This paper examines how regional disparities have evolved in Russia and how Russia’s system of intergovernmental fiscal relations is managing these disparities. Regional disparities have fallen over the past two decades but remain relatively high. Socioeconomic outcomes remain worse in lagging regions despite faster growth and convergence in income levels. The twin shocks of COVID-19 and lower oil prices appear to have impacted richer regions disproportionately. Compared to other large countries with federal systems of government, Russia stands out with its high reliance on direct taxes as a revenue source for its regions. Transfers from the federal budget to the regions provide some redistribution by reducing the dispersion in real per capita fiscal spending, but also tend to be associated with lower growth. The Russian fiscal system offers degrees of redistribution and risk sharing of around 26 and 18 percent, respectively—with in-kind social transfers contributing the most. Finally, federal transfers in the aggregate tend to be procyclical and are also fairly unresponsive to shocks to regions’ own revenues.

Sound regional policies are essential for balanced and sustained economic growth. The interaction of federal and regional policies with cross-regional structural differences affect human and physical capital formation, the business climate, private investment, market depth, and competition. This paper summarizes the main elements of Russia's fiscal federalism, describes the channels through which it operates, and assesses the effectiveness of regional transfers in reducing regional disparities. The results suggest that federal transfers to regions contributed to reducing disparities arising from heterogeneous regional tax bases and fiscal revenues. This allowed regions with initially lower per capita income to increase human and physical capital at higher rates. There is little evidence for transfers contributing to increased cross-regional growth synchronization. The results also suggest that federal transfers did not significantly improve regional fiscal sustainability, a conclusion that is supported by the lack of convergence in per capita real income across Russian regions in the last 15 years.

WBI Learning Resources discuss issues in economic development policy and lessons from experience in a way that can be understood by non-specialists. This is the first in a series that will look at governance and decentralisation and looks at the implications of federalism on the growth of Russia's economy. In particular it looks at the impact of fiscal decentralisation as the way intergovernmental finances are resolved influences the transition and macroeconomic stability.

Abstract: April 1999 - Considering the positive impact decentralization has had on regional economic performance and expenditure structure, Russia's federal government should: Decisively protect local self-governance and budget autonomy; Make intergovernmental fiscal relations more transparent; Develop universal models of interactions between regional and municipal governments; Impose stricter limits on total debt and budget deficits of subnational governments. To shed light on decentralization in Russia, Freinkman and Yossifov examine intergovernmental fiscal relations within regions. To analyze trends, they review channels of fiscal allocation within regions-tax sharing and local transfer schemes. To evaluate the potential impact of various fiscal decentralization patterns on regional economic performance (including growth and the budget deficit), they study data on the structure of 89 Russian consolidated regional budgets for 1992-96. They find that local governments' relative share of Russia's consolidated budget, although substantive (roughly a quarter of the total budget), did not expand after 1994. The federal government's relative role in financing public goods and services declined as the relative role of local governments increased substantially. Local governments collected more revenues in 1996 (6.4 percent of GDP) and spent more than regional governments. They also substantially increased social financing (including health, education, and social protection). Russia made no progress toward a more transparent system for tax assignments. The average level of expenditure decentralization is similar for ethnically Russian regions and national republics and okrugs but revenue arrangements differ greatly. True decentralization has taken place in oblasts and krais, where local authorities are provided with a bigger share of subnational tax revenues. A redistribution model applies in republics and autonomous okrugs, where greater local outlays have been financed through larger transfers from regional governments. Regions near each other tend to have similar budget arrangements-the result of intensive interactions between neighbors and probably supported by the activities of regional associations. The size of a region's territory does not influence decentralization outcomes. Fiscal decentralization seems positively related to the share of education spending in regional budgets. And regions with more decentralized finances tend to experience less economic decline. But budget control is weaker in more decentralized regions. Instability and lack of transparency in intergovernmental fiscal relations provide subnational governments little incentive for responsible fiscal policy. Further decentralization without greater transparency could bring greater debt and deficits. This paper-a product of the Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region - is part of a larger effort in the unit to study fiscal decentralization in transition economies. Lev Freinkman may be contacted at [email protected].

The exposition is based on an analytical framework covering all ?building blocks? of fiscal federalism: size and structure of jurisdictions, expenditures, revenues, transfers, and borrowing. The application of this framework to Russian settings results in a comprehensive assessment of the state of intergovernmental fiscal relations in Russia.

An examination of the combined impact of decentralization and diversity on regional equality of service provision in Russia, and in particular on the provision of education. It begins with an analysis of the system of intergovernmental transfers and goes on to explore the nature and extent of disparities in education spending, paying particular attention to regions where spending has fallen furthest.

This study is a comprehensive review of fiscal federalism in the Russian Federation. It presents a strong case for greater decentralization. By succinctly surveying the literature on fiscal decentralization and clearly spelling out the main concepts, the volume sets the stage for the subsequent description of the fiscal system in Russia and its evolution through a succession of reforms guided by a desire on the part of Russian policymakers to craft a workable system of fiscal federalism. The authors not only describe the state of fiscal federalism in Russia at its key turning points, but they also provide insightful critical assessments of the reforms introduced at each stage. The book is rich with examples, which makes it an easy and exciting reading. The book's analysis of the history gives perspective to the authors' assessment of the current state of Russia's federalism. The authors make a strong case for greater decentralization in Russia based not only on the traditional economic benefits of fiscal federalism but also on the political benefits from local government competition. The richness of detail and the careful tracing of the reforms over the past nearly two decades also mean that this study will be an invaluable guide to both current observers with academic and policy interest in the recent fiscal federalism reforms as well as Russia's fiscal evolution since the early 1990s and its current fiscal challenges.