Translated material
The power of the councils
The government's anti-crisis plan seemed to experts to be a "protocol of intentions"
Initiated by the Cabinet of Ministers of Vladimir Putin, a large-scale discussion around the consolidated The government's anti-crisis plan, which should be submitted to the State Duma in the coming days, is beginning to unfold on expert platforms. The Institute of Contemporary Development (INSOR) hosted the first round of public discussion of this program yesterday. All invited experts began their speech with the words: “The ideology of the program is correct, but...” As a result, summing up all the “buts” expressed, it would be possible to write a completely independent and, perhaps, even more thoughtful action plan, and not only for the immediate future. year, and also for the post-crisis perspective.The Institute of Contemporary Development has begun publishing the expert bulletin “Anti-crisis measures in the Russian Federation” on a regular basis, said Igor Yurgens, Chairman of the Board of INSOR, opening the discussion. The first issue dedicated to monetary policy and actions in the financial market during the crisis has already been published. But yesterday experts did not limit themselves only to the financial component of the crisis.
“The public presentation of the anti-crisis program is already a clear transition to systemic actions by regulators,” leading INSOR expert Nikita Maslennikov generally approved of the government’s desire for openness. Mr. Maslennikov saw in the presented action plan not just a response to the challenges posed by the crisis, but also a focus on preserving the prospects for economic development for a long period. The expert also approved the government’s desire to begin saving resources in difficult times, as a result of which the cost of anti-crisis measures will not be 12% of GDP, but approximately 7.5%. But at the same time, Mr. Maslennikov does not exclude the possibility of using additional funds if such a need arises during the year.
The scientific director of the Center for Social Research and Innovation, Evgeny Gontmakher, highlighted, in his opinion, the most ill-conceived social policy measures outlined in the government plan. “We now have the opportunity to think about choosing a healthcare model: the time has come to save the population,” Mr. Gontmakher posed the question bluntly. -- The insurance model operates in conditions of normal health of citizens and equal distribution of income among social groups - this is not our case. We need to move towards public health.”
The economist also made comments on the proposed measures to support the unemployed and stabilize the labor market. Mr. Gontmakher sees the main problem in the emergence of two large groups of unemployed people who will not be in demand in a changing labor market: pseudo-managers and workers specializing in outdated equipment. Inattention to these people threatens a high percentage of long-term unemployed, he believes.
Alexander Auzan, professor at Moscow State University and president of the Institute of the National Project “Social Contract,” believes that “the front of anti-crisis actions is such that it is impossible for the state to cope with it alone,” so help, even in the form of advice, will not be superfluous. “During a crisis, a spontaneous expansion of the state’s responsibilities arises, because no one but it can react so quickly to emerging problems,” admits Mr. Auzan. But at the same time, it is necessary to more accurately determine the moment after which the state will voluntarily renounce the powers delegated to it and return to the path of development through private initiative. At the same time, the additional functions that arise should not automatically mean that the state receives an indulgence for all its “sins” during the crisis.
It is during a crisis that the reform of public administration, increasing its efficiency and public monitoring become more relevant than ever, Mr. Auzan believes. But these areas are completely absent from the program.
Moscow State University professor Vitaly Tambovtsev noted the obvious lack of logic in the points devoted to stimulating domestic demand. “The government expects that education, healthcare and housing construction will become the drivers of domestic demand. But not a single country in the world has yet managed to boost the economy through education or healthcare,” the economist is surprised by the government’s “innovative” plans. Construction could really revive the economy, but the proposed measures are clearly not enough: 88 thousand families who will be helped by allowing them to use maternity capital to pay off the mortgage are a drop in the bucket. INSOR experts have long compiled a list of real catalysts for domestic demand that are not sufficiently involved in the Russian economy: this is an effective mechanism for converting savings into savings, increasing the share of wages in the distribution of added value (in Russia it is now approximately 40%, in the most economically developed countries of the world no less 60%), solving the problem of inflation, which negatively affects investment processes.
Chief researcher at the Institute of National Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Andrei Blokhin, who advises the government, expressed concerns that the cost of the government's anti-crisis program is somewhat underestimated, and some measures are mistakenly considered “free.” The expert considers one of the main drawbacks of the program to be the complete lack of criteria for its implementation: “It can’t even be called a program. Rather, these are directions of action, a kind of protocol of intentions. But there are no set parameters for what needs to be achieved in the end, no assessments of the result. Transparency of the discussion is not everything; we need tools to examine the program,” insists Mr. Blokhin.
The participants assured journalists that the head of the institute’s Board of Trustees, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, is aware of what the experts are doing. They expressed the hope that the public discussion would not be a profanation, and that the government would actually find the willpower to admit its omissions and listen to advice.