Introduction.Theinconsistencyofthepublicpolicyofsocio-economicdevelopmentof Ukraine in recent years, in combination with the latest crisis phenomena, such as thecoronavirus epidemic, Russian aggression against Ukraine, have intensified negativetrendsinvariousspheresofpubliclife.Thepreservationofthelowstandardoflivingof the population, the significant scale of hidden unemployment, the deepening of thedemographic crisis, the social insecurity of the main mass of citizens have become realthreatstothenationalsecurityofthecountryinvariousspheres:socio-economic,political,andecological.Theconnectionofthesedestructiveprocesseswiththelackofthought,inconsistency and half-heartedness of socio-political and economic reforms in Ukrainebecame an obvious phenomenon, which caused a decrease in the level of trust of thedomestic society in the authorities. This caused a significant part of the population to losefaithinthefactthatitisgenerallypossibletobuildacivilized,sociallyresponsiblestatein Ukraine, which will be able to provide a decent standard of living for its citizens. Theconsequence of this was labor migration and mass emigration of the most active part ofsociety. The outlined problems deepened even more with the beginning of the full-scalewaroftheRussianFederationagainstUkrainein2022,whichledtoacatastrophicdropinthestandardoflivingofalargepartofthepopulation,unprecedentedscaleofdisplacementof people, destruction of the housing stock, infrastructure and other phenomena that thestate did not face during the entire period independence These problems bring to the forethe need for a radical revision of the approaches and principles of regulation of the socialsphereandtheselection oftoolsfor solving socialpolicyproblems.Purpose. To reveal the theoretical foundations and carry out an analysis of budgetexpendituresfor social protection.Methods.Theconductedresearchisbasedonadialecticalandsystemicapproachtotheknowledgeofeconomicphenomenaandprocesses.Numerousscientificmethodsofresearchwereused:generalization,systematization,grouping–whenrevealingthetheoreticalfoundationsofsocialpolicy,sources,formsanddirectionsofbudgetexpendituresforitsimplementation;methodsofeconomicanalysis,comparison,inductionand deduction – when assessing the practice of budget expenditures for social policy andtheireffectiveness;analysisandsynthesis,comparison–whendevelopingdirectionsforimprovingbudgetexpendituresforsocialpolicyinthecontextofincreasingtheirefficiency.Results.OneofthecharacteristicfeaturesofsocialprotectionofthepopulationinUkraineisanexcessively“inflated”systemofsocialtransfersattheexpenseofbudgetfunds.Despitesignificantamountsoffunding,thedispersionofresourcesamongmanybudgetprogramswithlowtargetingofpaymentsleadstowaste.Therefore,animportantissueofbudgetexpendituresforsocialpolicyisthechoiceofeffectivetoolsfortheir implementationtoensuretheeffectiveuseoffunds. Thedynamicsofbudgetexpendituresofalllevelsforsocialprotectionofthepopulationin recent years is characterized by steady growth. In 2021, UAH 367.35 billion of budgetfunds were allocated for these needs, which is UAH 20.63 billion more than in 2020. Ingeneral, for 2018-2021, the amount of budget financing of social protection programsincreased 1.2 times. The assessment of the structure of budget expenditures for socialprotection of the population according to the units of functional classification shows theirsignificant change in 2020-2021, which is a consequence of the change in approaches tothe financing of a number of social programs. A significant decrease in funding took placewith regard to expenditures on social protection in case of incapacity for work (by 4.6times),socialprotectionoffamilies,childrenandyouth(by20.0times),whileexpenditureson social protection of other categories of the population increased by 7.3 times. Suchsignificant changes in the structure of expenditures on social protection of the populationwere provoked by the fact that a number of budgetary social protection programs weretransferredfromfinancingfromlocalbudgetstodirectfinancingfromthestatebudget.In Ukraine, the vast majority of social transfers are assigned according to a categoricalapproachduetothelackofeffectivemethodsofaddressingandcheckingthereallevelof need. Because of this, the contingent of recipients of social benefits is too wide, which,in the conditions of limited budgetary resources, forces the government to minimize theamountofsocialbenefits.Inourcountry,thepolicyofsocialpopulismcontinuestodominate,when the state tries to cover the largest possible contingent of the population with socialprotection measures, while limiting the size of the transfers themselves. Therefore, theeffectivenessofsuchsocial programsisdoubtful. Discussion.Aspartofmitigatingthenegativeconsequencesofthecoronacrisisattheexpenseofbudgetfunds,thefollowingsocialprotectioninnovationshavebeenintroducedinUkraine:simplificationoftheconditionsforparticipationinthehousingsubsidyprogram;liberalization of conditions for receiving unemployment benefits; strengthening of socialprotectionoffamilieswithchildren;additionalsocialprotectionofpensioners;strengtheningofsocialprotectionofpersonswhoprovidesocialservices.However,theamountoffundingof budget programs for social protection of the population, directly caused by measures tocombat the coronavirus epidemic, turned out to be insignificant and had a weak impact onthetotalamountofbudgetexpendituresforsocialprotectionofthepopulation. inconsistency and half-heartedness of socio-political and economic reforms in Ukrainebecame an obvious phenomenon, which caused a decrease in the level of trust of thedomestic society in the authorities. This caused a significant part of the population to losefaithinthefactthatitisgenerallypossibletobuildacivilized,sociallyresponsiblestatein Ukraine, which will be able to provide a decent standard of living for its citizens. Theconsequence of this was labor migration and mass emigration of the most active part ofsociety. The outlined problems deepened even more with the beginning of the full-scalewaroftheRussianFederationagainstUkrainein2022,whichledtoacatastrophicdropinthestandardoflivingofalargepartofthepopulation,unprecedentedscaleofdisplacementof people, destruction of the housing stock, infrastructure and other phenomena that thestate did not face during the entire period independence These problems bring to the forethe need for a radical revision of the approaches and principles of regulation of the socialsphereandtheselection oftoolsfor solving socialpolicyproblems.Purpose. To reveal the theoretical foundations and carry out an analysis of budgetexpendituresfor social protection.Methods.Theconductedresearchisbasedonadialecticalandsystemicapproachtotheknowledgeofeconomicphenomenaandprocesses.Numerousscientificmethodsofresearchwereused:generalization,systematization,grouping–whenrevealingthetheoreticalfoundationsofsocialpolicy,sources,formsanddirectionsofbudgetexpendituresforitsimplementation;methodsofeconomicanalysis,comparison,inductionand deduction – when assessing the practice of budget expenditures for social policy andtheireffectiveness;analysisandsynthesis,comparison–whendevelopingdirectionsforimprovingbudgetexpendituresforsocialpolicyinthecontextofincreasingtheirefficiency.Results.OneofthecharacteristicfeaturesofsocialprotectionofthepopulationinUkraineisanexcessively“inflated”systemofsocialtransfersattheexpenseofbudgetfunds.Despitesignificantamountsoffunding,thedispersionofresourcesamongmanybudgetprogramswithlowtargetingofpaymentsleadstowaste.Therefore,animportantissueofbudgetexpendituresforsocialpolicyisthechoiceofeffectivetoolsfortheir
Read full abstract