The Accounts Chamber doubted the effectiveness of individual regional programs

The Accounts Chamber assessed the effectiveness of the implementation of individual development programs (IDP) for the ten most depressed regions of the Russian Federation. It is noted that although these territories have developed at a rate slightly above average in recent years, the small amount of funding (1 billion rubles per year per region) does not allow these results to be correlated specifically with the implementation of the IPR. In their conclusion, state auditors propose to reconsider approaches to the allocation of funding for programs and to the selection of regions participating in them.

The Accounts Chamber (CA) analyzed the implementation of individual development programs in force since 2020 for the ten most depressed Russian regions (Tuva, Adygea, Altai Territory, Altai Republic, Kalmykia, Karelia, Mari El, Chuvashia, Pskov and Kurgan regions). These are the territories with the worst indicators of per capita income of residents, unemployment and investment in fixed assets. So far, 50 billion rubles have been allocated for all of them in 2020–2024. (1 billion rubles per year per region). In total, the center is ready to spend 100 billion rubles for these purposes, but the second half of the money will be distributed after 2024 as needed. The extension of the programs until 2030 is currently being discussed.

The Accounts Chamber concludes that regions with individual programs generally “repeated the all-Russian dynamics, while showing results slightly better than the national average.”

Deputy Head of the Ministry of Economy Dmitry Vakhrukov said that over the past three years, 82 IPR activities have been completed, which made it possible to create 12 thousand jobs and attract 90 billion rubles. investments. The unemployment rate decreased compared to the national average by 2.5 times, and in terms of the rate of poverty reduction, nine out of ten regions entered the category of the best and average in the Russian Federation. According to the deputy minister, “such results were achieved thanks to the ability to combine IPR with other support mechanisms.”

Nevertheless, they cannot make an unambiguous conclusion about the influence of IPR, and not other factors, on the dynamics of development in the joint venture – the improvement in the situation in these regions began before the programs, and their scale (the share of IPR funds in transfers to the regions in 2020–2022 ranged from 1. 3% to 8.5% and had a tendency to decrease) cannot lead to fundamental changes, state auditors note. They believe that to achieve significant effects, increased funding for programs is necessary.

The Accounts Chamber also notes problems with the IPR mechanism itself – in particular, the lack of a unified financing model.

Funds come in different forms and are subject to different rules, making administration complex. When extending programs, the joint venture proposes to provide regions with one transfer for the purposes of IPR (this procedure already exists in a number of regions) and to move away from the practice of allocating the same amount to all regions. The state auditors also propose to centralize the functions of regional curators in the Ministry of Economy – now “patronage” over the territories is distributed among various departments (for example, the Ministry of Labor is responsible for the Altai Territory, the Ministry of Construction is responsible for Mari El).

It is proposed to change the approach to the selection of regions for which the IPR is being developed. The chamber does not propose a detailed mechanism, noting only that it is advisable to build on the initiative of regions with a level of economic development below average. Among those who could apply for their program in the new cycle, the joint venture names Khakassia and the Tomsk region. At the same time, according to state auditors, the extension of Adygea’s IPR is “not entirely advisable” – the region’s position is quite stable. If the program for a particular region ends in 2024, a transition period for support measures is recommended to prevent a rollback to the “pre-program” level. It should be noted that the Ministry of Economy, when extending the program until 2030, plans to update the criteria for selecting regions and “methodological approaches to formation” to increase the effectiveness of the IPR.

Evgenia Kryuchkova