20 Despite its already high value (85.6% in 1992), by 1996 the average share of local governments in consolidated regional expenditures on "Education" gained additional 2 percentage points. This expenditure category has been a firm prerogative of local governments in practically all regions - between 1992 and 1996 the values of the respective coefficient of variation remained exceptionally low at around 0.09. Also, compared to other types of expenditures, the minimum value across regions of the average share of local governments in public spending on "Education" was remarkably high: 56% in 1992 and 59.2% in 1996.

The single most notable expansion of local governments' expenditure responsibilities was in the sphere of "Social Protection". Between 1992 and 1996, the average share of local governments in consolidated regional expenditures on "Social Protection" rose from 22.3% to 70.8%. As noted by Lavrov (1996a) however, this seemingly drastic change in policies may at least in part might reflect a 1994 change in the budget classification, which moved the formerly separate category "Allowances for Children and Other Social Transfers to the Population" in the expenditure item "Social Protection". Between 1992 and 1996, the regional disparities in local governments involvement in "Social Protection" diminished substantially, as the respective coefficient of variation fell by nearly 70 percentage points right after the steep rise of the average share of local governments in consolidated regional expenditures on "Social Protection" in 1995.

A more detailed look at local governments' involvement in "Social Protection" by economic region'<sup>0</sup> however, shows that the Northern Region did not participate in the observed rapid decentralization of this type of expenditures. As the data in Table 11 shows, up to 1994 the Northern Region was in line with the rest of the country by degree of decentralization of the "Social Protection" expenditures. But in 1994, it did not follow the countrywide rapid expansion of local governments' involvement in that sphere. And even though the average share of local governments in consolidated regional expenditures on "Social Protection" in the North Region consequently doubled to 36.5% in 1996, it was still half of the national average.

**Table 11. Average Shares of Local Governments in "Social Protection" Expenditures in the Northern Region and in the Russian Federation, %**

|**Aierage Shares / Year**|**1992**|**1993**|**1994**|**1995**|**1996**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**1.**Average Share of Local Govemrnents in<br>Consolidated Regional Expenditures on Social||||||
|Protection in the Northern Region|18.38<br>(7.86)|15.19<br>(3.61)|17.45<br>(4.34)|34.84<br>(12.3)|36.52<br>(13.85)|
|2. Average Share of Local Govemnrents in||||||
|Consolidated Regional Expenditures on Social||||||
|Protection in the Russian Federation|22.34<br>(2.17)|26.31<br>(2.36)|30.77<br>(2.2)|67.46<br>(1.97)|70.79<br> <br>(2.13)|

Standard error of the mean in parentheses.

'O The official statistics divide the constituents of the Russian Federation in 11 economic regions based on their geographic location. For example, the Northern Region includes Komi Republic, Karelia Republic, Arkhangel'sk Oblast, Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Vologda Oblast and Murmansk Oblast.