A policy in which revenues are budgeted based on the belief that high oil prices will not change is very unreliable

One of the consequences of the global crisis for Russia has been a new macroeconomic reality. After a decade of surpluses and a steadily declining public debt, the budget is once again unable to balance its spending with revenue. Of course, this is not very big news by historical standards - for two decades we lived mainly with a deficit (and even deeply deficit) budget. It would be more accurate to say that we now have a “new old” macroeconomic reality, largely reminiscent of the turn of the 1970s and 1980s.

For those who do not remember our recent past, let me remind you of its main characteristics. The economy is growing at a moderate rate of about 3%, which is higher than in most developed capitalist countries. Oil prices are unprecedentedly high - they have never been seen in history, and this makes it possible to more or less balance the budget, although not without a deficit, which is manifested in a rapidly growing commodity deficit (analogous to inflation in the conditions of state regulation of domestic prices). All oil and gas revenues go to cover budget expenses. They are used to implement the investment program and purchase consumer goods. Public debt is growing, although it remains small and quite manageable. Economists are enthusiastically discussing the problems of “improving the economic mechanism” - how to stimulate economic growth without changing anything in essence. The main thing in the economic discussion is the search for the right indicators for producers, based on the performance report of which it is possible to reward the leaders and punish the laggards.

The key problem of that model, as it turned out, was its fundamental instability. The fall in revenues from energy exports should have led - and did - to catastrophic consequences. The system, which seemed rock-solid in the early 1980s, collapsed four years after oil prices crashed in 1986. However, the Soviet leaders had the excuse that the world was not then faced with the phenomenon of fluctuations in oil prices - only their growth was known. And the economic strategy was based on the fact that energy resources can only become more expensive.

The experience of the last 25 years has made significant adjustments to the economic strategies of countries rich in fuel and energy resources. Almost all of them took the path of forming reserve funds so as not to become hostage to fluctuations in the foreign market. Russia, which went through severe macroeconomic shocks in the 1990s, became one of the pioneers in the formation of a reserve fund, which we called the stabilization fund. The presence of reserves made it possible to significantly mitigate the consequences of the global crisis, but it also had negative consequences - a serious slowdown in the structural modernization of many enterprises.

However, the macroeconomic consequences of the crisis were much more alarming. Moreover, formally everything is going very well - much better than in most developed countries. Oil and gas revenues are enough to balance the budget with a small deficit, which cannot be compared with what most G20 countries have. Government debt is low. The economy is growing at a moderate pace. Social problems are being solved and given priority attention. Economists are discussing measures that could make the economy innovative.

Of course, you can find many arguments why this time high oil prices are forever, that they have reached a “new plateau” and the demand of the “Asian tigers” will make the upward trend irreversible. On the contrary, you can frighten yourself with the fact that alternative sources of fuel (including oil) will bring down the prices of our main fossil in the foreseeable future.

But still, a cautious and balanced approach to fiscal policy is best. An approach that involves balancing the budget at a level of revenue that is historically sustainable and does not make the country dependent on factors that are beyond the control of the national government. An approach in which the calculation of budget revenues takes into account not the current (and especially not the growing) price of oil, but the average price for the previous 10 years, with possible additional revenues being allocated to the reserve (stabilization) fund. Of course, fiscal restraint is not the most popular policy. But strategically the most reliable.

Macroeconomic lessons from the past