleyonija, narrowing vozyomozhnostej for

Budgetings

3 Deviation on dokumentooboyorotu Backlog from the plan under the account and an estimation of objects Hierarchy upravyolenija, double podyochinenie Annual (and more) backlog of the account and an estimation of objects
4 Deviation on

To management

Objects

Decrease pokazateyolej activity of the enterprises and orgayonizatsy state sectors, reduction of volume of receipts in bjudyozhet, ennzhepie doyohodnosti gosudarstyovennogo aktsionernoyogo the capital Incompleteness institutsionalnyh transformations to the Russian Federation, absence of the accurate

Specifications ekonoyomicheskih the rights subyoekta the Russian Federation, as sobyostvennika; degree

vovlechenposta obekyotov in economic circulation

Reduction veliyochiny receipts in the budget, sokrayoshchenie finansoyovyh resources

Managements

5 Deviation under incomes bjudyozheta Availability of unprofitable and not working objects, nanosecond vypolyonenie the plan on isyopolzovaniju obekyotov Depressive to a soya

Standing regionalyonogo vosproizvodyo

stva, inefficient the structural policy and branch strukyotura regional gosuyodarstvennogo sectors, restrictions ekoyonomicheskih the rights

The subject of the Russian Federation, as sobyostvennika

Reduction veliyochiny receipts in the budget (nedoyopoluchenie), defiyotsit the budget
6 Deviation under expenses Rates of increase rasyohodov on management advance rates of increase of incomes of management Advancing growth of rates of expenses for management on sravyoneniju with growth dohoyodov from gosuyo

Donative sobstyovennosti, growth obeyoma drawings

Growth gosudarstyovennogo a debt,

Increase defiyotsita regionalnoyogo the budget

The received results testify to the following:

1. Not so much volume of a state ownership as that, how many qualitative parametres of a functioning state ownership is important;

2. "Losses" of a state ownership in the course of privatisation, nedoyoispolzovanija objects of a state ownership (including nedoyopoluchenie on privatised in a close of the year the enterprises or to the objects transmitted to the municipal property, the indebtedness under budgetary credits) are not compensated to a profit part the management contribution, bjudzhetyonymi by investments.

3. Actually it is a question of that cost indexes corresponded to qualitative characteristics it is subject - objective structure of management.

In case of discrepancy there are deformations in a control system which have lowering effect on volume VRP, thereby sniyozhaja economic benefit and a budgetary management efficiency.

As a substantiation of the given approach we use reports about ispolneyonii the consolidated budget of Khabarovsk territory in 2002 - 2004 of, for opyoredelenija a budgetary management efficiency on years, and also we will evaluate influence of privatisation on results of economic activities. As an indicator, reflecting positive effect economic ispolyozovanija and state ownership privatisations ia regional vosyoproizvodstvo (stabilisation, economic growth) and on a profitable part bjudzheyota, it is possible to consider growth of specific weight of cumulative tax and not tax incomes of the subject of the Russian Federation in aggregate profits of the regional budget. Data, privedenyonye in the table, show, what tax incomes of the budget, behind a deduction plateyozhej for use of natural resources, grow? More slowly incomes from isyopolzovanija a state ownership (a line 10, 11 tables 15). SleYOdovatelno, the situation at which, despite the general polozhitelyonuju dynamics of incomes, the budgetary management efficiency gosudarstvenyonym sector and a state ownership as a whole, can decrease is possible,

As means from privatisation in significant volume have been received in 2003 of that has formally "at a time raised budgetary effektivyonost managements in the given period. Nevertheless, she less than 1, that indirectly confirms the results received above under the factor management (table 15):

Òàáëèöà15.

Vosproizvodstvennaja and a budgetary management efficiency a state ownership of Khabarovsk territory in 2002 - 2004 of *

He/

Xs

Indicator 2002 2003 2004
1 Volume of regional reproduction in tekuyoshchih the prices, million rbl. 101584,8 125135,9 -
2 Budget aggregate profits, thousand rbl. 13981826 16749799 18014450
3 Aggregate profits of the budget from objects gosudarstyovennoj properties of the subject of the Russian Federation, thousand rbl. 210435 2740601 1366688
4 Aggregate profits of the budget from objects gosudarstyovennoj properties of the subject of the Russian Federation, disregarding incomes of privatisation, gys. Rbl. 209582 656953 526688
5 Specific all incomes from state sobyostvennosti the subject of the Russian Federation in incomes of the budget disregarding taxes, % 1,5 16,5 7,6
6 Specific weight of incomes from state sobyostvennosti the subject of the Russian Federation in budget incomes, disregarding incomes of privatisation, % 1,5 3,9 2,9
7 Budget overhead charges on management, thousand rbl. 622808 802758 972814
8 Tax incomes or private and state sekyotorov. Thousand rbl. 6923643 8217184 10300740
9 Tax incomes of economic activities, minus payments for use nrirodnvchn resuryosam!, thousand rbl. 6668793 8015633 9867309
10 Gain of tax incomes, disregarding incomes from priyovatizatsii, % 100 213,4 -19,8
11 Gain of tax incomes, disregarding taxes for use of natural resources. % 100 20,2 23,1

* It is made and calculated on: Khabarovsk territory. Reports on performance konsolidiro

The bathing budget of the subject of the Russian Federation for 2002 - 2004 of, the electronic address: www.minfin.nl.

Natural the analysis of the factors destabilising sisyotemu managements by a state ownership in Khabarovsk territory and sniyozhajushchih economic benefit of management is represented. It is necessary to carry to them:

1. Economically inefficient structure and quality of objects gosudarstyovennoj the properties, characterised:

- In insignificant volume of a regional segment in public sector in ekoyonomike region; actually a public sector basis the organisations with the mixed federal property, that poyovyshaet make FGUP, FGU, instability and dependence of an executive power of region from reyosheny, accepted by the federal centre, often disregarding interests and mneyonija the regional authorities;

- The inefficient structure KGUP generated in mass priyovatizatsii io to a residual principle and, as consequence of it, poor quality of objects regional gosuda {hggvennoj properties. It finds vyrazheyonie in low liquidity of a significant part of objects state sobyostvennosti, availability of objects of the state ownership which has been not involved in economic circulation, and as to a significant share of the unprofitable enterprises;

2. nezavershen a bone institutsionalnyh transformations, slow rates razyogranichitelnyh procedures on authorities and objects of a state ownership, blanks in the legislation on privatisation, absence of the law on nationalisation, nesoyovershenstvo instituga confidential management etc., brake process tselenayopravlennogo formations of optimum structure of the property in region;

3. State and mixed rosyosijskoj properties on type and character of effect on system regioyonalnogo reproduction should be carried to economically significant objects the objects of a state ownership forming public sector of economy of the subject of the Russian Federation and objects of a state ownership, used in economic dejayotelnosti in negosudarstvennom, functioning:

In sphere of natural monopolies (natural resources, including bowels, woods, water and air pools, ground objects agricultural and

neselskohozjajstvennogo, bioresources and objects of fauna), taking a leading position ia a commodity market, services and capitals;) in the branches creating favorable conditions for development private and goyosudarstvennogo of business (the branches defining the prices on energoyonositeli, transportation rates and investment resources, trading komyopleksy) and used with the purposes of purposeful formation of the market competitive environment in region.

4. Narrowing of structure of taxable base of the regional budget in area nedropolzovanija, lesopolzovanija and land tenure makes negative impact on formation of a profitable part of the budget. / the appendix 13/;

5. Preservation of negative tendencies in the mixed sector of economy in dejayotelnosti the organisations with state individual share in economic obyoshchestvah to which it is possible to carry:

- Irregular payment or nonpayment of dividends with the corresponding, taking place budgetary help;

- State capital "dispersion", significant specific weight oryoganizatsy in which the state block of shares is insignificant, "care" goyosudarstva from branches toplivno - a power complex;

- Negative influence of natural monopolies on regional economy and the social sphere, shown in high growth rates of the prices and tariffs for production and services of the enterprises and the organisations - monopolists;

- Aggravation of an ecological situation in edge;

- Resource exhaustion of territory and t.

6. Low rates of concentration regional state actually - sti in branches innovatively - an investment complex though shift, nayometivshijsja in this direction is obvious recently;

7. Prevalence in production of public sector of production dobyyovajushchih branches and initial processing of natural resources;

8. Inability to supply or stabilise a situation with production of the foodstuffs and industrial consumer production in Khabarovsk kras calls into question into the decision of a problem of maintenance regional bezopasnoyosti.

9. Availability significant on scales of not market sector with high udelyonym in manual labour weight in production of agricultural production, sphere of services and retail trade (it is presented by the house economy making to 80 % of separate kinds of the foodstuffs of production (chapter 2,

§ju).

Thus, the control system of the state ownership use, developed at present time, requires working out:

1. Methods of diagnostics and correction of a condition of a control system;

2. The complete account of incomes of the budget from gosudarsgvennoj sobstveinosgi, poskolyoku they as are object sobsgvennosti and managements (in table 16 are noted by a sign (-) columns, the statistical information on which at present time is absent).

For diagnostics of a condition of management the matrix the organisation of the account and the management by exception analysis in work of divisions and distributions of zones of responsibility on divisions MiYonisterstva of property relations of Khabarovsk territory and branch miniyosterstv (table 16) can be used svodyonaja.

For condition diagnostics it is subject - objective structure and in kacheyostve the bases for an estimation of management, development and decision-making predlayogaem to consider principal views of macroeconomic effects, which hayorakterny for a state ownership and which give in izyomereniju but on which at present time the account of data and the analysis it it is not conducted neither in edge Treasury, nor in territorial body FedeYoralnoj of service of statistics, (tables 17, 18).

The analysis of the reasons of deviations in structure of administrative activity.

The cadastre of the regional landed property (30 ground areas) is in a formation stage * management of information resources of the subject of the Russian Federation

r:

To

ov

System of macroeconomic indicators and indicators of an estimation of a management efficiency on groups of objects of a state ownership of the subject of the Russian Federation.


L

S

About

n

About

S


/g


3.3.

<< | >>
A source: Averbuh Elena Aleksandrovva. OPTIMIZATION of MANAGEMENT by the STATE OWNERSHIP of the SUBJECT of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION (ON the EXAMPLE of KHABAROVSK TERRITORY). The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Econ.Sci. Khabarovsk - 2005. 2005

More on topic THE QUANTITATIVE FORECAST OF DYNAMICS VRP ON THE BASIS OF THE DEVELOPED MACROEKONOMICHSKY FACTORIAL MODEL OF MANAGEMENT OF THE STATE OWNERSHIP OF KHABAROVSK TERRITORY.:

  1. Averbuh Elena Aleksandrovva. OPTIMIZATION of MANAGEMENT by the STATE OWNERSHIP of the SUBJECT of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION (ON the EXAMPLE of KHABAROVSK TERRITORY). The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Econ.Sci. Khabarovsk -,
  2. IT IS SUBJECT - THE OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT OF THE STATE OWNERSHIP IN THE SUBJECT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (ON THE EXAMPLE OF KHABAROVSK TERRITORY).
  3. CHAPTER 2. THE ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT OF THE STATE OWNERSHIP IN THE SUBJECT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (ON THE EXAMPLE OF KHABAROVSK TERRITORY).
  4. FEDERAL MODEL of MANAGEMENT of RE-STRUCTURING of OBJECTIVE STRUCTURE of the STATE OWNERSHIP, the ECONOMIC RIGHTS And CRITERIA of the MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
  5. 3.1. FACTORIAL MODEL of OPTIMIZATION of MANAGEMENT gosuyodarstvennoj the PROPERTY.
  6. a state ownership Role in economy of the developed countries
  7. 2.2. System principles of management of objects of a state ownership
  8. Principles, functions and the purposes of management of a state ownership
  9. 3.3. Perfection of management of shares of a state ownership in the joint-stock companies.
  10. FEATURES OF MANAGEMENT OF THE STATE OWNERSHIP IN SPHERE OF NATURAL MONOPOLIES.
  11. THE ANALYSIS OF THE BUDGETARY MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY THE STATE OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT OF ROSIJSKY FEDERATION.