Suchergebnisse

The fiscal federalism theory was developed to explain budget formation in independent states. At present, this theory is often applied to supranational institutions like the European Union (hereinafter EU), without paying enough attention to the unique characteristics of this level of analysis. This article identifies which assumptions of the classical fiscal federalism theory cannot be applied to the supranational level. This paper answers the question of whether changes in the EU budget of 2014 were in line with the normative principles of the fiscal federalism. Recommendations to the policy makers how the EU budget could be improved are presented in the conclusions. Meanwhile, funding for the remaining three areas consists of ~40.6% of the EU budget. On this basis, we cannot say that the first of the EU budgets in the new multiannual financial framework is more in line with the principles of the fiscal federalism than the previous financial framework's first budget. Adapted from the source document.

However, the practical implementation of the idea until the division of the Republic of Two Nations and in the 20th century had its own gaps and even painful long-term consequences, having conditioned the gap from the aforementioned civilization space. O. Halecki, who dedicated his research to that idea, argued that the collapse of the Republic of Two Nations was conditioned by the factor that the Jagiellonian idea had not been fully realized, as in the 16th-17th centuries its third member Russia (present Ukraine) had not been included. J. Pilsudski's practical federalist project on the realization of the Jagiellonian idea in the inter-war period foresaw the corrections of the conclusions presented in Polish historiography. However, Poland's war with Bolshevik Russia and the 1921 Treaty of Riga prevented their implementation as they deprived Lithuania of its historical capital Vilnius and parcelled out Ukraine and Belarus, which had just regained their independence. Only as late as after World War II J. Giedroyc, who found himself in emigration, was able to dialectically criticize J. Pilsudski's previous plans and the Jagiellonian idea itself; therefore, he clearly spoke for the creation of sovereign states of the largest nations: the Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Belarusians, that were part of the Republic of Two Nations. For the Polish it meant the recognition of the claims of civil nationalism of its Eastern neighbours, as only they could return all the states to Western Europe and insure smooth future cooperation under new geopolitical conditions. Nowadays, thoughts on the Jagiellonian idea have not been completely disrupted in Polish public discourse and obviously they should be significant not only to the Polish, but also equally importan to the Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Belarusians in the context of the system of the European Union and European regionalism.

However, the practical implementation of the idea until the division of the Republic of Two Nations and in the 20th century had its own gaps and even painful long-term consequences, having conditioned the gap from the aforementioned civilization space. O. Halecki, who dedicated his research to that idea, argued that the collapse of the Republic of Two Nations was conditioned by the factor that the Jagiellonian idea had not been fully realized, as in the 16th-17th centuries its third member Russia (present Ukraine) had not been included. J. Pilsudski's practical federalist project on the realization of the Jagiellonian idea in the inter-war period foresaw the corrections of the conclusions presented in Polish historiography. However, Poland's war with Bolshevik Russia and the 1921 Treaty of Riga prevented their implementation as they deprived Lithuania of its historical capital Vilnius and parcelled out Ukraine and Belarus, which had just regained their independence. Only as late as after World War II J. Giedroyc, who found himself in emigration, was able to dialectically criticize J. Pilsudski's previous plans and the Jagiellonian idea itself; therefore, he clearly spoke for the creation of sovereign states of the largest nations: the Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Belarusians, that were part of the Republic of Two Nations. For the Polish it meant the recognition of the claims of civil nationalism of its Eastern neighbours, as only they could return all the states to Western Europe and insure smooth future cooperation under new geopolitical conditions. Nowadays, thoughts on the Jagiellonian idea have not been completely disrupted in Polish public discourse and obviously they should be significant not only to the Polish, but also equally importan to the Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Belarusians in the context of the system of the European Union and European regionalism.

This article elaborates on the possibility of having distributive justice through taxes at European level. That possibility will be based on the verification of a set of conditions such as fiscal sovereignty, political community, welfare model; and personal taxes, which, according to the author, must be present at the level of the European Union in order to achieve that normative principle (distributive justice). Throughout the discussion, upon acknowledgement that those requirements are still not in place, it will be suggested the possibility of moving to a Fiscal federalism, highlighting at the same time its advantages in the context of globalization.

This article elaborates on the possibility of having distributive justice through taxes at European level. That possibility will be based on the verification of a set of conditions such as fiscal sovereignty, political community, welfare model; and personal taxes, which, according to the author, must be present at the level of the European Union in order to achieve that normative principle (distributive justice). Throughout the discussion, upon acknowledgement that those requirements are still not in place, it will be suggested the possibility of moving to a Fiscal federalism, highlighting at the same time its advantages in the context of globalization.

The hypothesis raised in the article is that the strategy of Lithuania in the EU budget review in 2008-2009 & negotiations on the forthcoming financial framework should be based on the support to policies & programs with high European-wide benefits rather than the aim to maximize financial support & the country's net balance. The following analysis consists of two major stages. First, normative EU budget objectives & instruments are specified on the basis of the Treaties (assuming that the Treaty of Lisbon would be successfully ratified), EU citizens' opinions, fiscal federalism principles & evaluations of EU budget policies. Second, the impact of such budget on Lithuania & specific Lithuanian interests in the context of such a reform are estimated. Adapted from the source document.

Subsidiarity idea combining opposites makes sense as a principle of creating this diversity in unity, which ensures the integrity of autonomous structures making up the whole, preserving national, regional and cultural specificities of countries and people around the globe. The support of these processes provides the public with the opportunity to discover effective forms for the realization of self-organization and implementation of their needs and developing appropriate social structures and legal institutions regulating their activity. Through the examination of the concept of subsidiarity and aspects of its practical application in organizations, the article discusses the polarities of the different structure and management forms of the institutionalization of the principle of subsidiarity in the countries and its effect in the formation of the governance levels in the state, showing how balance of powers is achieved based on the subsidiarity principle, creating an effective mechanism of function distribution (determination of exclusive competencies) and their implementation (institutional interaction, their operational control). In structuring the institutional systems of the organization of the state, the subsidiarity concept is complemented with the elements of the management system decentralization, democratization, federalism and regional and local self-governments.

Subsidiarity idea combining opposites makes sense as a principle of creating this diversity in unity, which ensures the integrity of autonomous structures making up the whole, preserving national, regional and cultural specificities of countries and people around the globe. The support of these processes provides the public with the opportunity to discover effective forms for the realization of self-organization and implementation of their needs and developing appropriate social structures and legal institutions regulating their activity. Through the examination of the concept of subsidiarity and aspects of its practical application in organizations, the article discusses the polarities of the different structure and management forms of the institutionalization of the principle of subsidiarity in the countries and its effect in the formation of the governance levels in the state, showing how balance of powers is achieved based on the subsidiarity principle, creating an effective mechanism of function distribution (determination of exclusive competencies) and their implementation (institutional interaction, their operational control). In structuring the institutional systems of the organization of the state, the subsidiarity concept is complemented with the elements of the management system decentralization, democratization, federalism and regional and local self-governments.

This paper focuses on the theoretical background of functions assignment between different levels of government. Decentralisation process in its broader concept means the release of central government power, transferring the responsibility and implementation of some public functions to the lower government tiers. This process raises many issues related to the state authority division: which of the functions should remain in the hands of central government and which should be devolved to the lower levels, and finally, which functions should be shared between different levels of government. In every decentralizing country questions about tax power and expenditure responsibility have to be answered. If the functions are divided in the proper way, the amount of expenditures for functions performance as well as the need for tax income to be collected to fund expenditures becomes evident. Therefore the allocation of financial resources and fiscal transfers must be carried out only after a distinct allocation of roles and responsibilities to different levels of government. The paper starts with the explanation of Musgrave's three main functions of state in market economy. This conceptual allocation of state duties helps to determine the place of functions, costs and tax income. While the macroeconomic stabilisation and income distribution in general are assigned to the central level, Fiscal federalism model provides resource allocation to sub national government with an important role. For the sake of objective it should be noted that while many contemporary authors in principle agree with the above stated division, some have the opposite opinion which is outlined in the paper next to the each function. [.]

This paper focuses on the theoretical background of functions assignment between different levels of government. Decentralisation process in its broader concept means the release of central government power, transferring the responsibility and implementation of some public functions to the lower government tiers. This process raises many issues related to the state authority division: which of the functions should remain in the hands of central government and which should be devolved to the lower levels, and finally, which functions should be shared between different levels of government. In every decentralizing country questions about tax power and expenditure responsibility have to be answered. If the functions are divided in the proper way, the amount of expenditures for functions performance as well as the need for tax income to be collected to fund expenditures becomes evident. Therefore the allocation of financial resources and fiscal transfers must be carried out only after a distinct allocation of roles and responsibilities to different levels of government. The paper starts with the explanation of Musgrave's three main functions of state in market economy. This conceptual allocation of state duties helps to determine the place of functions, costs and tax income. While the macroeconomic stabilisation and income distribution in general are assigned to the central level, Fiscal federalism model provides resource allocation to sub national government with an important role. For the sake of objective it should be noted that while many contemporary authors in principle agree with the above stated division, some have the opposite opinion which is outlined in the paper next to the each function. [.]

This paper focuses on the theoretical background of functions assignment between different levels of government. Decentralisation process in its broader concept means the release of central government power, transferring the responsibility and implementation of some public functions to the lower government tiers. This process raises many issues related to the state authority division: which of the functions should remain in the hands of central government and which should be devolved to the lower levels, and finally, which functions should be shared between different levels of government. In every decentralizing country questions about tax power and expenditure responsibility have to be answered. If the functions are divided in the proper way, the amount of expenditures for functions performance as well as the need for tax income to be collected to fund expenditures becomes evident. Therefore the allocation of financial resources and fiscal transfers must be carried out only after a distinct allocation of roles and responsibilities to different levels of government. The paper starts with the explanation of Musgrave's three main functions of state in market economy. This conceptual allocation of state duties helps to determine the place of functions, costs and tax income. While the macroeconomic stabilisation and income distribution in general are assigned to the central level, Fiscal federalism model provides resource allocation to sub national government with an important role. For the sake of objective it should be noted that while many contemporary authors in principle agree with the above stated division, some have the opposite opinion which is outlined in the paper next to the each function. [.]

This paper focuses on the theoretical background of functions assignment between different levels of government. Decentralisation process in its broader concept means the release of central government power, transferring the responsibility and implementation of some public functions to the lower government tiers. This process raises many issues related to the state authority division: which of the functions should remain in the hands of central government and which should be devolved to the lower levels, and finally, which functions should be shared between different levels of government. In every decentralizing country questions about tax power and expenditure responsibility have to be answered. If the functions are divided in the proper way, the amount of expenditures for functions performance as well as the need for tax income to be collected to fund expenditures becomes evident. Therefore the allocation of financial resources and fiscal transfers must be carried out only after a distinct allocation of roles and responsibilities to different levels of government. The paper starts with the explanation of Musgrave's three main functions of state in market economy. This conceptual allocation of state duties helps to determine the place of functions, costs and tax income. While the macroeconomic stabilisation and income distribution in general are assigned to the central level, Fiscal federalism model provides resource allocation to sub national government with an important role. For the sake of objective it should be noted that while many contemporary authors in principle agree with the above stated division, some have the opposite opinion which is outlined in the paper next to the each function. [.]

This paper focuses on the theoretical background of functions assignment between different levels of government. Decentralisation process in its broader concept means the release of central government power, transferring the responsibility and implementation of some public functions to the lower government tiers. This process raises many issues related to the state authority division: which of the functions should remain in the hands of central government and which should be devolved to the lower levels, and finally, which functions should be shared between different levels of government. In every decentralizing country questions about tax power and expenditure responsibility have to be answered. If the functions are divided in the proper way, the amount of expenditures for functions performance as well as the need for tax income to be collected to fund expenditures becomes evident. Therefore the allocation of financial resources and fiscal transfers must be carried out only after a distinct allocation of roles and responsibilities to different levels of government. The paper starts with the explanation of Musgrave's three main functions of state in market economy. This conceptual allocation of state duties helps to determine the place of functions, costs and tax income. While the macroeconomic stabilisation and income distribution in general are assigned to the central level, Fiscal federalism model provides resource allocation to sub national government with an important role. For the sake of objective it should be noted that while many contemporary authors in principle agree with the above stated division, some have the opposite opinion which is outlined in the paper next to the each function. [.]

The aim of the paper is to grasp the understanding of the unity of Europe from the selected political articles "Deux messinismes politiques" and metaphysical poems "Ars Magna" and "Les Arcanes" of Milosz and situate it in the context of the ideas of his contemporaries, in particular catholic pro-federalists and the Paneuropean movement. The analysis shows that Milosz is critical about the situation of interwar Europe which he faces. On the one hand, the countries are too interested in material goals and politics is not based on moral principles. On the other hand, poet reflects the wrong metaphysics of his time, because the people are sceptical towards the faith. Nevertheless Milosz should not be considered as a pessimist, because he proposes ideas how to save Europe. His premises on the unity of Europe can be divided in three parts: goal, manner and foundation. The first one is a goal of European unity. From the Milosz point of view, the unity is natural situation, which is going to be reached together with the moral evolution of European people. This differs from mostly pragmatic approach to this question by his contemporaries paneuropists. The second one is about a manner of the unification. Milosz criticizes attemps to unite on the basis of one exceptional country, rather he favours the collaboration of nations. It does not mean that nations are all the same – poet notes – they can prosper because of differences among them. For example ancient nations such as Lithuanians can renew other ones due to their exceptional history and spirit. On the political grounds as well as his contemporaries catholic pro-federalists he was favourable of federalism which respects the differences among nations and does not try to melt them away. In addition to this, Milosz as well as mentioned thinkers stresses the role of the Catholic Church which can create spiritual affinity among the nations of Europe.