| Annotation |
The domestic and foreign of research experience on the population involvement in initiative (participatory) budgeting is considered in the article. The authors have come to the conclusion that this aspect is not sufficiently represented in the scientific field, and the existing methods are used at the stage of actual implementation of certain practices for their adjustments or measurement of social and economic effect. In this regard, the authors conducted a sociological survey on the territory of the Transbaikal region in order to identify prospects and directions for involving the population in initiative budgeting, taking into account the uneven development of municipalities in the region and their distribution into clusters depending on a number of budget and socio-economic indicators.
In the course of the study, conclusions were made about poor awareness of the available opportunities for solving the problems of the territory, prospects of transformation of Russia’s traditional practices project selection by regional commissions and raising the issue on support of those or other projects on the ballot citizens based on the consideration of reasons that can motivate people to participate in the decision of problems of territory. In particular, it is proposed that projects should be chosen by the population during the voting process.
There are also differences in the willingness to participate in solving the problems of the territory of their residence within clusters. In particular, the highest readiness was noted among respondents living in the cluster, whose municipalities are characterized by almost absolute transport isolation from the regional center. The tendency of citizens to make a labor contribution when solving problems in the territory was also revealed.
In this regard, it is important when developing and launching practices for involving the population in the budget process to work out a mechanism for taking into account the gratuitous labor contribution to the total cost of the project. Among the ways to solve the problems of the territory, the most popular among citizens is the mechanism for co-financing projects from regional, local budgets and extra-budgetary sources. The implementation pilot projects for participatory budgeting of local budgets may also be perspective in large municipalities of the first and third cluster |
| References |
1. Antsyferova I. S. Azimut nauchnyh issledovaniy: pedagogika i psihologiya (Azimuth of scientific research: pedagogy and psychology), 2016, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 446–449.
2. Blokhin A. A., Gabidullin V. V., Gavrilova N. V., Shapovalova N. A., Fenin A. Yu., Pashistaya A. A., Antsyferova I. S. Programma razvitiya initsiativnogo byudzhetirovaniya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii (Program for the development of initiative budgeting in the Russian Federation). URL: https://pravmin74.ru/sites/default/files/imce/prilozhenie_3_ib.pdf (Date of access: 12.01.2020). Text: electronic.
3. Maykova E. Yu., Simonova E. V. Upravlenie innovatsiyami: teoriya, metodologiya, praktika (Innovation management: theory, methodology, practice), 2016, no. 19, pp. 177–183.
4. Maykova E. Yu., Simonova E. V. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. Seriya: Nauki ob obshchestve i gumanitarnye nauki (Bulletin of the Tver State Technical University. Series: Social Sciences and Humanities), 2017, no. 1, pp. 7–18.
5. Roze N. S. Vestnik UGNTU. Nauka, obrazovanie, ekonomika. Seriya: Ekonomika (Bulletin of the Ufa State Petroleum Technological University. Science, education, and economics. Series: Economics), 2018, no. 4, pp. 39–46.
6. Tsurkan M. V. Finansovy zhurnal (Financial journal), 2017, no. 3, pp. 119–132.
7. Chugunov A. V., Karachay V. A. Upravlencheskoe konsul’tirovanie (Administrative consulting), 2019, no. 11, pp. 163–179.
8. Batrancea L., Nichita A. et al. Journal of Economic Psychology (Journal of Economic Psychology), 2019, no. 74, pp. 102–191.
9. He B. Public administration and development (Public administration and development), 2011, vol. 31, pp. 122–133.
10. He B. Public administration and development (Public administration and development), 2019, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 144–153.
11. Schneider H. S., Busse S. International Journal of Public Administration (International Journal of Public Administration), 2019, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 259–273.
12. Svaljek S., Bakaric I. R., Sumpor M. Public Sector Economics (Public Sector Economics), 2019, no. 43, pp. 21–48.
13. Volodin D. Contemporary Politics (Contemporary Politics), 2019, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 78–93.
14. Wilkinson C., Briggs J., Salt K., Vines J., Flynn E. Local Government Studies (Local Government Studies), 2019, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1001–1020.
|
