FINANCIAL PROVISION OF FUNCTIONING OF MANAGEMENT BODIES IN THE UNITED TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES OF THE CARPATHIAN REGION

Abstract

In detail prospects for the development of United Territorial Communities in Ukraine and its financial support are defined and investigated by the author. Attention has been drawn to the success of the process of budgetary decentralization, which largely depends on the financial capacity of local governments, which determines the performance of the functions entrusted to them. The general dynamics of the expenditures of the Consolidated Budget of Ukraine for the maintenance of public administration have been analyzed. It is proved that expenditures for the maintenance of public administration bodies should be determined based on the possibilities of the state budget and with the principle of equality in the financial support of public administration bodies. The indicator of the efficiency of public administration for 10 years is calculated, and the level of public administration efficiency has practically not changed, the improvement is minimal (in percentage terms: in 2013-2015). Control over corruption in Ukraine has been researched, and this indicator shows positive changes over the years studied. Expenditures for the unit of management of the UTCs of the Carpathian region (per capita) were estimated. As a result, out of 52 UTCs of the Carpathian region, 27 UTCs (52%) exceed the average of expenditures on functioning of local governments per capita, 48 UTCs (92%) exceed the average in cities and districts of the region. It is proved that the UTCs of the Carpathian region are characterized by a high share of management expenditures compared to the average Ukrainian value. The author suggested one of the best options for further development for the communities is their joining other territorial communities and creating a large-area population with the size and number of inhabitants, which will allow optimizing the number of employees in public administration and expenditures for their maintenance. Only 5 ATGs have a unit cost of owning the control unit (excluding transfers) below 20%. The reasons for this are both the relatively smaller number of communities and their lower financial capacity.