INSTITUTE  FOR  THE  ECONOMY   IN  TRANSITION

¹ 11 2003

IN THIS ISSUE:

Yegor Gaidar’s presentation See Russian version
See other issues
Discuss

The IET’s annual review on the 2002 trends and outlooks of the Russian Economy

Publications

The nationwide competition for the best diploma paper on economics

 

YEGOR GAIDAR'S PRESENTATION

Issue

   On February 26, 2003, Director of the Institute for the Economy in Transition, Dr. in economics Yegor Gaidar delivered a comprehensive analytical presentation on the current state of, and strategic prospects for Russia’s socio-economic development. The presentation highlighted on three groups of problems: recovery growth and the current economic policy options; long-term trends and prospects for economic growth in the country; and key structural reforms that need to be implemented to have Russia adapt to post-industrial development challenges. An abridged Russian version of the presentation is provided below, while the unabridged one is available on the Institute’s Homepage on the Internet at: http://www.iet.ru/personal/Gaidar/26feb2003.htm.

   On recovery growth

   The current economic growth in Russia has a recovery nature. It appears closely related to the preceding recession and production decline after the collapse of the USSR. The current recovery growth in Russia has a fading nature. This means that growth rates lower, because of exhaustion of the resources securing renewal, putting existing capacities and work force into operation. Naturally, once growth rates begin to decline, such a fading can be compensated by new factors of production growth and new capital investment, placement of new capacities into, and introduction of new workforce to the production process. That, however, requires national institutions of another quality – those capable to ensure economic development.

   At the beginning, recovery growth always forms a pleasant surprise for economico-political elites, but it consequently turns into the problem, because growth rates are not sustained and begin to decline. In this connection, the lowering economic growth rates noted between 2002-03 constitute a substantial factor affecting shaping the economic policy

   In 2000-01 the Cabinet has vigorously launched a set of structural reform and progressed considerably in a number of areas. However, political problems associated with such structural reforms do not ensure an immediate effect. Rather, they ‘just’ lay a foundation for a long-term economic growth

   Another crucial component of the current economic policy is oil prices. During last four years, under high oil prices, the government has been pursuing a relatively conservative and sound economic policy. That does not help but is worth respect.

   The 1998 crisis has taught us a very helpful lesson. The country enjoyed a very bad financial reputation, with payments on foreign debts due but unlikely to be refinanced. That ensured a four-year period of a conservative budget policy. Unfortunately the government’s ability to promote a sound economic policy under high oil prices is limited, nonetheless.

   Russia currently receives a sort of war premium in the form of additional revenues from abnormally high oil prices determined by expectations of a war in the Middle East. It is easy to guess that once the war is over, there will be no current dividends. The question is, when it is going to happen - within nine, or twelve, or fifteen months. Whereas we discuss our economic policy for the period of 2004-05, we must take into account serious risks associated with drastic fluctuations of oil prices.

   On modern economic growth and catch-up development

   The current debates on long-term economic growth often tackle a hot question as to under which growth rates and when Russia can catch up with Portugal. I just try to understand how happy we will be by the time we will have caught up with that beautiful country and what will happen then. Will we leave it behind us? Or will we once again be watching its rear lights? Russia once had caught up with Portugal - in the late 1930s. I have not heard of anyone in the country benefit because of that splendid fact. In the late 1960s, under serious long-term problems caused by the socialist industrialization model we once again found ourselves lagging behind Portugal, and that has been continuing until the end of the 20th century. So will we have to continue to chase each other with Portugal in the 21st century, too?

   There are authors that assume inevitability of the trend to further development of the globalization process, and those who believe that the world is on the threshold of de-globalization. It is impossible to prove either assumption, but one can argue, with a great deal of certainty, that over the upcoming 50 years Russia will have to cope with the problems the nations- leaders of modern economic growth were tackling over the second half of the 20th century, at the stage which is now called post-industrial.

   If one compares Russia’s current per capita GDP with that of the nations- leaders of economic growth, he will be able to realize the distance between them: it roughly accounts for 40-60 years

   If we accept a hypothesis that this particular gap noted over one and a half centuries would survive further on, then in 50 years Russia’s living standards, lifestyle, employment structure, and infrastructure would roughly be the same as those currently noted in Germany or France. That suggests an annual growth rate in the country’s GDP per capita at some 2%, i.e. the pace of growth inherent in the world economy over the past five decades. Should over the forthcoming decades Russian economy be developing at the present pace, i.e. by some 4% annually, this distance could be covered in 25 years, and that would be, of course, a remarkable achievement

   On crucial challenges Russia will face in its development in the long run and ways to solve them.

   Social protection systems emerge affected by such factors as a young population, a high rise in tax capacity, and abnormally high economic growth rates. Then it comes out that such a favorable combination is no longer in existence. Hence, the core conflict of the postindustrial society: that is, the contradiction between the state’s marginal capacity to mobilize revenues and the system of rapidly growing social obligations. It is the conflict that has determined the most intense social and economic challenges facing the countries- leaders over the last thirty years.

   Health care reform challenges

   The state of Russia’s current health care system does not need a detailed description. An excessive number of hospital beds, a great number of medical doctors, a low quality of medical services, queues, the population’s formal and informal co-payments – all these are well known realities. There have been some attempts to reform the system over the past decade, particularly by means of introducing insurance elements, reducing the number of beds and the share of expenditures on treatment in hospitals. The outcomes proved to be modest. It is important to understand that these are not Russia’s specific problems caused by the post-socialist crisis and easy to overcome, should the economic situation improve. Rather, they are structural by their nature and pre-set by the logic of the post-industrial society’s development.

   Russia’s advantage is that we face these particular problems early enough and still have the freedom of maneuver and possibility to change a lot.

   There are two particularly important avenues along which the Russian health care reform should be promoted: first, transition form the financing of network towards financing provision of services; second, establishment of mechanisms of a legal private insurance co-financing of health care, which would allow the patient a greater freedom of maneuver and creation of an adequate system of incentives for the sector as a whole.

   It would be appropriate to grant both the employer and employee with a right to abandon the state compulsory medical and social insurance system and transfer the respective funds to licensed private companies dealing with medical and social insurance, but to retain the possibility for financing insurance payments to the needy at the expense of general revenues to the budget.

   It is necessary to limit bureaucratic requirements to the system of deductions and at the same time to eliminate the current upper marginal rate of such deductions (Rb. 20,000), and to set the limit as a proportion of the taxable income.

   The combination of the right to abandon the state medico-social insurance system with reforming social deductions would allow to lower the actual tax burden, increase the volume of financing flowing into the health care system, create an adequate system of incentives for organizations operating in this particular system, and to abandon the practice of allocation of financial resources in proportion to the number of hospital beds.

   On educational reform

   The development of the national educational system should suggest: a) possibilities for private co-financing, and b) chances for children out of low- and medium-income families to get an access to a high-quality higher education. The problem is how to secure a non-conflicting combination of these tasks.

   At this point, there arises an objective contradiction: securing a high-quality education suggests that the given higher school would select their students basing on its own criteria, while securing an equal access and restricting corruption suggests standard procedures. This contradiction is solvable, and one needs just to seriously amend both the existing procedures and what is envisaged to do in this particular area in the frame of an outspread of the ongoing experiment.

   First, it is necessary to refuse the currently existing senseless standard that implies the need to have 170 students, whose education need to be paid for by the state, per 10,000 residents. It is senseless to maintain such a standard in Russia, with its uneven number of generations, when the quantities of the sequential age cohorts may differ nearly as much as twice. Second, having canceled this standard, one can substantially increase the price of an educational voucher and its attractiveness in the eyes of a higher school. Third, we should exclude other, not related to the voucher, forms of financing the higher school.

   Should these innovations be introduced, one can grant the higher school with the right to select students on its own, providing the state sets a minimal share of enrollment of the students granted with the state educational voucher. That would allow a combination of simple procedures: the state selects those whom it pays for their education, while higher schools will retain their right to select those they consider suitable for the respective specialty.

   Still another problem is associated with the functioning of the secondary education system: that is, increasingly extensive courses and the volume of federal standards.

   At this point, the crucial challenge is a strict limitation of the federal standard in terms of the volume of knowledge combined with granting the school with freedom of maneuver beyond the federal standard.

   On challenges in the pension reform area

   The Russian pension reform started relatively early and against a favorable demographic background. Its framework allowed a notable strengthening of dependence of the pensioning conditions on the amount of contributions to employees’ pension insurance. As well, the process of creation of a savings pension system has been launched. But, if one analyzes forecasts, he will find out that what has been done to date appears insufficient to ensure a long-term sustainability of the national pension system, providing it is understood as maintenance of the average amount of pension in relation to salaries and wages at the level close to the one existing today.

   A possible and important avenue for solving this problem is acceleration of the rate of increase of the savings component.

   Still another unsolved problem in the national pension system is channeling a greater part of pension savings into the national economy. To ensure the sustainability of pension savings in the long run, it is necessary to substantially increase the proportion of pension savings that is invested in highly reliable and liquid international securities.

   The crisis of draft-based armies

   The crisis of a draft-based army forms a characteristic feature of the post-industrial transition. This is a natural process related to the transformation of the demographic and social structure.

   In Russia, the reform of the draft and transition to a contract-based army mirrors realities of the country’s current stage of development, rather than forms a concept caused by challenges that can be easily overcome. Should there be an attempt to retain the draft system in such conditions, the problem facing the army will be aggravating further on. The difference between Russia and the nations-leaders is that against the background of this country’s specificity of demographic development and an unusually early transition to a small family it faces an earlier aggravation of these problems.

   The question is not whether or not Russia needs the transition towards the contract-based army: such a transition is inevitable. The question is whether we will have to do it in a rush, once it becomes clear in 2007 that we will have nobody to recruit, or we will succeed by means of adequate planning and preparation.

   On immigration policy

   A quick glance at the national labor market provides a convincing proof of the fact that it is unrealistic to assume that the country can do without a large-scale labor immigration. It is a long-term challenge that Russia will have to cope with over many future decades. Even if one abstracts from the question of future problems related to the quantity of Russia’s population (this is always associated with accuracy of forecasts), as far as conditions on the national labor market are concerned, the country is doomed to witness a large-scale immigration inflow Given that, it would be more sensible to receive those whom the government would like to see in Russia rather than those whom they would not like to have

   The country currently enjoys a unique opportunity available no one else does. We are surrounded by nations most of which are poorer than we are. There are millions of ethnic Russians and dozens of millions of Russian-speaking people living there. They are in command of Russian and know Russian culture and traditions. Such individuals can be easily integrated into the structure of the Russian society. Regretfully, instead of carrying out a systematic work on attraction of talented youth from the CIS countries to our universities, granting the Russian citizenship to them, recruiting foreigners from the CIS countries to serve in the Russian army, creating a sound system of organization of labor migration basing on marks, legalization of immigrants de-facto living in the country and their integration into the Russian society, instead of capitalizing on all this capacity, we borrow the worst practices of the countries-leaders’ immigration policies. Moreover, we are still proud that our newly developed law in this particular area is similar to the European one, though it is hard to imagine anything less sound than that.

   On the short-term forex and exchange rate policy

   During the last two centuries the world has used Pound Sterling and the US Dollar as principal currencies, and the former was used in this capacity in the 20th century. Perhaps, that is why even experts sometimes believe that while discussing the challenges currently facing the global financial and monetary system, we deal with something that is sustainable in the long run and well studied into. In reality, however, the current monetary system as such is a recent product.

   Today, Russia can borrow money easily. The problem is to preclude an overly huge short-term capital inflow. Once the oil prices plunge, say, to USD 12 per barrel, the financial markets will become closed for Russia, and those financial institutions that now tell us, ‘Borrow as much as you wish’, will say, ‘Come tomorrow’. It means, while developing his own long-term monetary and finance policy, one should be very conservative in assessing potential risks.

   It appears equally important to always have the freedom of maneuver in the exchange rate area, so that to avoid a situation when the country has no possibility to adjust its national currency rate to radically changing realities, as it occurred in 1997-98.

   The specificity of Russia’s exports and imports, the country’s dependence on mineral prices, the absence of close connection between the state of affairs in the national economy with that in the two largest world economic centers- the US and the EU- implies no possibility of pegging the Rb. to the USD or Euro rates. In view of this, to ensure the Rb.’s ‘independence’ from the USD forms a key strategic task. What the Central Bank is doing in this regard is correct, though one needs to be very cautious in pursuing such a policy. If there is no chance to peg the Rb. to the USD or Euro, then there is the only sound long-term policy: that is, to maintain the floating rate policy aimed at a gradual transformation of the Rb. into a stable second-class international currency similar to Pound Sterling, rather than to retain the current floating rate policy.

   Deadlocks in the industrial policy

   Today, industrial policy as one of the options for a ‘breakthrough’ once again finds itself in the center of vigorous debates. There are numerous references to many countries’ success stories of using industrial policy instruments, and this is true.

   However, at the state of post-industrial society – and this is the very stage we will have to undergo, the situation appears different. It comes out that the role played by industrial policy in sectors-leaders is far from being a major one, for the pace of changes is too fast there, and to retain their competitiveness, they view the maintenance of integration in the global world as a very important task. It is the leading high-tech sectors where barriers have been eliminated over the past 50 years, low tariffs exist, open markets prevail, while anti-dumping investigations are rare.

   The industrial and the sectoral policy as a whole thus drifts towards declining sectors, i.e. those in which the most developed nations appear uncompetitive, for poorer ones can produce the same products cheaper than they.

   It is also worthwhile to bear in mind that industrial policy is primarily a political process, and its course is not selected by technocrats, for that was possible only under authoritarian regimes, while almost never - under democracy

   I would like to ask all representatives of the party of power who advocate industrial policy in Russia to re-read the federal investment program, to check what it is, and to make sure that in the course of consideration of next year’s budget it would not once again consist of lobbyist demands. Only once it has been done may one proceed with discussion on appropriateness of an active industrial policy in Russia.

   On challenges in implementation of intense institutional transformations

   Today, Russian society faces hard challenges associated with our young democracy. Lacking long-established traditions, such a democracy appears unstable and pregnant with a serious threat of evolution towards an authoritarian regime or a ‘closed’ democracy. At the same time, a young democracy implies a period of a considerable level of freedom of maneuver. This is the state in which the nation is able to accomplish much of what would become impossible 20 years later. So, how our political elite will use this particular window of opportunity over next decade should determine the path of Russia’s development for another consequent five decades.

   It is only gradually, with accumulation of experiences related to national market institutions’ functioning, that decisions applicable to Russia and nowhere else are developed. This is what was launched in 1996-97 in the form of policy proposals and partly implemented in 2000-02, especially in the tax area.

   Our mission in the short run not to look for the best world practices and, basing on them, attempt to construct ideal devices for Russia’s development in the post-industrial era. Rather, the task is to have a clear understanding of our realities and of what will and will not be working, to monitor the problems facing the country, and to solve them well beforehand, rather than at the very last moment.

   As far as the short-term prospects are concerned, fluctuations of growth have a limited significance to Russia. To spur the economic development on is a very simple exercise. One can obtain a USD 20 bln.- worth credit from the Central Bank, load defense plants’ capacities and transfer the Siberian rivers to the Middle Asia, and the growth rates should consequently rise drastically over next two years. Of course, the country then will face an economic collapse, but it would happen later, after the elections.

   What we really need is not to chase anyone, but learn how to ensure a sustained development in the changing post-industrial world, by avoiding wars and domestic unrest. We should learn to draw lessons from our own and others’ mistakes and to get rid of the fashion pertaining to the country’s development since the early 18th century, when a spurt is followed by stagnation and crisis. We should learn how to develop the country by means of private incentives and initiative, rather than state enforcement tackles. This mission is much harder than spurring economic growth rates on for a short period of time. This requires a hard, consistent work, which does not promise immediate political dividends, but only such a policy is responsible indeed.

ANNUAL REPORT RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN 2002: TRENDS AND PERSPECTIVES

Issue

   The annual report prepared by the team of the Institute’s researchers is a multi-aspect study containing a thorough analysis of key trends observed in the Russian economy in 2002.

   The study is subdivided in four large sections focusing on specific aspects of the Russia’s economic development:

   1. Social and political background;
   2. Monetary and budgetary spheres;
   3. Real sector of the economy;
   4. Institutional and microeconomic problems.

   The study is based on a large array of statistical data, which was used for original calculations and numerous graphic illustrations.

THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BACKGROUND

   In 2002, the processes of consolidation of the ruling elite continued in Russia. This fact is confirmed both by the nature of recent economic and political discussions, and developments in the political life. The problem of economic growth was the central problem of the economic and political discussions in 2002. Practically every leading Russia’s politician and economist, including President Putin, has taken part in the discussion. The discussion has the objective basis – the slowing down rates of growth observed over the last three years.

   The key political factor influencing the economic policy in 2003 will be the next Parliamentary (December of 2004) and Presidential (March of 2004) elections. The specifics of the Russian political and business cycle, as it has formed by present, is not deteriorating macroeconomic parameters before the elections, but a slowdown of institutional and structural reforms.

   The list of priority areas of economic policies in 2003 may be classified in tow groups of problems: elaboration of conceptual decisions as concerns certain strategic issues of the country’s development and implementation of economic and political measures worked out in the past years.

   Among the practical problems to be solved in 2003 there are, first of all, the following:

   - the completion of the negotiations concerning Russia’s accession to WTO and related necessary legislative acts;

   - the reform of natural monopolies – continuation of the reform of the Railroad Ministry, approval of the legislative basis of the reform of the UES of Russia, start of the regal reform as concerns Gazprom;

   - the elaboration and approval of the legislation regulating activities of local governments and especially ensuring their financial base;

   - the continuation of implementation of the deregulation (de-bureaucratization) program, including the approval of a law on self-regulating organizations and streamlining of functions vested with regulating and controlling instances;

   - the development of the normative and legal basis and improvement of efficiency of functioning of financial institutions; the continuation of the reform of the banking system.

   This list of targets for year 2003 is not exhaustive, however, it includes the areas, which, according to IET experts, are of priority. At the same time, the section focuses on a considerable number of conceptual issues, which should be resolved in the pre-election year 2003.

MONETARY AND BUDGETARY SPHERES

   Monetary and exchange policies

   The key aspect of the analysis of processes underway in the monetary sphere and the policies pursued by the RF Central Bank in 2002 is, on the whole, the waning interest in the problems of this sector of the Russian economy. For instance, over the year the issues relating to monetary and exchange regulation remained at the background in comparison with the changes in the tax sphere, the reform of the budgetary sector, and natural monopolies, Russia’s accession to WTO, structural policies, and falling rates of growth in the real sector of the economy.

   On the whole, in 2002 there may be singled out the following important issues relating to the monetary sphere and exchange policy:

   - growing role of non-monetary factors (increase in regulated prices of natural monopolies) in the determination of the rates of growth in consumer prices simultaneously with further slowdown of inflation rates;

   - smooth dynamics of the nominal Ruble exchange rate, maintenance of low rates of real revaluation of the Russian national currency and growing gold and forex denominated reserves of the Bank of Russia;

   - the changes in the administration of the RF Central Bank in March of 2002;

   - the policies monetary authorities pursued as concerns liberalization of foreign currency control;

   - slowing down capitalization of the banking system accompanied by deteriorating credit rationing and expanding money supply by the banking system via crediting of the private sector;

   - growing confidence of the population in bank deposits.

   Public finances

    In 2002, the revenues of the federal budget made Rub. 2202.1 billion, or 20.1 per cent of GDP, what is by 2.5 p.p. above the level observed in 2001. The factors behind the growth in revenues were primarily an increase in tax revenues by 2.3 p.p. of GDP up to 18.6 per cent of GDP as compared with the figures registered in the preceding year. However, it should be taken into account that in 2002 the single social tax was included in the composition of the federal budget revenues. Total tax revenues minus SST revenues did not increase, but declined noticeably – by 0.7 p.p. in terms of GDP, while the total budget revenues decreased by 0.6 p.p. to 17 per cent of GDP (Rub. 1862.7 billion).

   At the same time, the budgetary expenditures grew by 4 p.p., or 1 p.p. in GDP terms making 18.7 per cent of GDP in 2002.

   The consolidated budget was executed with surplus of 1 per cent of GDP in 2002.

   The key parameters of the federal budget for year 2003 are based on the prognosis of the social and economic development of the Russian Federation in 2003 through 2005. Tax revenues shall make Rub. 1892 billion, or 14.5 per cent of GDP, what is by 1 p.p. of GDP below the target set for 2002. Revenues are targeted at 18 per cent of GDP, while the expected amount of GDP shall be at Rub. 13050 billion.

   On the whole, it may be concluded that two other problems relating to the budget for 2003 the government strove to resolve were the expected rise in wages and salaries financed from the budget and repayment of the external debt due in 2003.

   In the beginning of 2003, the amount of internal public debt in the form of securities made Rub. 654.5 billion, i.e. about 6 per cent of GDP. The aggregate public external debt of the RF decreased by US $ 7 billion – from US $ 113.5 to US $ 106.5 billion over 9 months of 2002.

REAL SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY

     Macrostructure of production

   In 1999 through 2002, the Russia’s economy demonstrated high rates of growth. The economic recovery occurred at the background of favorable external economic situation and internal social and economic stability. The increase in GDP made 4.3 per cent in 2002, while investment in fixed assets grew by 2.6 per cent and the gross industrial output increased by 3.7 per cent.

   In 1999 through 2002, a specific feature was the change in proportions between economic sectors. In the four last years, the output of goods increased by 35.8 per cent, market services – by 21 per cent, commercial freight – by 19 per cent, the amount of wholesale trade – by 60 per cent, while the amount of communication services doubled. Retail trade was one of the most dynamically developing sector of the economy in the post-crisis period.

   The positive dynamics of growth in GDP have been observed since the 2nd quarter of 1999 and were supported by increasing production in industry, construction, and agriculture. In 2002, the industrial output grew by 47.5 per cent, volume of agricultural produce – by 22.6 per cent, and the amount of construction works increased by 33.1 per cent in comparison with the figures registered in 1998.

   The economic growth in 1999 through 2002 may be subdivided in several stages depending on the impact of different factors:

   - active import substitution occurred in the end of 1998 through the first half year, the factors behind which were the Ruble devaluation, sharp contraction of imports, and moderate growth in wages and salaries, relatively low prices of the products of natural monopolies;

   - expanding external demand since the second half of 1999 related to favorable changes in the business situation on world fuel, energy, and raw materials markets;

   - expansion of internal demand for investment resources observed since the 3rd quarter of 1999 determined by growing proceeds of enterprises;

   - expanding internal consumer demand (since the second half of 2000) determined by growing household incomes;

   - a slowdown in the rates of industrial development starting since the 4th quarter of 2000 because of outpacing rates of growth in production costs resulting from increases in prices and tariffs of natural monopolies and gradual recovery of growth rates in imports;

   - decreasing levels of investment activity since the beginning of 2001, determined by a decline in profitability of production resulting from the changes in relative prices of the domestic and foreign markets;

   - slowing down rates of industrial development since the early 2002 because of the totality of factors formed over the aforesaid period.

   Business situation in industry

   In the end of 2001, the Russia’s industry encountered the most serious and prolonged sale problems. Only in July of 2002, surveys registered an increase in cash sales for the first time. The growth in cash sales had been recovered by the last September in all industries with the exception of light industry. Therefore, the 3rd quarter was the most favorable period for the Russia’s industry in 2002. In November, similarly to the situation existing a year ago, the growth in effective demand completely ceased.

   This sharp and the most prolonged in the post-default period decline in cash sales determined the changed in the dynamics and attitude of enterprises to non-cash types of demand. In 2002, there was for the first time registered an absolute increase in promissory note and offset operations, as well as a most significant and prolonged lack of barter, promissory notes, and offsets.

   The discussion about the competition on sales markets of Russian industrial enterprises and its impact on domestic producers continue to attract attention of analysts, government officials, and public. In 2002, this discussion reached a new stage as the new – after the default of 1998 - incentive was given to the calls to protect domestic producers by customs statistics revealing an increase in volumes of import up to the levels registered in 1998. However, two facts make to doubt about such grave assessments. First, customs statistics are a most unreliable source of economic information in the modern Russia. Second, the situation relating to the dynamics of demand and output and cash payments in the Russia’s industry in 2002 is principally different from that observed in the first six months of 1998. Therefore, the projection of conclusions and forecasts based on an analysis of the pre-default situation to 2002 seems unjustified.

   Investment processes

   A growth in investment demand was a specific feature of the development of the Russia’s economy in 2000 through 2001. At that time, there was observed a steady trend towards outpacing rates of growth in investment in fixed assets as compared with GDP dynamics and output of base sectors of the economy. In 2002, the situation changed as investment demand became inferior to consumer demand in terms of growth rates.

   The amount of investment in fixed assets from all sources of financing made about Rub. 1.76 trillion in 2002, what was by 2.6 per cent above the level registered in the preceding year. The slowdown of rates of growth in investment demand determined the nature of dynamics of production of capital goods and construction works. The amount of works carried out by construction organizations in 2002 increased by 2.6 per cent as compared with 8.7 per cent registered in 2001, while the increase in gross output of mechanical engineering and the industry of construction materials made 2 per cent as compared with 7.2 per cent and 3 per cent as compared with 5.5 per cent respectively.

   In 2002, the contraction of investment demand progressed more intensively at the background of the general trend toward slowing rates of industrial growth. At the same time, the share of industry in the structure of investment in fixed assets decreased by about 1 p.p. in comparison with the figures registered in 2001.

   In the last few years, the investment activity was mostly oriented toward the active engagement of competitive reserve capacities in production and modernization of production. An analysis of utilization of production capacities reveals that its potential has been practically exhausted since a considerable part of equipment due to its moral and physical obsolescence can not be used for production.

   In 2000 through 2002, practically all investment demand was generated by the oil extracting industry and metallurgy. Although exporters had increased investment expenditures for development of their primary production, the spare funds were invested in the Russia’s economy with great reserve. Therefore, the gap between the export oriented industries and the larger part of the rest economy widened.

   As economic growth recovered, foreign investors increased their presence on the Russian market. As on January 1, 2003, the accumulated foreign capital in the RF economy made US $ 42.9 billion, including the investments from the CIS member countries. However, the bulk of foreign investments made in 2002 classified as so called “other investment” (formed primarily at the expense of credits granted by international financial organizations and funds investors assigned for purchase of governmental securities), what was a factor negatively affecting the investment sphere in the RF in the short time perspective.

   In 2002, 93 capital exporting countries invested in the Russia’s economy (109 countries in 2001).

   Agri-food sector

   In 2002, the Russia’s agriculture continued to experience growth, which was related rather to internal processes of restructuring and improvement of the general economic situation in the country than weather conditions. Today it may be asserted that the growth in the agrarian sector is sustainable.

   According to Goskomstat, the rate of growth in agriculture made only 101.7 per cent; however, Goskomstat has revised annual data by the middle of the next year already for several years running each time increasing preliminary results by 1.5 to 2 percentage points. Therefore, it may be asserted that the real growth in agricultural produce made 3 to 3.5 per cent in the last year.

   At the same time, the persistence of growth in 2002 was accompanied by deterioration of the agriculture on the whole as profitability of production declined, while creditor indebtedness of producers increased. The factors behind the deterioration processes may be reduced to overproduction across all types of produce. Thus, the situation on the grain market was formed under strong influence of excessive supply of grain. Relatively good yields of 2001 and 2002 combined with low demand on the domestic markets resulted in declining prices and growth in exports. In the last year, the grain exports set a new record making 8.7 million metric tons in July through December. In other words, the last year was a turning point signifying the end of the post-crisis surge and transition to another model of growth.

   The main events of the agrarian policy in 2002 were the approval of the law on the turnover of farm lands and implementation of the program of subsidizing interest rates on medium term credits. A certain political resonance was generated by the restrictions on import of poultry from the USA.

   As concerns 2003 on the whole, it may be assumed that the growth in the agri-industrial complex would make about 2 per cent. The yield of grain will somewhat below the level of 2002, but not less than 80 million metric tons. The production of live stock will grow at a slower rate due to the limited household purchasing power. The process of differentiation of producers will accelerate: in spite of the efforts of the government to prevent the wave of bankruptcies it will inevitably rise, what requires to undertake urgent measures for social development of rural areas. It can be hardly expected that investment activity in this sector will increase in comparison with 2002, what means that agricultural mechanical engineering would have little chance to grow.

   Research and development sphere

   A specific feature of the last year was that the government has approved the conceptual document setting forth key guidelines for the development of the science and technical sphere for the period until 2010 – “Principles of the Russian Federation’s policies concerning the development of science and technologies for the period until 2010 and the further perspective” (March of 2002).

   The past year witnessed the appearance of several clear guidelines concerning state activities in the sphere of science and technology. According to these guidelines, the financial policies were shaped and there was started the consistent development of the institutional environment. The target areas where the maximal progress was achieved were the closer links between science and production via implementation of large innovative projects and formation of united holding structures, as well as development of the infrastructure of innovative activities (the start of formation of venture industry).

   Social and cultural sphere

   In 2002, the social and cultural sphere was a real priority in the course of distributing of budgetary means. The state financing of healthcare and fitness, education, culture, arts, and mass media has increased by 20 per cent in real terms as compared with the figures registered in the preceding year. The share of these expenditures in GDP made 7.5 per cent (6.5 per cent in 2001). Budget assignments for education, culture, and arts grew by 25 per cent in real terms.

   From the economic point of view, the situation in the sphere of healthcare in 2002 did not changed much in comparison with 2001. The most important problem faced by the sector is the incomplete implementation of the mandatory medical insurance system and eclectic combination of elements of budget and insurance systems of financing public healthcare. Only in the beginning of 2003 there were observed signs that the RF Ministry of Health, Finance Ministry, the RF Pension Fund, and the Federal Fund of Mandatory Medical Insurance reached a compromise and worked out a common position as concerns the contents of the planned reform of mandatory medical insurance.

   As concerns education, in contradistinction to health care, in this sphere there was carried out a real reform. The past year may be characterized as the period of specification of the strategic decisions concerning the avenues of the reforms, which had been elaborated earlier. The Ministry of Education approved the Action plan for 2003 through 2004 envisaging the implementation of the Concept of modernization of education in Russia until 2010. This document includes two groups of measures: first, aimed to ensure state guarantees of access to quality education, and, second, to create conditions serving to improve the quality of general and professional education.

   External economic operations

   The development of Russia’s external economic links in 2002 occurred in a rather complicated environment and was characterized by contradictory trends. There was observed a decrease in the amounts of Russia’s exports occurring at the background of the negative development of external factors, such as slowing down development of the global economy and deteriorating world market situation in the first six months of 2002. The main factor behind the decline in the amounts of exports was a decrease in world prices of oil, natural gas, and metals. However, in the second half year the dynamics of Russia’s exports reversed as a result of the recovery of the business situation on the oil markets. By the end year, the exports from Russia exceeded the figures registered in 2001 by 5.2 per cent, totaling to US $ 106.9 billion. This increase in amounts resulted primarily from growing volumes of exports. Although world prices of staple Russia’s exports rose in the second half of the past year, the average year’s indicators were below the levels observed in 2001.

   On the whole, the foreign trade turnover of Russia in 2002 was the record high in the last ten years – US $ 167.4 billion, thus exceeding the figures registered in 2001 by 7.8 per cent.

   Countries outside the NIS remained main Russia’s trading partners. The share of these countries in the Russia’s foreign trade turnover increased in 2002 to 83 per cent as compared with 81.8 per cent registered in 2001. The foreign trade turnover with countries outside the CIS made US $ 138.9 billion, what was by 9.3 per cent above the level of 2001. Accelerated growth in imports primarily accounted for the increase in the foreign trade turnover.

   In 2002, EU and USA recognized the market status of the Russia’s economy. Having such a status, Russia may avoid unjustified losses relating to antidumping procedures. From the practical point of view, the market status will allow domestic producers to appeal for the revision of currently implemented antidumping measures on the EU territory.

   It may be expected that the standing of Russia’s exporter will improve after Russia joins WTO. The progress of negotiations is slow, however, the participants of the working group state that the accession is at its final stage.

   Russia’s turnover vis-?-vis the CIS member countries made US $ 28.6 billion in 2002, as exports increased by 6.9 per cent (up to US $ 16.3 billion), while imports made US $ 12.3 billion (decreasing by 5.5 per cent). The turnover declined by 4.3 per cent in comparison with the figures registered in 2001.

   The share of the CIS member countries in the Russia’s foreign trade made 17.1 per cent (18.3 per cent in 2001). The respective shares of exports and imports made 15.2 and 20.3 per cent. The main Russia’s trade partners in this group of countries remained Belorussia and Ukraine (over 11 per cent of the total Russia’s foreign trade turnover).

   State of the Russian military organization and trends of its reform

   In 2002, the RF President took the decision to reform the recruitment system of the country’s military organization. The RF Government held a special meeting on the issue and approved the real measures starting the elaboration of the Concept and the Program of the respective reform.

   At the same time, the scarce budgetary financing of military expenditures, which declined in real terms, at the background of real military threats sharply contrasts with the incommensurable expenditures for military preparations borne by a number of other states, first of all, the USA. This circumstance calls for the necessity not only control utilization of the funds assigned for these purposes in the RF, but also search for ways to increase the budgetary revenues to be able to resolve many problems Russia faces, including acceleration of the military reform.

   Priority should be given to the expenditures ensuring the efficiency in both the civilian (due to stimulation of high-tech innovative activities), and the military spheres.

INSTITUTIONAL AND MICROECONOMIC PROBLEMS

   Privatization process

   The key characteristic of the whole period of the so called “cash” privatization (from 1994 till present) was the budgetary orientation of the privatization process, which was characterized by the seasonal character of inflow of the bulk of revenues (as a rule, 2 to 3 main transactions were concluded in the end of each year). Since 2001, there has become apparent yet another principal characteristic: the shift from nonrenewable to renewable revenue sources generated by the use of the state property. This positive trend became apparent in 2002: the revenues from renewable sources three times exceeds the revenues from privatization leaving aside the transactions concerning Lukoil and Sibneft shares not completed before December.

   According to the preliminary data of the RF Ministry of Property Relations, in 2002 the aggregate revenues of the federal budget made about Rub. 122.4 billion, what is three times more than in 2001. At the same time, revenues from sales of property and blocks of shares in joint stock companies carried out by the Federal Property Fund and property funds of RF subjects made Rub. 91.2 billion (the December transactions relating to shares in Lukoil and Slavneft accounted for more than 80 per cent of this amount).

   In the spring of 2002, there was enacted the new law “On Privatization of State and Municipally Owned Property” (No. 178-FZ of December 21, 2001). However, the larger part of the privatization program for 2002 was based on the novations set forth by this law. The enactment of the law (first of all, the renewed instruments allowing sales of minority blocks of shares and non-liquid assets) set forth the legal grounds for mass reduction of objects owned by the state. This also concerns state unitary enterprises (SUE) as the Property Ministry intends to diminish the number of SUEs to 2.5 thousand by the end of 2003. Moreover, the processes of reorganization (affiliation, liquidation, partial sale) shall also concern SUE subsidiaries.

   Management of state owned property, state unitary enterprises (SUE)

   Summing up the work federal agencies conducted to improve SUE management in 2002, there may be noted a considerable progress in the inventory of assets and bringing SUE charters in conformity with the new requirements carried out by the majority of ministries and agencies. At the same time, a number of sectoral agencies failed to present respective data. It will still require considerable efforts to resolve problems relating to the transfer of SUE revenues to the federal budget and formulation of reasonable proposals concerning the future reorganization of unitary enterprises.

   Corporate sector

   The following trends shall be singled out among those characteristic of the development of the corporate sector in 2002: the continuing processes of concentration of joint stock capitals, mergers of enterprises and reorganization of existing business groups, as well as a number of new trends relating to the intracorporate programs implemented by a number of largest companies (groups). At the same time, the development of the standards of corporate governance is directly related to respective reorganization and long term strategies employed by companies.

   Banking sector

   In 2002, the banking sector continued to grow: assets increased by 20 per cent in real terms over 11 months, loans to the non-banking sectors grew by 26 per cent, deposits – by 27 per cent (including household deposits by 39 per cent).

   The share of securities in bank assets remained practically at the level registered in the end of 2001 (14.9 per cent).

   The business situation on the forex denominated federal debt securities was exceptionally favorable for investors in the preceding year. Growing prices of Russia’s eurobonds and OVVZ ensured high profitability in Ruble terms. However, the circle of banks operating on this market has remained rather narrow.

   As in preceding years, the banking sector remained the main holder of Ruble denominated bond public debt. However, in 2002 the process of concentration of Ruble denominated federal debt securities somewhat slowed down. As concerns the portfolio of governmental bonds of an average Russian bank, the share of Ruble denominated instruments increased, while the share of forex denominated securities declined.

   Housing market

   In December of 2002, there were summed up the results of the monitoring of the housing markets in nine Russian cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Irkutsk, Perm, Nizhni Novgorod, Tver, Ulyanovsk) and the Moscow oblast. The collected data revealed that in the first six months of 2002 there occurred the transition from sustainable growth in housing prices registered in 2000 through 2001 to recession and stabilization. According to the price dynamics, in the second half of 2002 all cities in the sample classified in three groups: I – regional centers where prices stabilized; II – St. Petersburg where prices continued to rise; III – Moscow and Moscow oblast where prices began to grow again.

   Review of legislation introduced in 2002

   In 2002, the State Duma reviewed about 900 bills and approved more than 200 federal laws. The State Duma focused its efforts on budgetary, tax, and financial legislation. There continued the reform of the tax system. The Tax Code was amended, and the budget for 2003 was approved in the end of the year.

   The most important laws approved by the State Duma were amended versions of laws “On Central Bank (Bank of Russia) and “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy),” new laws “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation,” “On Alternative Military Service,” and some other laws. As concerns social policies, there was approved the governmental law on an increase in the minimal wages and salaries from Rub. 300 to Rub. 450 since May 1, 2002. The further development of the pension reform included the approval of the law on investment of funds for financing of the accumulating part of the labor pensions. The law on turnover of farm lands was widely discussed in mass media.

   The annual report on the state of the Russia’s economy prepared by the IET also contains an annex concerning the progress of the administrative reform – the reform of the structure of federal executive authorities, public service, system of state regulation.

   Besides, the report includes an annex analyzing the monetary policies pursued in the East European countries.

   For the full text of the report, see the IET web site: http://www.iet.ru .

PUBLICATIONS

Issue

   The studies prepared basing on the materials of the IET research project financed by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) grant:

______________________________________________________________________________

   Problems of forecasting some macroeconomic indices
   Entov R., Nosko V., Yudin A., Kadochnikov P., Ponomarenko S.

   Various substantive problems of economic analysis require the use of statistical data characterizing the observed economic processes and large time series. Different time series are used to resolve different substantive problems. An important task of economic policies, including the study of dynamics of fundamental variables, is modeling allowing to forecast macroeconomic indices for future periods.

   This paper presents a comparative evaluation of the quality of different methods of forecasting time series applied to series that reflect dynamics of development of main macroeconomic indices characterizing the state of the Russia’s economy. The study focuses on forecasting power of time series models built basing on real statistical data on certain Russian economic and social series of dynamics (GNP, industrial output, employment, budgetary revenues and expenditures, inflation, money supply, exports, and imports).

   Alongside with analysis and comparison between different forecasting methods, the study provides basic information relating to the methods of forecasting macroeconomic indicators. The paper revealed that no single universal forecasting methods can be worked out for the macroeconomic indices under observation. The only exception is the general recommendation that the choice of the model based on the unit root test includes the best or one of the best models. In order to improve evaluations using new data it makes sense to apply recursive models, i.e. models employing reevaluation in the case new data are introduced, especially if structural shifts take place in the dynamics of indicators (or these structural shifts may be to a certain degree forecasted basing on substantive considerations or additional information).

   The results obtained in the course of the analysis indicate that, as it seems, forecasts should be based on several models and include the further analysis of deviations of forecasts from actual values in order to choose the model, which in majority of cases provides satisfactory forecast for several next periods.

______________________________________________________________________________

   Problems of the agri-food sector

   This collection of essays published by the experts of the IET Analytical Center of Agri-food economy includes the following studies:

   “A review of the budgetary support of the agri-food complex (AFC) in Russian in 1994 through 2002)” by O. Shik,

   “A forecast of food consumption in Russia for a medium term perspective” by Ye. Serova, M. Prokopyev, T. Tikhonova, I. Ivanova,

   “Vertical integration in the food complex of Russia” by I. Khramova,

   “Russia: the market of purchased means of production for agriculture” by Ye. Serova, N. Karlova, V. Petrichenko.

______________________________________________________________________________

   “Deregulation of the Russian economy: the mechanism of reproduction of the excessive regulation and institutional support of competition on commodity markets”
   Mau V., Zhavoronkov S., Fomichev O., Shadrin A., Yanovsky K

   The paper deals with challenges facing the public regulation system reform in Russia , their sources and some optional solutions. The paper contains a review on respective experiences and practices of Western European countries and the US on elimination of administrative barriers. The research focuses on genesis of groups of special interests, incentives to excessive regulation and proposals on improvement of decision-making procedures that lower risks of emergence of new administrative barriers. The paper also provides proposals on specification of regulative procedures: more specifically estimation of consequences of the regulation and implementation of main provisions of the bill ' On fundamentals of technical regulation, standartization and confirmation of compliance'.

______________________________________________________________________________

   External factors of monetary and credit policy of RF
   P. Kadochnikov

   The paper deals with analysis of interventionist policy options, testing some hypotheses on dynamics of foreign trade, forex and monetary and credit policy indicators, and evaluation of possibilities for sterilization of money supply. The paper also contains a review of literature on the Central Bank's interventionist policy and channels of its impact on the economy.

______________________________________________________________________________

   Evaluation of the personal income tax reform outcomes in Russia
   Sinelnikov-Murylev S., Batkibekov S., Kadochnikov P., Nekipelov D.

   The paper highlights an analysis of key problems if the functioning of personal income tax in Russia and the 2000 reform outcomes.

   The first part of the paper considers prerequisites to the reform implementation, provides analysis of its main objectives and provisions realized in Chapter 23 of the Tax Code of RF “The personal income tax”.

   The second section deals with theoretical research into the reform’s impact on tax base, tax collection and the level of its progressiveness, as well as an empirical testing of hypotheses resulting from the theoretical analysis. Basing on known theoretical models, hypotheses are formulated that relate changes in the tax rate to the scale of the respective tax dodging. The main hypothesis tested in the paper implies that under the lowering of the marginal personal income tax rate there may be noted a rise in tax revenues thanks to the rise in the taxable base caused by contraction in the tax dodging under the impact of individuals’ changing estimates of costs and benefits of the tax dodging.

   In conclusion, the paper presents conclusions on results of the research and recommendations on the fiscal policy in the personal income taxation area.

______________________________________________________________________________

   Studies prepared and published by IET researchers in the framework of CEPRA project (the Russian – Canadian Consortium for Economic Policy, Research, and Advice) sponsored by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA):

   An analysis of redistribution of funds among budgets of RF subjects in the framework of the system of interbudgetary relations. Evaluation of stabilization qualities of re-distributive instruments of the Russia’s federal authorities.
   P. Kadochnikov, S. Sinelnikov-Murylev, I. Trunin, S. Chetverikov

   The paper aims to evaluate the scale and study the outcomes of redistribution of revenues among the subjects of the Russian Federation basing on the analysis of main financial flows between the federal budget and the budgets of RF subjects, evaluate the level of progressiveness of the system of interbudgetary relations and its stabilization qualities, as well as analyze separate instruments of this system from the standpoint indicated above.

   In conclusion, the paper presents the discussion of the results of calculations and comparison of obtained evaluations of the levels of interregional redistribution of resources and stabilization of regional economic indicators in Russia with respective values registered in other countries.

THE ALL-RUSSIAN CONTEST FOR THE BEST THESIS ON ECONOMICS

Issue

   On February 20, 2003, the Institute for the Economy in Transition announced the results of the all-Russian contest for the best thesis on economics among graduates of Russia’s economic institutions for higher education and economics departments of institutions for higher education.

   IET has established the prize “For the best thesis on Economics” to be awarded to the winners of the contest:

   · First place – Rub. 20 thousand.
   · Second place – two prizes, Rub. 10 thousand each.
   · Third place – three prizes, Rub. 5 thousand each.

   Seventy graduates who defended their theses on economic problems in 2002 participated in the contest representing the following Russia’s economic institutions for higher education:
   European University (St. Petersburg)
   MGIMO of the RF Foreign Ministry,
   Russian – French Institute of Management of the Academy of the National Economy at the RF Government,
   Primorski Lomonosov State University
   Yuzhno – Uralski State University,
   Izhevsk State Technical University,
   Bashkirski State University,
   St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University,
   Russian School of Economics,
   Rostov State University,
   Nizhni Novgorod Lobachevski State University,
   St. Petersburg State University,
   Penza State University,
   Kemerovo State University,
   Perm State University,
   Moscow Physicotechnical Institute (State University),
   Nizhni Novgorod State Technical University,
   St. Petersburg State Engineering and Economic University,
   Kursk State Technical University,
   Orel State Agrarian University,
   Tomsk Polytechnic University,
   Petrozavodsk State University,
   Novosibirsk State University,
   Vyatka State University,
   Financial Academy at the RF Government,
   Institute of International Economic Relations (MEO),
   St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance,
   Orenburg State University,
   Pyatigorsk State Technological University,
   Dalnevostochny State Technical Fishery University (DALRYBVTUZ TU),
   Moscow State University of Commerce,
   Kemerovo branch (institute) of the Moscow State University of Commerce,
   Tomsk State University,
   Orel State Technical University,
   Volgograd State University,
   Astrakhan State Technical University,
   State University of Management, Moscow State Lomonosov University,
   Saratov State Social and Economic University,
   Uralski State Pedagogical University,
   Tver State University,
   Kursk State Technical University of Economics and Management,
   Higher School of Economics,
   Rostov State Economic University,
   Baikalski State University of Economics and Law,
   Kalmykia State University,
   Udmurtia State University,
   Nizhni Novgorod branch of the State University of the Higher School of Economics,
   Dalnevostochny State Technical University,
   MESI,
   Ulyanovsk State University,
   Institute of Economics and Business of UlGU,
   Tomsk State University of Management and Electronic Engineering (TUSUR),
   (ÒÓÑÓÐ),
   Omsk State University,
   Kemerovo branch (institute) of Moscow State University of Commerce (MGUK).

   There was created the contest commission:

   Chairman – Dr. (Econ.) Ye. T. Gaidar,
   Deputy Chairman – R. M. Entov, full member of the Academy of Sciences
   Secretary – A. I. Yashin,
   Members of the Commission: Dr. (Econ.) V. A. Mau, Dr. (Econ.) A. D. Radygin, Dr. (Econ.) S. G. Sinelnikov-Murylev, Dr. (Econ.) Ye. V. Serova, Dr. (Econ.) A. V. Uliukayev, Dr. (Econ.) S. V. Shishkin.

   Upon reviewing all theses submitted for the contest, the commission awarded the prizes as follows:

   - First prize was awarded to Aleksandr Anatolyevich Plekhanov, graduate of the St. Petersburg State University for the thesis “Equilibrium and effectiveness of fiscal federalism”;

   - Second prize (one) was awarded to Oleg Aleksandrovich Rychkov, graduate of the Russian School of Economics for the thesis “Auctions with varying number of participants and financial limitations” ;

   - Third prize (three) was awarded to:

   - Yekaterina Yevgenievna Kokovkina, graduate of the Orel State Technical University for the thesis Problems and prospects of the development of the stock markets in Russia’s regions (basing on the materials of the Orel regional office of the RF Federal Commission on Securities)”;

   - Makar Gennadyevich Maksimov, graduate of the Astrakhan State Technical University for the thesis “Mechanism of the mortgage lending to socially unprotected population (basing on the experience of the Astrakhan oblast)”;

   - Sergei Sergeyevich Zheleznyakov, graduate of the Kursk State Technical University of Economics and Management for the thesis “Study of territorial asymmetry of administrative districts in the Kursk oblast.”

   All winners of the contest were awarded respective diplomas and prizes.

 


Discuss

E-mail: administrator@iet.ru
Copyright © 1999 - 2003 IET.
www.iet.ru


Rambler's Top100 Rambler's Top100