Replenishment of local budgets through the use of facil tation payments


Skybinska Z.M .

The article substantiates the need to reduce the level of bureaucracy and corruption at the
level of local government by introducing facilitation payments (AF). Posted interpretation of FP,
its purpose and the criteria referring to facilitation payment, including the amount, frequency,
compliance with legislation and aim. In particular, the size of FP is important and in order not to
be identified with bribe its amount should not be significant that is why we offer the value of FP to
determine at the level of no higher than 100 untaxed minimum incomes or 1700 UAH. We also
recommend the use of this type of assistance in individual cases not systematically in accordance
with the laws of the country in which such payment is made. To comply with the legislation it is
necessary to solve a number of issues relating simplifying procedures of FP, including the limit of
such payments, determining the content of «routine» activities, internal procedures for acceptance
this payment as facilitation, its accounting, monitoring program and auditing. We consider it
appropriate to use such payment to accelerate operations of bureaucratic paperwork, which
somehow will be made by official, as part of his or her direct duties, but in the longer term. In
addition, FP should not be administered to affect the results of operations, but only in terms of
performance, consideration.
Studied the use of favoring payments in the public sector and found that most respondents
believe that their institution does not use this type of payment (71.2 %) and only one respondent
said that FP is allowed by the institution (2.1%). Although the vast majority of respondents believe
that their institutions do not allowe FP, they are able to take/ give them always (22.9 %) or
sometimes (66.6 ) that allows to assume the use of hidden type of calculations and demonstrates the
need for their legalization.
Determined factors of permit (single small payments, identification of payment as part of the
active self reporting by both parties, transparent procedures for the implementation of FP etc.)
and prohibition of facilitation payments (previous experience of abuse sanctions for bribery, the
availability of warnings from at least one of the parties, not compliance with procedures of
payment consideration, its lack of approval, not compliance with criteria for FP etc.).
The advantages and downsides, as well conditions of FP use id substantiated as a way to
promote the legalization of hidden fees and replenish local budgets. In particular, among
advantages there is the necessity of carrying out on the records which is a precondition for
transparency of making such payment, and then the positive results of the audit; opportunity to
guarantee or accelerate the execution of any routine operation, the implementation of which the
payer is legally entitled to. Among the downsides of FP we noted its bribery shade, precondition
for deeper corruption, unfair competition, because small business has less financial opportunities
to "grease" the officials than medium and large, and without any additional financial assistance in
some areas, they will not be able to do business mainly because of no ability to perform
bureaucratic tasks and accordingly to compete in the market environment.
In general, FP is risky, aggressive regarding high standards of business and can undermine
the reputation of enterprise on those markets in which they are paid, but very often, especially in
Ukrainian reality, it is easier to pay for "assistance" rather than fight with the manifestations of
bureaucracy. However, if such payment is made one way or another in most institutions not
officially, country should be interested in legalizing them.