Law enforcement agencies prove to be the most significant argument in the competitive struggle and carry out private orders that are not always approved even by their own leadership

At the economic forum in St. Petersburg, there were many discussions about the reasons for stagnant economic growth in Russia and the country's development prospects. But all the important news that helped to understand the reasons for the country's economic problems did not come from this event these days. Right before the forum, news came about the possible abolition of the statute of limitations for tax crimes and the right of prosecutors to make decisions on arrests without a trial. During the SPIEF, the only important news that was directly related to the forum came: the investigative authorities did not allow Michael Calvey to attend it. And the culmination of everything was the news about the arrest of Meduza journalist Ivan Golunov.

All the circumstances of Golunov's detention indicate that it is directly related to his work and that this is an attempt to silence one of the best authors working in the dying genre of investigative journalism in Russia. The connection between economic growth and media freedom does not seem obvious, but it is in our country that one can clearly see how independent media can contribute to its development.

Classic studies from the 1990s showed that one of the most important obstacles to economic growth in the country is the extremely high level of corruption, which has a negative impact on the level of investment. At the same time, scientific studies also show a clear connection between freedom of the media and the level of corruption. As is known, light is the best disinfectant. And it is free media, primarily those working in the genre of investigative journalism, that provide the necessary level of transparency, which allows, if not to eradicate corruption, then at least to keep it within reasonable limits. Thus, free and independent media are an important factor determining economic development due to their influence on the level of corruption. And any attempts to silence a specific journalist ultimately affect the development of the entire country.

At the same time, the Golunov case, like the Calvi case, revealed another important feature of the work of the law enforcement system in Russia, which allows us to understand why it is now the main obstacle to the country's development. Neither case fits into the picture where free journalism and judicial independence are sacrificed for the sake of important state interests. Moreover, both cases are clearly extremely painful for at least some representatives of the highest echelons of power.

Rather, in these cases we see that the courts and law enforcement agencies are used as tools to solve their own private problems by very specific people, completely ignoring the colossal harm that their actions cause to the entire country as a whole. In the case of Calvi, the desire to resolve a very specific commercial dispute regarding one bank results in a reduction of foreign investment in the country by billions of dollars. And in the case of Golunov, the desire of the subjects of journalistic investigations to silence a particular correspondent leads to their actions undermining trust in the entire justice system and dealing a blow to the already half-dead free journalism. At the same time, for journalists it turns out that not fitting into the concept of "state interest" is not as dangerous as stepping on the sore spot of some individual official or businessman. If in the first case, crossing another "double solid line" is more likely to result in losing your job and being forced out of the profession, then in the second case it can result in drugs being planted on you and be truly life-threatening.

An acceptable situation would be when there are clear and understandable, although perhaps not always fair, rules of the game, where state interests are above private ones. But in practice, we see that law enforcement agencies simply prove to be the most significant argument in the competitive struggle and carry out private orders that are not always approved even by their own superiors. Uncontrolled use of law enforcement resources significantly increases uncertainty in the system, completely undermines trust in the state and brings the risks of doing business in the country to a prohibitively high level.

So, one piece of advice can be given to the organizers of the SPIEF for the future: if they want it to have a meaningful discussion about the prospects for economic growth, they need to invite the heads of the power ministries and departments, which in reality determine the investment climate in the country. In the current situation, the economic bloc, the heads of the Bank of Russia and the Accounts Chamber often have to play supporting roles, themselves acting as critics of the power structures. But for now, they can save on tickets for representatives of the judicial corps. A completely subordinate position makes them not even supporting actors, but rather participants in the crowd.

The author is the rector of the Russian School of Economics

Fighting Stagnation with Force