EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BODIES IN THE BUDGETARY PROCESS OF POST-SOVIET STATES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2025-4-64-73Keywords:
budgetary process, index of Legislative Budget Institutions, post-Soviet countries, executive-legislative relations, Open Budget Survey, parliamentary oversightAbstract
The budgetary process vividly illustrates the political struggle over the redistribution of state resources, making the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches especially visible and open to comparative analysis. The post-Soviet space offers a compelling field for studying interbranch relations, where a shared institutional legacy has produced diverse models of budgetary interaction. This article compares the prerogatives of legislative and executive bodies to assess their relative influence in the budgetary process. Methodologically, the study applies J. Wehner’s Index of Legislative Budget Institutions—adapted to post-Soviet specificities—which evaluates six parameters: parliamentary amendment powers, consequences of non-approval, executive flexibility in execution, time for legislative review, the role of specialized committees, and access to independent budget information. To calculate the indicators, the study draws on data from the Open Budget Survey (International Budget Partnership), the Inter-Parliamentary Union database, as well as national legislation and official documents. The results of the empirical analysis across fifteen post-Soviet countries reveal substantial variation in the level of parliamentary oversight of the budgetary process. This variation largely depends on the characteristics of the political regime, the degree of parliamentary institutionalization, the prevalence of informal decision-making practices, and the broader international context.References
Борисов, Н. А. (2023) ‘Тридцать лет постсоветских исследований в российской политической науке: тренды и перспективы’, Политическая наука, 4, сс. 15–55. [Borisov, N. A. (2023) ‘Thirty years of post-Soviet studies in Russian political science: trends and prospects’ [Tridtsat' let postsovetskikh issledovanii v rossiiskoi politicheskoi nauke: trendy i perspektivy], Political science (RU), 4, pp. 15–55. (In Russ.)].
Кошель, А. С. (2025) Парламентские процедуры в России: Конституционные стандарты. М.: Изд. Дом Высшей шко¬лы экономики. [Koshel, A. S. (2025) Par¬lia¬mentary procedures in Russia: constitutional standards [Parlamentskie protsedry v Rossii: Konstitutsionnye standarty]. Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russ.)].
Мадьяр, Б., Мадлович, Б. (2022) Посткоммунистические режимы. Концептуальная структура. М.: Новое лит. обозрение. Т. 1, 744 с. [Magyar, B., Madlovich, B. (2022) Post-communist regimes. Conceptual framework [Postkommunisticheskie rezhimy. Kontseptual'naya struktura]. Moscow: New Literary Observer. Vol. 1. 744 p. (In Russ.)].
Назаров, В. С., Богачева, О. В., Фокина, Т. В. (2014) ‘Роль законодательных органов власти в рассмотрении и утверждении проекта государственного бюджета’, Финансовый журнал, 4, сс. 55–65. [Nazarov, V. S., Bogacheva, O. V., Fokina, T. V. (2014) ‘The role of legislative bodies in reviewing and approving the draft state budget’ [Rol' zakonodatel'nykh organov vlasti v rassmotrenii i utverzhdenii proekta gosudarstvennogo byudzheta], Financial journal, 4, pp. 55–65. (In Russ.)].
Шкель, С. Н. (2013) Постсоветский авторитаризм в сравнительной перспективе. Уфа: Гилем, Башк. энцикл. 352 c. [Shkel, S. N. (2013) Post-Soviet authoritarianism in comparative perspec¬tive [Postsovetskii avtoritarizm v sravnitel'noi perspektive]. Ufa: Gilem, Bashkir Encyclopedia. 352 p. (In Russ.)].
Ahmadov, A. K. (2019) ‘How oil autocracies learn to stop worrying: Central Eurasia in 2008 global financial crisis’, Post-Soviet Affairs, 35(2), pp. 161–180.
Alesina, A., Hausmann, R., Hommes, R., Stein, E. (1999) ‘Budget institutions and fiscal performance in Latin America’, Journal of development Economics, 59(2), pp. 253–273.
Ermasova, N., Guzman, T., Ceka, E. (2021) ‘Legacy effect of soviet budgeting system on public capital budgeting: Cases of Russia, Moldova, and Uzbekistan’, Inter¬na¬tional Journal of Public Admi¬ni¬stra¬tion, 44(13), pp. 1090–1102.
Franke, A., Gawrich, A., Alakbarov, G. (2009) ‘Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan as post-Soviet rentier states: resource incomes and autocracy as a double ‘curse’in post-Soviet regimes’, Europe-Asia Studies, 61(1), pp. 109–140.
Gleich, H. (2003) ‘Budget institutions and fiscal performance in Central and Eastern European countries’, ECB working paper, 215, pp. 1–44.
Guess, G. M., Savage, J. D. (2021) ‘Budgeting in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union’ in Guess, G.M., Savage, J. D. (eds). Comparative Public Budgeting: Global Perspectives on Taxing and Spending. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–163.
Hagen, J. (2006) ‘Fiscal rules and fiscal performance in the European Union and Japan’, Monetary and Economic Studies, 24(1), pp. 25–60.
Hagen, J., Hallerberg, M. (1998) ‘Electoral Institutions and the Budget Process’ in Fukasaku, K., Hausmann, R. (eds). Democracy, Decentralization, and Deficits in Latin America. Paris: OECD Development Center, pp. 65–95.
Kim, C. (2015) ‘A study on compilation and improvement of indices for legislative budgetary institutions-with focus on comparative analysis of current institutions in 60 countries’, OECD Journal on Budgeting, 14(3), pp. 9–39.
Kim, C. (2019) ‘Who has power over the budget-The Legislature or the Executive?: A comparative analysis of budgetary power in 70 Countries’, OECD Journal on Budgeting, 18(3), pp. 125–144.
Krafchik, W., Wehner, J. (1998) ‘The role of Parliament in the budget process’, South African Journal of Economics, 66(4), pp. 512–541.
Lemon, E., Antonov, O. (2020) ‘Authoritarian le¬gal harmonization in the post-Soviet spa¬ce’, Democratization, 27(7), pp. 1221–1239.
Levitsky, S., Way, L. A. (2010) Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 517 p, DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511781353. EDN: USKLUP.
Mikesell, J. L., Mullins, D. R. (2001) ‘Reforming budget systems in countries of the former Soviet Union’, Public Administration Review, 61(5), pp. 548–568.
Rios, A. M., Bastida, F., Benito, B. (2018) ‘Risks and benefits of legislative budgetary oversight’, Administration & society, 50(6), pp. 856–883.
Scartascini, C., Stein, E. (2009). ‘A new frame¬work’ in Hallerberg, M., Scartas¬cini, C., Stein, E. (eds). Who Decides the Budget? A Political Economy Analysis of the Bud¬get Process in Latin America. Washing¬ton, D.C.: Inter-American Deve¬lop¬ment Bank, pp. 1–22.
Waller, J. G. (2024) ‘Parliaments’ in Brown, N. J., Schaaf, S. D., Anabtawi, S., Waller J.G. (eds). Autocrats can't always get what they want: state institutions and autonomy under authoritarianism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 135–187.
Wehner, J. (2006) ‘Assessing the power of the purse: An index of legislative budget insti¬tutions’, Political studies, 54(4), pp. 767–785.
Wehner, J. (2010) Legislatures and the budget process: The myth of fiscal control. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 183 p. DOI: 10.1057/9780230281578. EDN: XZJVHT.
Wehner, J., De Renzio, P. (2013) ‘Citizens, legis¬lators, and executive disclosure: The po¬litical determinants of fiscal trans¬pa¬ren¬cy’, World Development, 41, pp. 96–108.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The author grants the Publisher of the journal (Perm State University) the right to use their article in the journal, as well as to include the text of the abstract, the full text of the article and information about authors in the "Russian Science Citation Index" (RSCI).
The author agrees to the processing of personal data.
The right to use the journal as a whole belongs to the Publisher and acts indefinitely on the territory of the Russian Federation and beyond in accordance with cl. 1260 of the Russian Federation Civil Code.
There is no author's fee paid for providing the above rights by the author.
The author of the article included in the journal retains the exclusive right to it, regardless of the Publisher's right to use the journal as a whole:
a. The authors retain their copyrights to the article and transfer the right of the first publication along with the article to the journal, while also licensing it on the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to distribute this article with the obligatory indication of authorship of the article and reference to the original publication in this journal.
b. The authors retain the right to enter into separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the version of the text published by this journal (for example, post it in a university archive or publish it in a book), with reference to the original publication in this journal.
c. d. Authors are allowed to post their text on the Internet (for example, in a university archive or on their personal website) before and during the review process by this journal, as this can lead to a fruitful discussion and to higher number of the references to this published work (Please refer to The Effect of Open Access).
Submission of an article by the author implies that they agree for it to be used by the Publisher on the above conditions and to be included in the RSCI system. It also implicates that the author is aware of the terms of its use. The information about the author sent to the Publisher, including by e-mail, is also considered as such consent.
The editorial board posts the full text of the article on the Perm State University site: http://www.psu.ru and in the OJS system at http://press.psu.ru
The publication fee is not collected and fees are not paid. The author's copy is sent to the author to the address provided by them.
