Tax revenues, public investments and economic growth rates: evidence from Russia

Andrey V. Belov

Abstract


This article analyzes the economic effects of public investments in Russia. The correlation between gross regional product growth rates and public capital accumulation has been identified. It has been found that regional investments stimulate growth much better than federal ones. Therefore, the transfer of federal resources to regional levels, as well as a more precise tailoring of investment policies to the needs of individual territories, should contribute to a rise in productivity and an increase in regional growth rates. The findings show that investments from subnational budget sources are closely correlated to regional tax revenues. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the revenue-sharing mechanism in the larger fiscal federalism framework, the expansion of the regional tax base, the improvement of tax collection and tax administration systems, and other related measures represent the main focus areas for expanding investment opportunities at the provincial level. In the long term, this way of regional development is expected to be more efficient and sustainable compared to the current emphasis on the implementation of large developmental projects at the expense of the federal budget. These aspects of Russia’s experience seems to be valid for the entire Eurasian continent, as seen by the scale of infrastructure projects initiated there in recent years under the framework of “One belt-One Road” and other development initiatives

Highlights 

1. Subnational investments from regional budgets positively influence the rate of regional development, whereas the role of federal investment, most often, is negative or statistically insignificant

2. The fine-tuning of the revenue-sharing mechanism, the expansion of the regional tax base, the improvement of tax collection and tax administration systems, and other related measures represent the main focus areas for expanding investment opportunities at the provincial level

3. Since federal investments are considered inferior to regional ones in terms of provincial growth stimulation, transferring most of the investment resources to the subnational level could be beneficial for overall growth rates

4. Comprehensive use of local resources for federal construction projects allows to maximize the macroeconomic effects not only in Russia, but also in several Eurasian states, currently implementing large-scale infrastructure development initiatives

For citation

Belov A. V. Tax Revenues, public investments and economic growth rates: evidence from Russia. Journal of Tax Reform, 2018, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45–56. DOI: 10.15826/jtr.2018.4.1.044

Article info

Received February 10, 2018; accepted March 23, 2018

 


Keywords


Economic growth, infrastructure development, public investment, regional economy, tax revenues

References


Nijkamp P., Poot J. Meta-analysis of the effect of fiscal policies on long-run growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 2004, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 91–124. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2003.10.001.
2. Garsia-Mila T., McGuire T., Porter H. The effects of public capital in state-level production function reconsidered. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1996, vol. 78, pp. 177–180.
3. Tanzi V., Schuknecht L. Public spending in the 20th century: A global perspective. Cambridge University Press, 2000. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511625800.
4. Ledyaeva S., Linden M. Determinants of economic growth: empirical evidence from russian regions. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 2008, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 87–105. Available at: http://eaces.liuc.it/18242979200801/182429792008050105.pdf.
5. Drobyshevsky S., Lugovoy O., Astafyeva E., Polevoy D., Kozlovskaya A., Trunin P., Lederman L. Faktory ekonomicheskogo rosta v regionakh RF [Factors of economic growth in Russia’s regions]. Moscow, Institute of Economics in Transition Publ., 2005. 278 p.
6. Bom P., Ligthart J. How productive is public capital? A meta analisis. CESifo working paper, 2008, no. 2206. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1088651.
7. Munnell A. How does public infrastructure affect regional economic performance? New England Economic Review, 1990, September/October, no. 9, pp. 11–32. Available at: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/neer/neer1990/neer590b.pdf.
8. Yoshino N., Nakano H. Regional allocation of public investment into the metropolitan region. In: Hatta T. (ed.) Economic Analysis of Tokyo Monopolar System. Tokyo, Nihonkeizaishinbunsha Publ., 1994. Pp. 161–190.
9. Kataoka M. Effect of public investment on the regional economies in postwar Japan. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, 2005, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 115–139.
10. Yamano N., Ohkawara T. The regional allocation of public investment: efficiency or equity? Journal of Regional Science, 2000, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 205–229. DOI: 10.1111/0022-4146.00172.
11. Izyumov A., Vahaly J. Old capital vs. new investment in post-soviet economies: conceptual issues and estimates. Comparative Economic Studies, 2008, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 79–110. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.ces.8100237.
12. Dodonov B., Hirschhausen C., Opitz P., Sugolov P. Efficient infrastructure supply for economic development in transition countries: the case of Ukraine. Post-Communist Economies, 2002, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 149–167. DOI: 10.1080/14631370220139909.
13. Kortelaionen M., Leppanen S. Public and private capital productivity puzzle revisited in Russia. In: A nonparametric investigation, proceedings, european economic. Association 25th annual meeting, 23–26 August 2010, Glasgow.
14. Bruckner M., Tuladhar A. Public investment as a fiscal stimulus: evidence from Japan’s regional spending during the 1990s. IMF working paper, 2010, WP/10/110. 34 p. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10110.pdf.
15. Aninat E., Bauer A., Cowan K. Addressing equity issues in policymaking: lessons from the chilean experience. In: Tanzi V., Chu K., Gupta S. (eds) Economic policy and equity. Washington DC: IMF, 1999. Pp. 109–149.
16. Fingleton B. Regional economic Growth and convergence: insights from spatial econometrics. In: Anselin L., Florax R., Rey S. (eds) Advances in spatial econometrics. Berlin, Springer, 2004. Pp. 397–432. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-05617-2_19.
17. Investments in Russia. 2017. Moscow, 2017. 190 p. Available at: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/doc_2017/invest.pdf.
18. World development indicators 2017. Oxford, 2017. 146 p. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26447.
19. Russia: towards improving the efficiency of public investment expenditures. The World Bank Report, September 18, 2001, no. 22693-RU. 80 p. Available at: http://documents.vsemirnyjbank.org/curated/ru/768921468335997060/pdf/multi0page.pdf.
20. Russian statistical yearbook. Moscow, 2016. 725 р.
21. Bella D., Dynnikova O., Grigoli F. Fiscal federalism and regional performance. IMF Working Paper, WP/17/265. 23 p.
22. Lehmann H., Silvagni M. Is There convergence of Russia’s regions? Exploring the empirical evidence: 1995–2010. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 2013, no. 1083. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2321098.
23. Pokrovskaya N. The Payment of the personal income tax to local budgets of the Russian Federation. Ekonomika. Nalogi. Pravo = Economics, Taxes & Law, 2017, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 146–151. (In Russ.).
24. Belov A. Theoretical and empirical considerations in researching of public investments in Russia. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii = Journal of Economic Theory, 2012, no. 4, pp. 85–95. (In Russ.).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/jtr.2018.4.1.044

Copyright (c) 2018 Andrey V. Belov

eLibrary logoeLibrary logo  DOAJ logo ERIH PLUS logo 

 

© Journal of Tax Reform : ISSN 2414-9497 (online), ISSN 2412-8872 (print)