Examination as a crime

The intolerance of the ruling circles to criticism is growing: Putin’s friends cannot be analyzed even in expert reports. This threatens to meaning the return of Alexei Kudrin to power

"Intensive therapy" for analyst

On Wednesday, it was announced to the decision of Sberbank to dismiss two analysts - Alexander Kudrin, the head of the analytical unit Sberbank CIB, and Alex Fek, one of the strongest analysts in Russian oil and gas. The head of Sberbank Herman Gref, obviously, was exhibited by the ultimatum, performing which he was forced to name the analytical publications of FEK “irresponsibility or conscious provocation”, “unprofessional actions”, “misinforming the market”.

In the May report, Gazprom, Gennady Timchenko, Arkady Rotenberg, Nikolai Shamalov, Nikolai Egorov, went at once. FEC shows that Gazprom multibillion -dollar projects for the construction of new pipelines are not increased, but destroy the cost of the company

In fact, both reports that are guilty of FEK are very good. Only one, released in November 2017 , strongly offends Igor Sechin, showing that Rosneft's activity is greatly dependent on the ambitions of its leader. The company is building investments and debts, but in a few years it will not be able to maintain production growth, FEK wrote. At the same time, the cost of barrels of production is growing, and the prospects for the gas business of Rosneft are doubtful. Rosneft then called this publication “pathology” and expressed the hope that the authors will pass “intensive therapy”. In the May report, Gazprom, Gennady Timchenko, Arkady Rotenberg, Nikolai Shamalov (who recently was a co -owner of Putin Nikolai Egorov (owned by the Courage of Siberia. Overseas pipe plant receiving a growing share of Gazprom orders). FEC shows that Gazprom multibillion -dollar projects for the construction of new pipelines are not increased, but they destroy the cost of the company and are beneficial only for Gazprom contractors. All this is not news for analysts (for example, Mikhail Krutikhin spoke about this trend in 2014). But FEC well summarized the well -known information and built models showing that Gazprom’s strange investment policy can only be assumed that the company is not in the interests of not shareholders (including the state), but by contractors. So, the “Turkish stream” will pay off 50 years, cost $ 21 billion and reduce the cost of Gazprom by $ 13 billion. A similar situation with other gas pipelines.

Exactly such an analysis should be carried out by the Accounts Chamber, headed by Alexei Kudrin. After all, the matter directly concerns the state that does not receive Gazprom dividends and supports non -calculated investments by tax benefits.

What did Kudrin come with

About a year and a half, Kudrin and the team of talented experts he collected in the CSR spent on the development of reforms, which could be implemented within the next presidential term of Putin. They acted extremely neatly, understanding the restrictions and boundaries of the possible, but at the same time realizing the challenges and facing the country. They are associated with the maximum archaicity of the state, which stubbornly holds a little growing Russian society in the dense paternalist Middle Ages.

Cart Blanche was not even given out to the modest reforms. A strong and tenacious organism will not by goodwill to deprive himself of the main source of food. And even the modest reforms-2018 threatened the Putin elite with a decrease in the "feed base"

This attempt from the very beginning seemed doomed to failure . The problem is that the entire Russian state, on top of the bottom, is focused on the extraction of rent by officials. Laws, rules, norms, development programs, official speeches, bureaucratic instructions are only a screen, a cover that allows officials and close to them to extract monopoly benefits from control over one or another area of ​​the national economy. The system works equally at all levels of power and is aimed at maximizing rent. And so that the people who are in the areas from which the rent is extracted interfere, it also implies the maximization of power - the defeat in the rights of those who are trying to resist the established order.

Therefore, the hope of Kudrin’s authority to return to them from the power bodies of Kudrin in 2011, to take a high position in the government or the presidential administration and the archaic state seemed somewhat naive. Only very strong pressure can force the state for such modernization. This is not observed now. Cart Blanche was not given out to the modest reforms to Kudrin, which should not be surprised: the strategy did not take into account the real interests and problems of the political elite. A strong and tenacious organism will not by goodwill to deprive himself of the main source of food. And even the modest reforms-2018 threatened the Putin elite with a decrease in the “fodder base.” Written by Kudrin, “business trip” to the Accounts Chamber (SP) causes a little more optimism. Here the ability to “bring benefits” is not 0%, but 5-10%. Firstly, because the joint venture does not have a mandate for significant actions. It can only analyze the effectiveness of state -owners and state politicians in different sectors, while others make decisions. The analysis is not as dangerous as actions: the dog barks, the caravan continues the way. Secondly, the imperial geopolitics trapped Russia into a trap gradually undermining the resource balance of the Putin political regime. Economic growth, in fact, has not been the tenth year. The pie intended for the section between security forces, friends-businessmen, budget industries and regional elites is gradually declining. This, together with Western sanctions, leads to an exacerbation of intra-elite competition, which is expressed in a noticeable activation of power structures, loud requests for help suffering from the geopolitics of oligarchs and an increase in the number of winding projects operating Russia's cutting from the global business world. When the pie decreases, and there are more hungry and incapable of their own forces to ensure for themselves, willy-nilly has to think about increasing the effectiveness of government departments. And then even his own will not get it.

Here Kudrin in the joint venture is very helpful. An increased “technical” first deputy prime minister Anton Siluanov will continue to stand on the budget, and Kudrin will help him with argumentation, pointing a finger at those who cannot do not know how to spend money and, accordingly, unworthy of high honor to dispose of them. Is expenditure analysis appropriate

This work can be very useful not only to Putin, but also to us. The Russian system of public administration and public participation in the budget process has to learn a lot. This requires not loud broadcasting programs such as TsSrovskaya, with many slogans, promises and proclamations, but very specific analytical work. How to fix a catastrophic situation with an interregional transport message? Are the oil tax benefits and taxation of the gas industry effective, is it not too much that the budget is losing a lot due to the ineffective policy of state -owned companies? The Putin government cannot answer such questions, climbing literally from each gap. But sooner or later, any government will have to answer them, in any weather and regardless of the political regime. Otherwise, the quality of life of fellow citizens cannot be improved.

It is impossible to answer such questions from the CSR. But the joint venture, with its gigantic analytical apparatus and access to all budget reporting, could have helped a lot. To do this, we need kind political will and several amendments to the Law on SP for the purpose of 1) strengthen the analytical role of the joint venture and reduce the “power” component in its activity; 2) allow the joint venture to carry out work on "orders" not only of the president and parliament, but also of public organizations. Now the joint venture is an avant -garde detachment of power structures. In terms of the traces of the violations it revealed, cases are initiated, and the violations themselves in the expenditure of budget funds, noted by the joint venture, are mostly bureaucratic, and not substantial: whether the purchase corresponds to the position of it, whether financing rhythmically, whether the results correspond to the planned indicators (the violation may also be that the object managed to build the estimates). There is very little substantive analysis, the main indicator is voluminous - for what amount the violations are detected.

Kudrin said that the joint venture will not focus on an anti -corruption analysis, but on the analysis of how government agencies the target indicators set in development programs. This is a good pressure tool for ministers

Often important questions are not posed. For example, analyzing the commissioning of new RusHydro capacities, SP notes a violation of the deadlines for putting objects into operation, their non -purchase, and ... the liability of the regions for the demand for energy - financing measures that will increase energy leave. But maybe new capacities were simply not needed? The joint venture does not ask this question. We need economic analysis, user surveys, anti -corruption analysis. Kudrin, however, said that the joint venture would not focus on anti -corruption analysis, but on the analysis of how state bodies are achieved by targets set in various strategies and development programs. This is a good pressure tool for ministers, but it will hardly improve the quality of public administration, since our programs and strategies themselves are formally-bureaucratic. If the joint venture really stood guard at the effectiveness of budget expenditures, her first friends would be anti -corruption investigators, including Transparency International and the FBK. After all, the most meaningless state expenses arise when the state’s activity obeys private interests - the benefits of large businessmen who have the opportunity to influence government officials . Of course, Kudrin will not allow Kudrin to these plots. But even an attempt to financial and economic analysis of the most acute problems of budget policy would already be a blessing.

However, a hysterical reaction to FEK reports shows that Kudrin will not be allowed to analyze the real efficiency of state expenses. If Putin’s friends are more impossible to scold, and the most ineffective decisions are made at the highest level, then Kudrin’s campaign in the joint venture risks being meaningless. Wet napkins are useless when it comes to clearing the Augish budget stables. Improving the efficiency of kindergartens repair is a good thing, but a model of behavior to officials and businessmen at all levels is set by the elite. And about her affairs, as FEK's example shows, it is better to speak in a whisper.