ЩОДО ВПОРЯДКУВАННЯ КАТЕГОРІАЛЬНО-ПОНЯТІЙНОГО АПАРАТУ В НАУЦІ ПРО СИСТЕМУ ПУБЛІЧНИХ ФІНАНСІВ

Abstract

The article focuses on essential theoretical difficulties in the field of public finance’ studies. A set of them relates to the correct using of key scientific terms. Based on the results of the analysis of prominent Ukrainian scientists’ scientific papers in this field, the author drew attention to three important theoretical and methodological problems. The first of them is the lack of consensus among national experts on how to describe the public system of mobilization, redistribution and use of financial resources in the country. Some experts still use the term “state finance”, rejecting the option “public finance”, other ones treat the concepts of "public finance system" and "state finance system" as synonyms. There is a group of scientists that goes its own way, proposing the introduction of the definition “social finances of Ukraine”. Taking into account the fact, that public finance’ theoretical research is closely connected with practical application of its results, such terminological chaos is inappropriate. The second problem is that among Ukrainian specialists there is a certain arbitrariness in the use of the terms “public finance” and “public finance system”. Two concepts are treated often as synonyms, which is a significant methodological mistake. To resolve this problem the author delimits these terms and outlined the specifics of each of them. The third important theoretical and methodological problem of national scientific thought in the field of public finance is that most experts cannot come to a common vision of what exactly includes the concept of “public finance system”. The approaches of the main scientific schools are very different. The impreciseness of the institutional boundaries of concept “public finance” leads to huge problem of misleading, confusing and misunderstanding among Ukrainian researchers. A lot of them dispute about different topics using the same concepts terms. Analyzing these problems, the author makes an attempt to solve them. To complete this task, the author introduces a new definition of the basic terms into this field of research, defines an institutional distinction between them, and proposes logical internal structure of public finance.