 Key FindingsAnca Marin
Chapter Chapter 5 in Assessing PNDL, 2021, pp 59-103 from Springer Abstract: Abstract At first glance, getting funds for the local community from PNDL II would mean a typical process in which a mayoralty (usually not in partnership for this funding line) drafts a project based on the local needs, submits it to the Ministry and, depending on the selection criteria or procedure, gets the funding. Nevertheless, the funded projects depend on the total limit allocated through State Budget Law, which is sometimes approved after the deadline of receiving the proposals. MPs can also amend this law with specific investment objectives, although in practice, their amendments have not been approved. Furthermore, the proposed investment objective can be approved for funding and included in the corresponding ministerial order issued, but the funding contract between the Ministry and the territorial administrative unit can last longer. In the previous session (PNDL I), a part of the contracts from Maramureş county has not been signed in the year 2014, thus exceeding the provisioned term of 2014. Correspondingly, the sums could not be used in the fiscal year of 2014. In the qualitative research conducted for this study, for the case of PNDL II, one mayor from a rural community mentioned the case of ‘an interrupted communication until the funding contract has been signed’. Date: 2021 There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-030-82844-8_5 Ordering information: This item can be ordered from DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-82844-8_5 Access Statistics for this chapter More chapters in Springer Books from Springer |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.