RUSSIAN SUB-FEDERAL BUDGET POLICIES: WHY DO WE OBSERVE THE DIVERGENCE HERE?
EDN: IMPLQR
Abstract
It is necessary to keep the balance in different regions' economic development and integrate the territories into the single national economic policy implemented within the Russian territory in order to maintain the sustainable development trend. It is impossible to fulfill the task unless the interregional economic development gap is bridged. The harmonization of the different regions' taxation and financial profiles is one of the key factors that could bridge the interregional economic development gap and establish a balance in the national macroeconomic development. The strategic planning issues are on the currently operating policy-makers' agenda. The regional development concept should be based on the deep objective analysis of the consequences the policy makers' decisions used to lead to. The article author presents the findings of the research into the growing 'vertical orientation' trend the Russian national budget policy has got now.
About the Author
Е. KolomakReferences
1. Annala С.N. 2003. Have state and local fiscal policies become more alike? Evidence of beta convergence among fiscal policy variables. Public Finance Review 31 (2): 144-165.
2. Anselin L. 1988. Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. Barro R.J. and X. Sala-i-Martin. 2004. Economic Growth, MIT Press.
4. Carlino G. and L. Mills. 1996. Convergence and the U.S. states: A time-series analysis. Journal of Regional Science 36 (4): 597-616.
5. Conley T.G. and E. Ligon. 2002. Economic distance and cross-country spillovers. Journal of Economic Growth 7 (2): 157-187.
6. Coughlin C., T.A. Garrett, and R. Hernandez-Murillo. 2007. Spatial dependence in models of state fiscal policy convergence. Public Finance Review 35 (3): 361-384.
7. DeJuan J. and M. Tomljanovich. 2005. Income convergence across Canadian provinces in the 20th century: Almost but not quite there. The Annals of Regional Science 39 (3): 567-592.
8. Fingleton B. 2003. European Regional Growth, Springer, Berlin.
9. Hoover K.D. and S.J. Perez. 2004. Truth and robustness in cross-country growth regressions. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 66 (5): 765-798.
10. Le Gallo, J. 2004. Space-time analysis of GDP disparities among European regions: A Markov chains approach. International Regional Science Review 27 (2): 138-163.
11. Miller J. and I. Gene. 2005. Alternative regional specifications and convergence of U.S. regional growth rates. The Annals of Regional Science 39 (2): 241-252.
12. Moreno R. and B.Trehan. 1997. Location and the growth of nations. Journal of Economic Growth 2 (4): 399-418.
13. Pritchett L. 1997. Divergence, big time. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (3): 3-17.
14. Rey S.J. and B.D. Montouri. 1999. U.S. regional income convergence: A spatial econometric perspective. Regional Studies 33 (2): 143-156.
15. Scully G.W. 1991. The convergence of fiscal regimes and the decline of the Tiebout effect. Public Choice 72(1): 51-59.
16. Sala-i-Martin X.1996. Regional cohesion: Evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence. European Economic Review 401325-1352.
17. Sala-i-Martin X.1996. The classical approach to convergence analysis. The Economic Journal 106, 1019-1036.
18. Webber D.J., P. White, and D.O. Allen. 2005. Income convergence across U. S. states: An analysis using measures of concordance and discordance. Journal of Regional Science 45 (3): 565-589.
Review
For citations:
Kolomak Е. RUSSIAN SUB-FEDERAL BUDGET POLICIES: WHY DO WE OBSERVE THE DIVERGENCE HERE? Journal of Modern Competition. 2008;(3):35-43. EDN: IMPLQR
Email this article 