Modern trends of Kazakhstan’s internal state audit: the US and UK experience

The paper investigates discretionary budget expenditure and determines its role in the system of regulation of country’s socio-economic development. In a very difficult political and socio-economic situation, Ukraine faces an urgent need to finda balance between the amount of functions performed by the state and the level of their financial support. The analysis of the State Budget of Ukraine expenditure according to the functional classification in 2014–2017 has been carried out. In particular, the discretionary budget expenditures (on state functions, economic activity, defense budget expenditures, budget expenditure on public order, security and judiciary; environmental protection, housing and utilities) are carefully analyzed. The purpose of the article is to study trends in financing discretionary budget expenditure and determine their impact on the socio-economic development of a country. Discretionary budget expenditures are the study object. It is determined that socio-economic development of a country requires government to apply progressive forms, methods and principles of expenditure management between the budget system levels. This need is due to the objective necessity to achieve sustainable development of economy and population welfare. The main problems that reduce budget discretionary expenditure effectiveness in the current conditions are investigated and the main directions to improve their financing are offered. The obtained results indicate the need to revise the funding of discretionary budget expenditures depending on the state policy priorities.

Nowadays, the modernization of the education system is the basis of dynamic sustainable economic development and citizens’ well-being. The key agent for the implementation of educational policy and the developer of the legal framework governing the functioning of the educational sphere is the state and its bodies. The Kazakhstani state policy’s main priorities in the field of education are formulated in several strategic documents. Using the review approach, this article examines the current state of public policy and legal regulation in Kazakhstan’s education sector. The article analyzes key documents that define the contours and content of the main directions of public policy and legal regulation. This article attempts to identify, review, and analyze the legal characteristics of the key process and factors existing in the legal field of Kazakhstani education, such as “Bologna factor,” “soviet legacy,” “provision of quality,” etc. The article concludes that the existing legal tools do not fully comply with law enforcement practice. The interpretations of some legal acts are somewhat different, which causes difficulties for actors providing educational services. Based on the result of the analysis, the article provides the main recommendations for improving legislation in education.

Acknowledgment
This article was written under grant from Kazakhstan Ministry of Education and Science No. АР05135081 “Student with disabilities and distance education learning environment: socio-practical and legal dimensions” coordinated by Prof. Dr Zulfiya Movkebayeva (Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University).

In Ukraine, there is a steady increase in the mortality rate of the population, which is due to the low quality of medical provision. The main advantages and the efficiency factor of the health care system in the Western European countries are analyzed; the key factors regulating medical provision in Ukraine are systematized; the effectiveness of modern health care reform in Ukraine is evaluated; practical recommendations to improve the administrative and legal regulation of the system are developed. The analysis showed that the effectiveness of health care reform in Ukraine is currently about 30%, and the high mortality rate of the population in Ukraine is primarily due to the low quality of medical care and inadequate investment in the industry. The main health problems in Ukraine are failure to comply with legislation on the amount of funding and remuneration in the public health system, high levels of corruption and lack of control over the competence of doctors, inaccessibility of medical products for consumers due to the pharmaceutical market monopolization.