Alexander Auzan: "Pandemia Covid -19 is a globalization fee"

How does the political agenda change during the epidemic? How much money is needed to support citizens and business? What assets fall, and which, on the contrary, grow? Olga Orlova discussed these burning issues with economist Alexander Auzan in the Hamburg account program on Russian public television. We publish an edited decoding of the conversation.

Alexander Auzan - Doctor. Econ. sciences, dean of the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University MV Lomonosova, Scientific Director of the Institute of National Projects

- Alexander Alexandrovich, please tell us how does the Pandemia of Coronavirus change the current economic agenda?

- In the economic institutional theory, there is the concept of strong external shocks. And they very often changed not even the dynamics of the economy, but the type of economy and society. The connection of different nations is always paid for something. Say, the unification of peoples into the Roman Empire was paid for by Antonin's plague (II century). The Byzantine Empire, which rallied Eastern Europe, part of Africa and Asia, survived the plague to Justinian (VI century). “Black Death” (plague of the XIV century) is a fee for the creation of the Mongol Empire, which won the territory from Japan to the Adriatic Sea.

Therefore, in fact, the pandemia of coronavirus is a globalization fee. Now the governments are cutting threads between countries. Now it will be clear how much import substitution in Russia still works. I think, to a small extent. Dependence on supplies, for example, from China is very high.

In general, it seems to me that we are talking a lot about the negative consequences of such shock and forget about the positive ones.

- Are they there?

- Yes. Let us look, again, at history. Let's say an epidemic of plague of the XIV century. Europe has lost almost a third of the population, and Italy seems to have lost almost half. (History is repeated, Italy is again the most suffering country.) Many historians and economists believe that there would be no new time if there were no such blow. When it turned out that one should somehow live and restore life in a different way, new orders arose in the countries of Western Europe.

I can give another example, calculated mathematically, is the so -called small ice age, cooling in Europe and Asia in the 16th - XVII century. A couple of years ago, at the Economic Department of Moscow State University, Professor Harvard, editor -in -chief of the Economic Development magazine, Nathan Nann, made a report. Through the epidemiological studies of many generations of immigrants, he showed that the nations that suffered during the great glaciation acquired the most dynamic culture capable of changes.

I then said: “Dear professor, the only thing that pleases me in your report is that Russia was very affected by great glaciation. So, we are located to the changes. ”

Can an epidemic lead to positive consequences? Yes, maybe. In fact, it seems to me that we are already forced now, we are forced to enter the digital era. Because everyone usually speaks of falling assets: oil prices fall, weaken transport, tourism, and so on. But there are assets that grow frantically: digital services, all kinds of delivery, logistics and pharma.

Of course, we lose time, economic resources, even human lives. But I draw your attention that, with a strong blow, we also get something. Because the blow can be knocked out of the usual rut, to force to move the other way.

- Fine. This is an occasion for optimism. But still let's talk about financial losses in different countries. And it is noticeable that the governments react to them very differently.

- Please note that for so many and very different governments the epidemic turned out to be very timely. In 2019, very unpleasant issues were on the agenda. There are two of them: social inequality and climate change.

In order to do something with social inequality, you need to press your elites. In order to do something with climatic changes, you need to negotiate with the elites of other countries (India, China), make it concessions. Difficult and unpleasant questions.

And now there is a universal answer: “Sokruzhdans, an epidemic. What are you talking about? What inequality? What are the climatic changes? " And the government simply allocates certain amounts to the population.

- Can we simply give out a cache in their hands, as is done in the USA and other countries?

- We can do that too. The only question is - how much it will be possible to distribute. Of course, we are a poor country: our share in the global gross product is about 3%. This is a little.

In the crisis of 2008/2009, the Putin government went along the path of pumping demand, that is, the money was given in this case not to manufacturers, but to consumers. Then they gave money to pensioners and state employees. And it turned out an amazing thing. Despite the fact that the industry, as far as I remember, almost 9% then, the real disposable incomes of the population did not fall, but continued to grow. And Russia was quite soft from the crisis.

Will the Russian government give money to the population in one form or another? Be sure, although so far it can not decide on it. Moreover, this corresponds to the plans that were declared the president in January. Alexey Kudrin rightly called this "the most expensive presidential message." It costs from 3 to 4 trillion rubles.

- You mentioned that the government had serious problems before the epidemic. One of them is social inequality. Not so long ago, Vladimir Putin said in an interview that more than 70% of the population belongs to the middle class. And he referred to the World Bank method, where it is determined that the middle class is those who have 1.5 times more than the minimum wage. While on other expert estimates we have a serious problem in the country with the middle class: it ranges from 4% to 7% of the population. Who do you think is closer to the truth?

- I think that the middle class is a cultural phenomenon than economic. These are people who feel about the third estate in France - the new masters of life, the support of democracy, the economy, and so on. This is the phenomenon of the 20th century.

In the 1990s, a lot of new universities arose in Russia. As you know, 88% of schoolchildren began to act and receive higher education. What is higher education? From the point of view, quality is very different. But from the point of view of creating a middle class, this was a very positive process, because a person who understands that there is no need to drink a denaturated, fitness is around the corner, and besides deposits there are still bonds, this is a representative of the middle class. He has changed thinking, consumption, lifestyle.

Therefore, I believe that our middle class in a cultural sense is quite large. But at the same time he feels bad.

-So how much? 70% or 7%?

- I think, not the same. If we talk about people who adhere to a certain standard of living, pay taxes and in return expect something from the state ... I think that such people may be 30–35% in our country.

It is interesting not why the president said “70%”, and experts say “7%”. And I wonder why he suddenly spoke about the middle class. Let's get back to the agenda that arose in January, that is, even before we realized the blow of the epidemic.

In 2018, marriage between the authorities and the population again broke up. From 2000 to 2010, I would say, it was a kind of consumer contract. The authorities provide people with consumer welfare - the opportunity to buy apartments, cars, go to rest in Turkey, teach children, including for money. And the population does not object to the fact that the government itself decides on whether it needs an opposition in parliament or not needed, to appoint governors or hold elections. This marriage lasted until 2010, but then the real growth of income continued, and trust fell.

- Why?

- Citizens thought: “Well, good. We built a consumer society. Well done. Instead of a scarce economy, as in the USSR, we now have a consumer society. In general, I want something more important. ” People in the squares then demanded a strange one: "We want democratization, we want modernization."

The authorities thought and in 2014 gave its answer. And it began, I would say, the second marriage, geopolitical. The authorities said: “Do you want intangible? Is super -power satisfied? " A huge part of the population said: "Selfless." And this second marriage was arranged from 2014 to 2018 in an amazing way: the incomes of the population fell, and the support of the authorities grew. They gave more than 10% of real income, but at the same time they did not rebel, but rather. In 2018, this connection broke up.

-Again: why?

- When the economic growth has resumed (yes, very weak, since 2017 it began to resume), it turned out that this money did not reach. And this has created a situation of a social crisis. Trust fell not only due to pension reform. It began to decline earlier.

Therefore, now we are talking about how to re -build relations between the authorities and the population. From my point of view, the President’s January message is a marriage proposal on new grounds.

The president actually appeals to people who can be designated as lower class lower class or even lower, and offers them all kinds of measures. Which? Support for large families, support for the so -called tool of a social contract, that is, “we will give you money, and you, for example, learn or try to open microbusiness”, support for regional universities, employment in the region and so on, and so on. These are new programs. This is an attempt to transition to another model of justice.

- And the second party agrees to marry again?

- It is not clear.

- Alexander Alexandrovich, how do you assess the possibility of effective implementation of such a proposal from the authorities in the conditions of an exclusive legal situation for power structures? Whether we are talking about finances, investments, about the development of small business, technological business - almost all these discussions at all venues end with how the courts, legal system, and law enforcement agencies work. This is not the people who left for London, but the people who go to the Kremlin shout about this. If this is the main problem of the Russian economy, then what's the difference, what kind of proposals makes the authorities? Can she, with the current state and position of the power bloc, realize her social program?

- Maybe. In 2008/2009, during the crisis, this succeeded. Why not do this in 2020?

In general, there are two ways to interact elites and power services. Or the elites share control among themselves, let's say: you are a military-air fleet, to me-the Navy, you are the Investigative Committee, the prosecutor's office to me. Or they work collegial.

In 2009, the book “Violence and Social Order” published 1 three large scientists: the Nobel laureate in economics (Douglas North), a famous political scientist (Barry Weingast) and a brilliant historian (John Wallis). She greatly changed world economic science. Its authors showed, in particular, that to share control over law enforcement services.

Let's recall the last period of development of the USSR. After Stalin, from 1953 to 1991, the Soviet elites collectively controlled the law enforcement agencies. The Politburo exercised this control, and so harshly that the Great Marshal of Victory Zhukov was eliminated not only from the army, but in general from public life, so that one person would not affect the armed forces. Yuri Andropov, elected by the Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee, was isolated from his native KGB, could not influence his favorite organization. It was right. This could be realized. This was then expressed by the principle of "the Central Committee does not dig, the Cheka will not chip."

Now let's look at the current situation in Russia of the post -Soviet. Power services are in a situation not by administrative-political, but economic competition: they control certain resources. But at the same time, they have super -economic means and tools in order to receive rent, influence the development of certain companies, enterprises and so on. And an extremely difficult, generating huge transaction costs of competitive war of power services is formed.

Therefore, in my opinion, the common interest is to stop this situation. Perhaps Dmitry Medvedev, who perfectly understands the situation of the economic bloc and how security officials affect the economy as a whole, would be very good as a person who reorganizes this control as a deputy chairman of the Security Council.

- The restraining factor?

- Not just a restraining factor. In my opinion, a collegial body of control over all power services must be made from the Security Council. Introduce the intra -economic block, calculate the consequences of certain solutions, because they often go wild. One of the main tasks is to reach a situation of growth in trust.

Alexander Auzan
Olga Orlova talked

1 North D., Wallis D., Vyingast B. Violence and social orders. Conceptual framework for the interpretation of the written history of mankind / Per. from English. D. Uzlaner, M. Markova, D. Raskova, A. Raskova. - M.: Ed. Gaidar Institute, 2011.