The key aspect of the analysis of processes underway in the monetary sphere and the policies pursued by the RF Central Bank in 2002 is, on the whole, the waning interest in the problems of this sector of the Russian economy. For instance, over the year the issues relating to monetary and exchange regulation remained at the background in comparison with the changes in the tax sphere, the reform of the budgetary sector, and natural monopolies, Russia’s accession to WTO, structural policies, and falling rates of growth in the real sector of the economy.

   On the whole, in 2002 there may be singled out the following important issues relating to the monetary sphere and exchange policy:

   - growing role of non-monetary factors (increase in regulated prices of natural monopolies) in the determination of the rates of growth in consumer prices simultaneously with further slowdown of inflation rates;

   - smooth dynamics of the nominal Ruble exchange rate, maintenance of low rates of real revaluation of the Russian national currency and growing gold and forex denominated reserves of the Bank of Russia;

   - the changes in the administration of the RF Central Bank in March of 2002;

   - the policies monetary authorities pursued as concerns liberalization of foreign currency control;

   - slowing down capitalization of the banking system accompanied by deteriorating credit rationing and expanding money supply by the banking system via crediting of the private sector;

   - growing confidence of the population in bank deposits.

    In 2002, the revenues of the federal budget made Rub. 2202.1 billion, or 20.1 per cent of GDP, what is by 2.5 p.p. above the level observed in 2001. The factors behind the growth in revenues were primarily an increase in tax revenues by 2.3 p.p. of GDP up to 18.6 per cent of GDP as compared with the figures registered in the preceding year. However, it should be taken into account that in 2002 the single social tax was included in the composition of the federal budget revenues. Total tax revenues minus SST revenues did not increase, but declined noticeably – by 0.7 p.p. in terms of GDP, while the total budget revenues decreased by 0.6 p.p. to 17 per cent of GDP (Rub. 1862.7 billion).

   At the same time, the budgetary expenditures grew by 4 p.p., or 1 p.p. in GDP terms making 18.7 per cent of GDP in 2002.

   The consolidated budget was executed with surplus of 1 per cent of GDP in 2002.

   The key parameters of the federal budget for year 2003 are based on the prognosis of the social and economic development of the Russian Federation in 2003 through 2005. Tax revenues shall make Rub. 1892 billion, or 14.5 per cent of GDP, what is by 1 p.p. of GDP below the target set for 2002. Revenues are targeted at 18 per cent of GDP, while the expected amount of GDP shall be at Rub. 13050 billion.

   On the whole, it may be concluded that two other problems relating to the budget for 2003 the government strove to resolve were the expected rise in wages and salaries financed from the budget and repayment of the external debt due in 2003.

   In the beginning of 2003, the amount of internal public debt in the form of securities made Rub. 654.5 billion, i.e. about 6 per cent of GDP. The aggregate public external debt of the RF decreased by US $ 7 billion – from US $ 113.5 to US $ 106.5 billion over 9 months of 2002.

   In 1999 through 2002, the Russia’s economy demonstrated high rates of growth. The economic recovery occurred at the background of favorable external economic situation and internal social and economic stability. The increase in GDP made 4.3 per cent in 2002, while investment in fixed assets grew by 2.6 per cent and the gross industrial output increased by 3.7 per cent.

   In 1999 through 2002, a specific feature was the change in proportions between economic sectors. In the four last years, the output of goods increased by 35.8 per cent, market services – by 21 per cent, commercial freight – by 19 per cent, the amount of wholesale trade – by 60 per cent, while the amount of communication services doubled. Retail trade was one of the most dynamically developing sector of the economy in the post-crisis period.

   The positive dynamics of growth in GDP have been observed since the 2nd quarter of 1999 and were supported by increasing production in industry, construction, and agriculture. In 2002, the industrial output grew by 47.5 per cent, volume of agricultural produce – by 22.6 per cent, and the amount of construction works increased by 33.1 per cent in comparison with the figures registered in 1998.

   The economic growth in 1999 through 2002 may be subdivided in several stages depending on the impact of different factors:

   - active import substitution occurred in the end of 1998 through the first half year, the factors behind which were the Ruble devaluation, sharp contraction of imports, and moderate growth in wages and salaries, relatively low prices of the products of natural monopolies;

   - expanding external demand since the second half of 1999 related to favorable changes in the business situation on world fuel, energy, and raw materials markets;

   - expansion of internal demand for investment resources observed since the 3rd quarter of 1999 determined by growing proceeds of enterprises;

   - expanding internal consumer demand (since the second half of 2000) determined by growing household incomes;

   - a slowdown in the rates of industrial development starting since the 4th quarter of 2000 because of outpacing rates of growth in production costs resulting from increases in prices and tariffs of natural monopolies and gradual recovery of growth rates in imports;

   - decreasing levels of investment activity since the beginning of 2001, determined by a decline in profitability of production resulting from the changes in relative prices of the domestic and foreign markets;

   - slowing down rates of industrial development since the early 2002 because of the totality of factors formed over the aforesaid period.

   In the end of 2001, the Russia’s industry encountered the most serious and prolonged sale problems. Only in July of 2002, surveys registered an increase in cash sales for the first time. The growth in cash sales had been recovered by the last September in all industries with the exception of light industry. Therefore, the 3rd quarter was the most favorable period for the Russia’s industry in 2002. In November, similarly to the situation existing a year ago, the growth in effective demand completely ceased.

   This sharp and the most prolonged in the post-default period decline in cash sales determined the changed in the dynamics and attitude of enterprises to non-cash types of demand. In 2002, there was for the first time registered an absolute increase in promissory note and offset operations, as well as a most significant and prolonged lack of barter, promissory notes, and offsets.

   The discussion about the competition on sales markets of Russian industrial enterprises and its impact on domestic producers continue to attract attention of analysts, government officials, and public. In 2002, this discussion reached a new stage as the new – after the default of 1998 - incentive was given to the calls to protect domestic producers by customs statistics revealing an increase in volumes of import up to the levels registered in 1998. However, two facts make to doubt about such grave assessments. First, customs statistics are a most unreliable source of economic information in the modern Russia. Second, the situation relating to the dynamics of demand and output and cash payments in the Russia’s industry in 2002 is principally different from that observed in the first six months of 1998. Therefore, the projection of conclusions and forecasts based on an analysis of the pre-default situation to 2002 seems unjustified.

   A growth in investment demand was a specific feature of the development of the Russia’s economy in 2000 through 2001. At that time, there was observed a steady trend towards outpacing rates of growth in investment in fixed assets as compared with GDP dynamics and output of base sectors of the economy. In 2002, the situation changed as investment demand became inferior to consumer demand in terms of growth rates.

   The amount of investment in fixed assets from all sources of financing made about Rub. 1.76 trillion in 2002, what was by 2.6 per cent above the level registered in the preceding year. The slowdown of rates of growth in investment demand determined the nature of dynamics of production of capital goods and construction works. The amount of works carried out by construction organizations in 2002 increased by 2.6 per cent as compared with 8.7 per cent registered in 2001, while the increase in gross output of mechanical engineering and the industry of construction materials made 2 per cent as compared with 7.2 per cent and 3 per cent as compared with 5.5 per cent respectively.

   In 2002, the contraction of investment demand progressed more intensively at the background of the general trend toward slowing rates of industrial growth. At the same time, the share of industry in the structure of investment in fixed assets decreased by about 1 p.p. in comparison with the figures registered in 2001.

   In the last few years, the investment activity was mostly oriented toward the active engagement of competitive reserve capacities in production and modernization of production. An analysis of utilization of production capacities reveals that its potential has been practically exhausted since a considerable part of equipment due to its moral and physical obsolescence can not be used for production.

   In 2000 through 2002, practically all investment demand was generated by the oil extracting industry and metallurgy. Although exporters had increased investment expenditures for development of their primary production, the spare funds were invested in the Russia’s economy with great reserve. Therefore, the gap between the export oriented industries and the larger part of the rest economy widened.

   As economic growth recovered, foreign investors increased their presence on the Russian market. As on January 1, 2003, the accumulated foreign capital in the RF economy made US $ 42.9 billion, including the investments from the CIS member countries. However, the bulk of foreign investments made in 2002 classified as so called “other investment” (formed primarily at the expense of credits granted by international financial organizations and funds investors assigned for purchase of governmental securities), what was a factor negatively affecting the investment sphere in the RF in the short time perspective.

   In 2002, 93 capital exporting countries invested in the Russia’s economy (109 countries in 2001).

   In 2002, the Russia’s agriculture continued to experience growth, which was related rather to internal processes of restructuring and improvement of the general economic situation in the country than weather conditions. Today it may be asserted that the growth in the agrarian sector is sustainable.

   According to Goskomstat, the rate of growth in agriculture made only 101.7 per cent; however, Goskomstat has revised annual data by the middle of the next year already for several years running each time increasing preliminary results by 1.5 to 2 percentage points. Therefore, it may be asserted that the real growth in agricultural produce made 3 to 3.5 per cent in the last year.

   At the same time, the persistence of growth in 2002 was accompanied by deterioration of the agriculture on the whole as profitability of production declined, while creditor indebtedness of producers increased. The factors behind the deterioration processes may be reduced to overproduction across all types of produce. Thus, the situation on the grain market was formed under strong influence of excessive supply of grain. Relatively good yields of 2001 and 2002 combined with low demand on the domestic markets resulted in declining prices and growth in exports. In the last year, the grain exports set a new record making 8.7 million metric tons in July through December. In other words, the last year was a turning point signifying the end of the post-crisis surge and transition to another model of growth.

   The main events of the agrarian policy in 2002 were the approval of the law on the turnover of farm lands and implementation of the program of subsidizing interest rates on medium term credits. A certain political resonance was generated by the restrictions on import of poultry from the USA.

   As concerns 2003 on the whole, it may be assumed that the growth in the agri-industrial complex would make about 2 per cent. The yield of grain will somewhat below the level of 2002, but not less than 80 million metric tons. The production of live stock will grow at a slower rate due to the limited household purchasing power. The process of differentiation of producers will accelerate: in spite of the efforts of the government to prevent the wave of bankruptcies it will inevitably rise, what requires to undertake urgent measures for social development of rural areas. It can be hardly expected that investment activity in this sector will increase in comparison with 2002, what means that agricultural mechanical engineering would have little chance to grow.

   A specific feature of the last year was that the government has approved the conceptual document setting forth key guidelines for the development of the science and technical sphere for the period until 2010 – “Principles of the Russian Federation’s policies concerning the development of science and technologies for the period until 2010 and the further perspective” (March of 2002).

   The past year witnessed the appearance of several clear guidelines concerning state activities in the sphere of science and technology. According to these guidelines, the financial policies were shaped and there was started the consistent development of the institutional environment. The target areas where the maximal progress was achieved were the closer links between science and production via implementation of large innovative projects and formation of united holding structures, as well as development of the infrastructure of innovative activities (the start of formation of venture industry).

   In 2002, the social and cultural sphere was a real priority in the course of distributing of budgetary means. The state financing of healthcare and fitness, education, culture, arts, and mass media has increased by 20 per cent in real terms as compared with the figures registered in the preceding year. The share of these expenditures in GDP made 7.5 per cent (6.5 per cent in 2001). Budget assignments for education, culture, and arts grew by 25 per cent in real terms.

   From the economic point of view, the situation in the sphere of healthcare in 2002 did not changed much in comparison with 2001. The most important problem faced by the sector is the incomplete implementation of the mandatory medical insurance system and eclectic combination of elements of budget and insurance systems of financing public healthcare. Only in the beginning of 2003 there were observed signs that the RF Ministry of Health, Finance Ministry, the RF Pension Fund, and the Federal Fund of Mandatory Medical Insurance reached a compromise and worked out a common position as concerns the contents of the planned reform of mandatory medical insurance.

   As concerns education, in contradistinction to health care, in this sphere there was carried out a real reform. The past year may be characterized as the period of specification of the strategic decisions concerning the avenues of the reforms, which had been elaborated earlier. The Ministry of Education approved the Action plan for 2003 through 2004 envisaging the implementation of the Concept of modernization of education in Russia until 2010. This document includes two groups of measures: first, aimed to ensure state guarantees of access to quality education, and, second, to create conditions serving to improve the quality of general and professional education.

   The development of Russia’s external economic links in 2002 occurred in a rather complicated environment and was characterized by contradictory trends. There was observed a decrease in the amounts of Russia’s exports occurring at the background of the negative development of external factors, such as slowing down development of the global economy and deteriorating world market situation in the first six months of 2002. The main factor behind the decline in the amounts of exports was a decrease in world prices of oil, natural gas, and metals. However, in the second half year the dynamics of Russia’s exports reversed as a result of the recovery of the business situation on the oil markets. By the end year, the exports from Russia exceeded the figures registered in 2001 by 5.2 per cent, totaling to US $ 106.9 billion. This increase in amounts resulted primarily from growing volumes of exports. Although world prices of staple Russia’s exports rose in the second half of the past year, the average year’s indicators were below the levels observed in 2001.

   On the whole, the foreign trade turnover of Russia in 2002 was the record high in the last ten years – US $ 167.4 billion, thus exceeding the figures registered in 2001 by 7.8 per cent.

   Countries outside the NIS remained main Russia’s trading partners. The share of these countries in the Russia’s foreign trade turnover increased in 2002 to 83 per cent as compared with 81.8 per cent registered in 2001. The foreign trade turnover with countries outside the CIS made US $ 138.9 billion, what was by 9.3 per cent above the level of 2001. Accelerated growth in imports primarily accounted for the increase in the foreign trade turnover.

   In 2002, EU and USA recognized the market status of the Russia’s economy. Having such a status, Russia may avoid unjustified losses relating to antidumping procedures. From the practical point of view, the market status will allow domestic producers to appeal for the revision of currently implemented antidumping measures on the EU territory.

   It may be expected that the standing of Russia’s exporter will improve after Russia joins WTO. The progress of negotiations is slow, however, the participants of the working group state that the accession is at its final stage.

   Russia’s turnover vis-?-vis the CIS member countries made US $ 28.6 billion in 2002, as exports increased by 6.9 per cent (up to US $ 16.3 billion), while imports made US $ 12.3 billion (decreasing by 5.5 per cent). The turnover declined by 4.3 per cent in comparison with the figures registered in 2001.

   The share of the CIS member countries in the Russia’s foreign trade made 17.1 per cent (18.3 per cent in 2001). The respective shares of exports and imports made 15.2 and 20.3 per cent. The main Russia’s trade partners in this group of countries remained Belorussia and Ukraine (over 11 per cent of the total Russia’s foreign trade turnover).

   In 2002, the RF President took the decision to reform the recruitment system of the country’s military organization. The RF Government held a special meeting on the issue and approved the real measures starting the elaboration of the Concept and the Program of the respective reform.

   At the same time, the scarce budgetary financing of military expenditures, which declined in real terms, at the background of real military threats sharply contrasts with the incommensurable expenditures for military preparations borne by a number of other states, first of all, the USA. This circumstance calls for the necessity not only control utilization of the funds assigned for these purposes in the RF, but also search for ways to increase the budgetary revenues to be able to resolve many problems Russia faces, including acceleration of the military reform.

   Priority should be given to the expenditures ensuring the efficiency in both the civilian (due to stimulation of high-tech innovative activities), and the military spheres.

   The key characteristic of the whole period of the so called “cash” privatization (from 1994 till present) was the budgetary orientation of the privatization process, which was characterized by the seasonal character of inflow of the bulk of revenues (as a rule, 2 to 3 main transactions were concluded in the end of each year). Since 2001, there has become apparent yet another principal characteristic: the shift from nonrenewable to renewable revenue sources generated by the use of the state property. This positive trend became apparent in 2002: the revenues from renewable sources three times exceeds the revenues from privatization leaving aside the transactions concerning Lukoil and Sibneft shares not completed before December.

   According to the preliminary data of the RF Ministry of Property Relations, in 2002 the aggregate revenues of the federal budget made about Rub. 122.4 billion, what is three times more than in 2001. At the same time, revenues from sales of property and blocks of shares in joint stock companies carried out by the Federal Property Fund and property funds of RF subjects made Rub. 91.2 billion (the December transactions relating to shares in Lukoil and Slavneft accounted for more than 80 per cent of this amount).

   In the spring of 2002, there was enacted the new law “On Privatization of State and Municipally Owned Property” (No. 178-FZ of December 21, 2001). However, the larger part of the privatization program for 2002 was based on the novations set forth by this law. The enactment of the law (first of all, the renewed instruments allowing sales of minority blocks of shares and non-liquid assets) set forth the legal grounds for mass reduction of objects owned by the state. This also concerns state unitary enterprises (SUE) as the Property Ministry intends to diminish the number of SUEs to 2.5 thousand by the end of 2003. Moreover, the processes of reorganization (affiliation, liquidation, partial sale) shall also concern SUE subsidiaries.

   Summing up the work federal agencies conducted to improve SUE management in 2002, there may be noted a considerable progress in the inventory of assets and bringing SUE charters in conformity with the new requirements carried out by the majority of ministries and agencies. At the same time, a number of sectoral agencies failed to present respective data. It will still require considerable efforts to resolve problems relating to the transfer of SUE revenues to the federal budget and formulation of reasonable proposals concerning the future reorganization of unitary enterprises.

   The following trends shall be singled out among those characteristic of the development of the corporate sector in 2002: the continuing processes of concentration of joint stock capitals, mergers of enterprises and reorganization of existing business groups, as well as a number of new trends relating to the intracorporate programs implemented by a number of largest companies (groups). At the same time, the development of the standards of corporate governance is directly related to respective reorganization and long term strategies employed by companies.

   In 2002, the banking sector continued to grow: assets increased by 20 per cent in real terms over 11 months, loans to the non-banking sectors grew by 26 per cent, deposits – by 27 per cent (including household deposits by 39 per cent).

   The share of securities in bank assets remained practically at the level registered in the end of 2001 (14.9 per cent).

   The business situation on the forex denominated federal debt securities was exceptionally favorable for investors in the preceding year. Growing prices of Russia’s eurobonds and OVVZ ensured high profitability in Ruble terms. However, the circle of banks operating on this market has remained rather narrow.

   As in preceding years, the banking sector remained the main holder of Ruble denominated bond public debt. However, in 2002 the process of concentration of Ruble denominated federal debt securities somewhat slowed down. As concerns the portfolio of governmental bonds of an average Russian bank, the share of Ruble denominated instruments increased, while the share of forex denominated securities declined.

   In December of 2002, there were summed up the results of the monitoring of the housing markets in nine Russian cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Irkutsk, Perm, Nizhni Novgorod, Tver, Ulyanovsk) and the Moscow oblast. The collected data revealed that in the first six months of 2002 there occurred the transition from sustainable growth in housing prices registered in 2000 through 2001 to recession and stabilization. According to the price dynamics, in the second half of 2002 all cities in the sample classified in three groups: I – regional centers where prices stabilized; II – St. Petersburg where prices continued to rise; III – Moscow and Moscow oblast where prices began to grow again.

   In 2002, the State Duma reviewed about 900 bills and approved more than 200 federal laws. The State Duma focused its efforts on budgetary, tax, and financial legislation. There continued the reform of the tax system. The Tax Code was amended, and the budget for 2003 was approved in the end of the year.

   The most important laws approved by the State Duma were amended versions of laws “On Central Bank (Bank of Russia) and “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy),” new laws “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation,” “On Alternative Military Service,” and some other laws. As concerns social policies, there was approved the governmental law on an increase in the minimal wages and salaries from Rub. 300 to Rub. 450 since May 1, 2002. The further development of the pension reform included the approval of the law on investment of funds for financing of the accumulating part of the labor pensions. The law on turnover of farm lands was widely discussed in mass media.

   The annual report on the state of the Russia’s economy prepared by the IET also contains an annex concerning the progress of the administrative reform – the reform of the structure of federal executive authorities, public service, system of state regulation.

   Besides, the report includes an annex analyzing the monetary policies pursued in the East European countries.

   For the full text of the report, see the IET web site: http://www.iet.ru .

   Problems of forecasting some macroeconomic indices
   Entov R., Nosko V., Yudin A., Kadochnikov P., Ponomarenko S.

   Various substantive problems of economic analysis require the use of statistical data characterizing the observed economic processes and large time series. Different time series are used to resolve different substantive problems. An important task of economic policies, including the study of dynamics of fundamental variables, is modeling allowing to forecast macroeconomic indices for future periods.

   This paper presents a comparative evaluation of the quality of different methods of forecasting time series applied to series that reflect dynamics of development of main macroeconomic indices characterizing the state of the Russia’s economy. The study focuses on forecasting power of time series models built basing on real statistical data on certain Russian economic and social series of dynamics (GNP, industrial output, employment, budgetary revenues and expenditures, inflation, money supply, exports, and imports).

   Alongside with analysis and comparison between different forecasting methods, the study provides basic information relating to the methods of forecasting macroeconomic indicators. The paper revealed that no single universal forecasting methods can be worked out for the macroeconomic indices under observation. The only exception is the general recommendation that the choice of the model based on the unit root test includes the best or one of the best models. In order to improve evaluations using new data it makes sense to apply recursive models, i.e. models employing reevaluation in the case new data are introduced, especially if structural shifts take place in the dynamics of indicators (or these structural shifts may be to a certain degree forecasted basing on substantive considerations or additional information).

   The results obtained in the course of the analysis indicate that, as it seems, forecasts should be based on several models and include the further analysis of deviations of forecasts from actual values in order to choose the model, which in majority of cases provides satisfactory forecast for several next periods.

   Problems of the agri-food sector

   This collection of essays published by the experts of the IET Analytical Center of Agri-food economy includes the following studies:

   “A review of the budgetary support of the agri-food complex (AFC) in Russian in 1994 through 2002)” by O. Shik,

   “A forecast of food consumption in Russia for a medium term perspective” by Ye. Serova, M. Prokopyev, T. Tikhonova, I. Ivanova,

   “Vertical integration in the food complex of Russia” by I. Khramova,

   “Russia: the market of purchased means of production for agriculture” by Ye. Serova, N. Karlova, V. Petrichenko.

   “Deregulation of the Russian economy: the mechanism of reproduction of the excessive regulation and institutional support of competition on commodity markets”
   Mau V., Zhavoronkov S., Fomichev O., Shadrin A., Yanovsky K

   The paper deals with challenges facing the public regulation system reform in Russia , their sources and some optional solutions. The paper contains a review on respective experiences and practices of Western European countries and the US on elimination of administrative barriers. The research focuses on genesis of groups of special interests, incentives to excessive regulation and proposals on improvement of decision-making procedures that lower risks of emergence of new administrative barriers. The paper also provides proposals on specification of regulative procedures: more specifically estimation of consequences of the regulation and implementation of main provisions of the bill ' On fundamentals of technical regulation, standartization and confirmation of compliance'.

   External factors of monetary and credit policy of RF
   P. Kadochnikov

   The paper deals with analysis of interventionist policy options, testing some hypotheses on dynamics of foreign trade, forex and monetary and credit policy indicators, and evaluation of possibilities for sterilization of money supply. The paper also contains a review of literature on the Central Bank's interventionist policy and channels of its impact on the economy.

   Evaluation of the personal income tax reform outcomes in Russia
   Sinelnikov-Murylev S., Batkibekov S., Kadochnikov P., Nekipelov D.

   The paper highlights an analysis of key problems if the functioning of personal income tax in Russia and the 2000 reform outcomes.

   The first part of the paper considers prerequisites to the reform implementation, provides analysis of its main objectives and provisions realized in Chapter 23 of the Tax Code of RF “The personal income tax”.

   The second section deals with theoretical research into the reform’s impact on tax base, tax collection and the level of its progressiveness, as well as an empirical testing of hypotheses resulting from the theoretical analysis. Basing on known theoretical models, hypotheses are formulated that relate changes in the tax rate to the scale of the respective tax dodging. The main hypothesis tested in the paper implies that under the lowering of the marginal personal income tax rate there may be noted a rise in tax revenues thanks to the rise in the taxable base caused by contraction in the tax dodging under the impact of individuals’ changing estimates of costs and benefits of the tax dodging.

   In conclusion, the paper presents conclusions on results of the research and recommendations on the fiscal policy in the personal income taxation area.

   Studies prepared and published by IET researchers in the framework of CEPRA project (the Russian – Canadian Consortium for Economic Policy, Research, and Advice) sponsored by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA):

   An analysis of redistribution of funds among budgets of RF subjects in the framework of the system of interbudgetary relations. Evaluation of stabilization qualities of re-distributive instruments of the Russia’s federal authorities.
   P. Kadochnikov, S. Sinelnikov-Murylev, I. Trunin, S. Chetverikov

   The paper aims to evaluate the scale and study the outcomes of redistribution of revenues among the subjects of the Russian Federation basing on the analysis of main financial flows between the federal budget and the budgets of RF subjects, evaluate the level of progressiveness of the system of interbudgetary relations and its stabilization qualities, as well as analyze separate instruments of this system from the standpoint indicated above.

   In conclusion, the paper presents the discussion of the results of calculations and comparison of obtained evaluations of the levels of interregional redistribution of resources and stabilization of regional economic indicators in Russia with respective values registered in other countries.