| Abstract [eng] |
The government budget is an important part of state affairs. It ensures the redistribution of income, welfare, economic development and stabilisation. Various types of budgetary principle are described in the literature. These principles aim to improve formation processes for budgets, making them easier to implement, clearer and more effective. There has been no complex assessment of budget-forming principles in Lithuania, only fragmented one in audit institutions and several studies. The purpose of this article is to analyse principles of budget formation and their implementation in practice, in line with legal and economic aspects. Three tasks were set for achieving this aim: to evaluate the budget-formation principles and their specific features; to assess the fulfilment of government budgetary principles in Lithuania, using legal documents and other sources; and to analyse the balance of the country’s government budget. The study applies theoretical and empirical research methods, and scientific literature and legal documents are examined to carry out a theoretical analysis of the government budget and the principles of its formation. Research was conducted using data grouping, graphical data analysis and other descriptive statistics. Theoretical analysis revealed that the majority of budgetary principles were successfully implemented and defined in law. The principles of transparency, annuality and unit of account were accomplished fully, compared with principles of fullness, economy, reality and unity that were not fully accomplished. The principle of equilibrium was not accomplished at all. Analysis revealed that in the years 2004-2014, Lithuania had a budget deficit. The government’s budgetary income and expenditure had a tendency to increase unevenly. On average, income rose a little more than expenditure, but still made up less of the budgetary balance than expenditure. Aside from this, Lithuania did not follow the Maastricht criteria for several years and the government deficit-to-GDP ratio exceeded 3 per cent. |
