Potent drugs

Experts suggest “unpacking” the stabilization fund

The volume of the stabilization fund, where excess revenues from oil exports have been channeled since the beginning of 2004, exceeded 2 trillion rubles, amounting to 2.049 trillion rubles, or $76.72 billion, as of November 1. This money, which had been accumulating for a long time in ruble accounts with the Central Bank and only half a month ago, finally placed in foreign government bonds, in recent years they have haunted many economists and various kinds of lobbyists. Members of the government (especially the “founding father” and main defender of the stabilization fund, head of the Ministry of Finance Alexei Kudrin) were constantly asked the same question: is it really necessary to withdraw such large sums from circulation, is it not better to use them for investment, for the modernization of industry? to accelerate economic growth and increase its competitiveness in the world? Despite the equally constant and unequivocal answers that the stabilization fund will be very useful during a sharp decline in oil prices and, moreover, is already playing a decisive role in the fight against inflation, discussions do not subside. The next, but far from the last, took place yesterday as part of a round table held by the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The tone was set by the director of the Institute of Europe, academician Nikolai Shmelev, who stated that he did not understand the government doctrine “The less money in the country, the better,” as well as why, given the urgent needs of the economy for investment, huge funds are “thrown out of the country” (available in means placement of stabilization fund funds in foreign securities). “No one will free the state from worries about infrastructure, but who will develop high technology and science?” - says the scientist. Private Russian business, which, according to the scientist, now, as in the 90s, can only be satisfied with extremely high profits, will not go into these areas.

Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Nekipelov partially supported his colleague, proposing to finally determine how much money should be left in the stabilization fund (he preferred to call it sterilization rather than stabilization), and how much could be safely used. “To achieve macroeconomic stability, costs are inevitable. But it’s strange that there is no discussion about the magnitude of these costs,” said the academician. Mr. Nekipelov is convinced that excess revenues from oil sales could be used much more efficiently. He proposed forming a state financial institution that would issue long-term loans on a commercial basis to those who wish to modernize production using imported equipment. Such an institution, in the opinion of the Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, will create a “segment of long-term foreign currency lending”, promote economic growth and at the same time not create inflationary pressure. Because the money will go where it came from, without disturbing the balance within the country. Alexey Kudrin, the speaker recalled, opposes such use of the stabilization fund, saying that this will finally finish off the domestic manufacturer. “Okay,” retorts Alexander Nekipelov, “let’s finance the purchase of equipment that is not produced in our country.”

Director of the Institute of National Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Viktor Ivanter, also admits that part of the excess income can be spent (but not from the stabilization fund, but from the budget surplus). For example, for the needs of science, for the purchase of scientific equipment. It would also be possible to focus on infrastructure, however, in Mr. Ivanter’s opinion, there are no corresponding projects yet. “The authorities today are not able to use this money,” he states.

State Duma deputy, Doctor of Economics Oksana Dmitrieva came out most harshly against the stabilization fund. In her opinion, the stabilization fund money should be treated as budget funds. Such funds “today are more exotic in world practice than a general rule,” she says. According to the deputy, it is more expedient to direct oil money either to expenses (preferably to increasing salaries and benefits, rather than to investments, where, as Ms. Dmitrieva said, “with kickbacks of 30-40%,” they will be spent ineffectively ), or they should help reduce taxes. The growth of inflation does not frighten Oksana Dmitrieva, since, she is convinced, it is provoked not by an increase in the money supply, but by the costs of natural monopolies, mainly housing and communal services. “We have 50% of the increase in inflation in the first two months of the year, when tariffs are raised, and this is the main reason for inflation,” the deputy believes.

The monetary authorities were represented at the discussion by Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank Konstantin Korishchenko. No matter how hard he tried to explain to those gathered the policy of the “party and government” in relation to the stabilization fund, the neighbors at the round table, apparently, were not convinced by his arguments.

Mikhail VOROBYEV