In the Kremlin

Lucky?

September 22, 2008 Alexey Makarkin

Russia was lucky. The financial crisis of a domestic scale is repaid as a result of the energetic actions of the government and changes the situation in world markets. “Bear” mood in the market are replaced by “bulls”. Apparently, several banks and companies according to the results of the crisis will change their owners, but the society will simply not notice this, since it will be not the first row about financial institutions. It seems that the problems are local in nature and after the end of the crisis you can breathe calmly. They survived the default of the 98th, survived the banking crisis of 2004, and we will survive the current crisis.

Of course, we will survive. Only the consequences can be much more serious, and the consequences are not only economic, but also socio-political. The global financial crisis can lead to a significant decrease in investment activity and, therefore, to a recession, which, in turn, will help reduce oil prices (they have already fallen significantly recently). This option is not one hundred percent, but quite likely, seriously discussed by authoritative experts who recall the similar Soviet experience of the mid-80s. In addition, the question arises of the degree of sustainability of Russian economic structures, many of which are not sufficiently rooted in a market economy and are too dependent on the state. When one airline collapses, this creates problems for thousands of passengers who are forced to wait for detained flights at airports throughout the country. When similar problems arise in dozens of companies, we can already talk about problems at least dozens and hundreds of thousands of people.

Moreover, neither business, nor the state, nor society are currently ready not only for a large -scale long -term crisis, but also for a long recession. The business is accustomed to a calm and relatively measured life, unlike the stormy and adventurous 90s, when the entrepreneurial elite passed a strict natural selection-and many firms survived in the chaotic conditions of the 98th year. Now it is more important for an entrepreneur to be moderate and neat (usually such qualities are characteristic of officials), not to show political activity (excluding the prescribed from above) and maintain positive relations with influential “state people”. The business is accustomed to acting in a favorable macroeconomic situation that has been lasting almost a decade. The entrepreneurial spirit disappears, giving way to the bureaucratic approach. We add to this that a significant part of the economy is controlled by state -owned companies that, by definition, react less flexibly to arising risks than a private business capable of faster changes.

The state is used to living widely, especially after 2006. Budget expenditures are constantly growing, and it is increasingly difficult to restrain the onslaught of lobbyists to the Minister of Finance, it is increasingly difficult to restrain the onslaught. Only last week, the Fair Russia faction demanded his resignation - immediately after it managed to straighten the situation in the stock market (the American political elite is not taking anything like this now, despite the fact that the presidential election campaign is part of the decisive phase). The war in the South Caucasus “reinforces” the requirements of those who insist on the growth of defense expenses capable of involving the country in a new arms race. But civil groups of influence require money no less persistently. Let us also recall such prestigious-and, of course, costly-projects, as an APEC summit in Vladivostok (2012) and, especially, the Sochi Olympics-2014. Many decisions are made based on the fact that high oil prices and economic growth will take place for many years. Recall that in the early 80s, experts prophesied a couple of decades of a favorable price situation-reality caused the effect of the cold shower.

The situation is even more complicated with society. If a businessman can still recall the past years and at least partially restore the previous “grip”, then the society has been relaxed even more, and we are talking about all its layers. Pensioners are used to that they are on time - day a day - pay pensions, and for “monetized” benefits - also compensation (which largely reconciled them with lost privileges). The state employees consider it to be granted that they are compensated for losses from growing inflation. Young educated, but deprived of practical experience, graduates of universities count not only on work, but on a high starting earnings, which in the 90s was a subject of dreams for much more qualified employees. And so on. Many Russians began to get used to planning their lives for a long time, take loans for more or less large purchases, from household appliances to apartments. Education of children in paid kindergartens and schools has become ordinary phenomenon for the middle layers of the population.

Moreover, the “Tokville Law”, named after the French political thinker and diplomat of the century before last, acts in political science. It means that severe social tension does not occur during the period of complete economic collapse (then people are busy with elementary physical survival), and when the improvement comes and the requests of citizens to power is growing, which it cannot always satisfy. By the way, in Russia, this law does not yet work as clearly as in a number of other countries (in the same pre -revolutionary France, the study of the history of which was engaged in Tokville) - Russians highly value stability and wish only slow evolutionary changes for the better. However, changes to the worst, pose a threat of suffered stability, can lead to severe stress-even if they only resemble the 90s a little, to which the epithet “dashing” has already been attached.

Therefore, so far it is clearly premature to talk about the “luck” that befell Russia. Already in the near future, the state, and business and society, quite likely, will have to face problems that require quick response and adoption of unpopular decisions, from which everyone has already been wealthy.

Author-Vice President of the Center for Political Technology