“Until property is not protected in Russia, there can be no growth.” Economist Oleg Itskhoki - in the project "Russian norms!"

The new hero of the project "Russian norms!" -Professor of the Economics of the University of California at Los Angeles Oleg Itskhoki. In an interview with Elizabeth Ossetian, he told how he built his career at American universities, and explained what kind of capitalism Russia needs.

- You graduated from the Economic Facility of Moscow State University. How did you get to America after that?

- The easiest way to get to PhD in America from Europe is to graduate from the Russian Economic School. All over the world they know: if a person got into the top 10 Resh, it can be taken on phd. In recent years, a huge community of strong Resh graduates has been formed, who have become professors in almost all universities. People go there to study science.

- And you wanted to engage in science from the very beginning?

- No. For me it was like weakly. Can you go to Rash? I tried. The only time I gave a bribe in Russia - so that I was released from the military department to pass the exam in RASH.

- A big bribe?

- Big, yes. And it was the most difficult. The exams themselves were relatively simple: mathematics, English and economics. When I studied at a rash, they told me: “Listen, you study well. Do you want to try to enter the phd? " And once in two weeks I prepared for TOEFL and GRE (TOEFL-a test for knowledge of the English language; Graduate Record Examinations-a test for admission to graduate school in US universities.-Approx. The Bell). I received some minimum points. In mathematics, a simple exam, I passed it for a full score. When a letter came from Princeton that they took me on PhD, it was a complete surprise. I was sure that they would not take me anywhere with such estimates. I told my girlfriend Albine, who later became my wife.

- And what did Albina say?

- She said: "What are you stupefied, where are you going at all now?" Then the answers came from Stanford, Harvard, Mit - they took me everywhere. I chose Harvard in the end. I was not sure that I wanted to become a scientist, but I thought that the phd in Harvard was good in any case.

- And what, sucked?

- Yes. At some point, somewhere in the third year you begin to engage in science in fact. From the category of students you go to graduate students who are really engaged in science.

- And what is difficult in this? To come up with a topic?

- One thing is to come up with a topic. Another is to bring it to the end. Third - when you are constantly criticized. Many people do not like this. Your article is like a child to you, you worked on it for several years. And they tell you in direct text that it is bad. Sometimes it is very painful.

- After the PhD in Harvard, you changed several universities, went through all the most cool ones.

- Not quite so. I have been a professor in Princeton for 11 years. In our profession, every few years you can take a sabbatic - year of vacation. Princeton continued to pay me a salary, but I could go to any university. First we went to Chicago University. This is one of the cult and famous universities.

“Why in Stanford?”

- We wanted to go to California to the second sabbatic - try to live. Now I moved from Princeton to UCLA, a large state university. There is a strong difference between private [universities] and state.

- Why did you move to the state?

- Albina and I, with my wife, made such a decision in our common interests.

- Albina does Netflix work?

- She works in Netflix, in Hollywood. She always dreamed of working in Hollywood.

- That is, UCLA is partly a compromise decision related to the family?

- We both wanted to move to California and live here. When Albina had this work, the question did not even stand. From the point of view of my career, there are practically no losses. And for her career it is very important.

- What were your most important articles about?

- I was very lucky that I started working on two topics, which eventually became very popular. Already at the PhD, we began to work with the [Israeli economist] Elhanan Helpman on the globalization of inequality. And the second topic is the role of the dollar in the world economy. Why is the dollar used in international trade. For some reason, when Japan is trading with Australia, they are prescribed for their goods in dollars.

- And why?

- There are two main factors. The first is with whom you are competing. If the Japanese manufacturer competes in the Australian market with an American or Chinese company that set prices in dollars, he cannot deviate much from competitors' prices. The second factor is complex production chains that are not completely in one country. If the production chains at different stages use the dollar, it makes sense to sell the final product in dollars.

- A few years ago, Dmitry Medvedev proposed nominating the prices of Russian oil in rubles.

- In theory, there is nothing strange in this. If the country specializes in oil production, its currency well reflects oil demand. But it turns out that a number of currencies are not used at all in world trade. The ruble is such a currency. There are different reasons. One of them is macroeconomic uncertainty. The point is not that the currency is devaluable. In 2014 there was a great devaluation. Prior to this, there were no devaluation for 14 years, the course was very stable, but at the same time everyone implied that there was a probability of devaluation.

- Let's talk about international trade. This statement is often found: globalization causes damage to people because migrants come, eat our bread ...

- Globalization has several components. One of them is international trade. The second is migration.

- Both migration and international trade. What do government usually do when imported goods are replaced by local ones? Establish protectionist measures. Do not let Italian sausage into Russia - its own sausage grows.

- This idea is really traditionally popular. From the point of view of economic theory, this is a false idea. We can prove that all countries benefit from trade. One of the deepest ideas in the economy is the idea of ​​a comparative advantage. So that we have the opportunity to trade, it is enough for me to do one thing relatively better than you. Then each of us will specialize in what he does relatively better. And then there is a win from trade.

- Wins for whom: for specific people - or for someone who sells?

- For the country as a whole. But, as a rule, there is a conflict. Someone wins from trade, and someone loses. The overall gain is quite large. If we shared, we would have won everything. But we do not have a way to share effectively, taking from those who win a lot, and conveying to those who lose. This is ineffective taxation. If you earn an additional dollar, you must give 30 cents from it. This distorts the incentives to do the right things. An effective tax system would guarantee that each person benefits from trade.

But it is important to understand that international trade is a relatively small part of the changes that are happening now. Another important thing is the appearance of robots, automation of production. This releases a huge number of people who have nothing to do. The biggest change that we all expect is a machine that will drive itself. In America, 3 million people drive a car professionally. One simple technological change can take their jobs.

- From the point of view of the economy, as a government should solve this problem? Technical progress is great. But in a specific life of a particular person, there is a problem here and now.

- Yes, absolutely. There are two things: a more effective system of taxation and compensation to people who have lost their jobs. And you need to help people re -qualify. The state should simplify the transition of employees from one industry to another. For example, teach people to work with a computer. Another thing is incentives for movement in space from some regions to others. In some regions, the economy can stagnate, in others it can grow.

- How do you feel about the idea of ​​unconditional basic income?

- This is a very interesting idea that we will return to if over time there are more and more production automation. You can imagine a future society where each person from birth is given the opportunity to get a piece of capital that the economy uses.

- Does this do not breed irresponsibility and laziness?

- This is an important question to which there is no answer. How important is a person to work for the quality of life? The fact that you work is an important component of the quality of life? Maybe you need to not just give people money, but subsidize their work. Give money for working.

- There is an opinion: globalization was accompanied by a gigantic growth of inequality. There are conditions that are simply difficult to realize with the brain. Do I need to deal with this? I think what is needed. What do you think?

- It is important to make a remark. You say correctly that now we are in the period of the highest inequality, we now returned to the level of inequality of a hundred years ago. But when we are talking about high inequality, it is inequality within the countries. At the same time, the inequality in the world falls very much, because developing countries catch up with developed ones. If you take two random people from different countries, the inequality between them is now significantly less. And this is much more important from the point of view of humanitarian trends.

- What to do with inequality? And do I need to do something with him?

- This is a moral question. As an economist, I can give answers to questions about economic efficiency: how to organize a system so that it works effectively. It is much more difficult to answer the question of what is fair. The economy does not give an answer. She is about economic efficiency. She can give you a set of choice. Here everyone will be a little richer, but there will be more inequality. And here everyone will be slightly poorer, but there will be more equality. And the choice is so arranged.

For example, there is America. There is a huge inequality: on the one hand, a large number of poor suburbs, on the other - Silicon Valley. And there is Sweden or Norway. There is a wide structure of the middle class, high taxes and much lower incentives to create new ideas. A person should be able to choose which society he wants to live in.

-Given the unprecedented level of inequality and a strong polarization, what do you think about the possibility of some revolutionary, protest situations?

- This is exactly what great inequality leads to. And in our models it is clear that there are limits of inequality, that political balance can be destroyed. When the economy grows, inequality grows, there comes a time when the continuation of the regime is no longer guaranteed. In practice, it can be a revolution or explosion of left activity. But there is another side of the issue. High inequality means that part of the population will not receive a good education. And this also becomes ballast for economic growth.

- Listen, I will be heited once again, but I will say that in this sense Russia is just a tax paradise. There is a tax for entrepreneurs at 7%, there is a tax on self -employed in 4%.

- Of course, yes. This is the right structure for a catch -up country. This means that the redistribution system is much less. The state should be much more in countries that are already developed and grow slower. To grow faster, it is necessary to make the states less, taxes were less. But this is one thing. How many entrepreneurs in Russia are in prison or pre -trial detention center?

“I don’t know for sure, but I think that 200 thousand.”

- And what is it when you took your business? This is a 100%tax. For Russia, it is much more important not formal taxes, but informal, when epidemic control comes to you and says how much you need to pay to continue to work. Growth in Russia will occur when many people will make their private small enterprises. This will be the main source of growth. But in order to do this, they must be protected and have low taxes.

- Is it possible to activate the economy without these fundamental changes?

- Russia has an important advantage - a highly educated population. This is a tremendous advantage. At the same time, there are no most basic institutions that contribute to economic growth. We need real capitalism with one hundred percent protection of property rights. If this is not, there can be no height.

We are observing rapid economic growth in undemocratic countries, for example, in China. But China made a hypercapitalist economy, where economic growth is encouraged at the local level; Politors at the local level are encouraged by the pace of economic growth that they have achieved.

You can see what happened in South Korea. It was a completely non -democratic country 40 years ago. She was capitalist, but not democratic. There were authoritarian leaders, but they supported capitalism and created institutions that contributed to rapid economic growth. People became richer, they demanded democratic reforms and simply went out into the street and kicked their president.

-If there were conditions for your arrival in Russia, would you see yourself, for example, as some kind of economic adviser?

- Yes, of course. And for every scientist-economist, an applied economist, this is very interesting. I would have tried with great pleasure.

- And there are ideas, what would you do?

- When we talk about Russia, everything rests on banality. We need a judicial system - nothing can be done without it. We need a system for protecting rights and property.

After that, it seems to me that the main problem of the Russian economy is monopolization. There is very little competition in the economy. There are these huge state corporations that occupy a huge part of the economy. The costs of entering the markets are very high. You need some special resource of proximity to the state or proximity to some officials to be a successful entrepreneur. All this must be removed first. This would be the main economic reform.

You need to make a very simple entrance for new businesses, in every possible way to stimulate them. Let small businesses do not make a huge contribution to GDP, but they make a great contribution to employment. This is a way to get good salaries. This is a method for a sufficiently rapid growth of the middle class. And the growth of the middle class stimulates the demand for other goods and services, which gives rise to economic growth.

- Is it good for the country a weak currency or a strong currency?

- For the consumer, it is good strong. For strong currency you can buy a lot of goods abroad. For economic growth, it is good to have low costs - so that firms create new jobs. It is good when they can hire employees with low salaries and sell goods abroad at high prices. When you have any production, you need to buy cars. What is the share of these machines in Russia, which is bought in Germany? A strong ruble would be good because you could buy a lot of these cars. On the other hand, if the ruble is weak, this gives an incentive to produce the same cars inside the country.

There are two types of growth. There is Export Led Growth - when you focus on export. Or when you replace imports, you build some things in your country. The problem is that in the modern world it is very difficult to have the entire production chain in one country. As a rule, in complex production chains it is necessary to integrate and produce some part of them. To do this, you must produce something relatively inexpensive. But in order to produce, you need to buy foreign goods and make investments, for this you need a stronger ruble.

At each stage of development, we can say that it is a priority. But it is very difficult for the state to create such a model and calculate the optimal ruble course. It is much easier to say that we have priority development industries that we will subsidize.

- Will we see the previous oil prices: $ 100 per barrel and more?

- It is difficult to predict. It depends on how quickly China and oil demand in China will grow, how quickly alternative technologies will improve. It can be expected for a long time that prices will not be higher than $ 80, because there is shale oil with a cost of about $ 80. And even if demand grows tremendously, it will be satisfied by entering additional power using new production technologies. Apparently, we live in a period of oil prices below $ 80.

- I think that the period of cheap oil may coincide with the time when the current Russian political regime will no longer be so strong. And this is what in the late 1980s caused perestroika.

- Yes, it seems that this is a very real scenario. A long period of low oil prices can lead to a change in the political regime in Russia. Perhaps this will be a fairly large economic crisis that the current state will not be able to survive. But at the same time, it must be understood that Russia has been growing by 1% over the past ten years. For a country that should rapidly catch up and develop, this is actually stagnation. So it’s not so important how much oil costs. We do not expect high economic growth from this regime. And this is a more important signal. Russia is so quickly losing its role in the world economy that ten more years of such slow economic growth will be very difficult to catch up.

— Цена каждого следующего десятилетия гораздо выше, чем предыдущего?

— Наверстывать это отставание будет все сложнее и сложнее. России надо встраивать себя в цепочки добавленной стоимости. Сейчас это сделать относительно легко. Но если такой же экономический рост будет еще десять лет, многие возможности будут упущены, технологии уйдут далеко вперед.

Мы можем сравнить Россию со странами Восточной Европы: Польшей, Венгрией. Там не было взрывного экономического роста, но было поступательное экономическое развитие. Они постепенно втягивались в институциональную экономическую европейскую среду, стали частью Европы — и институционально, и экономически. Они живут не так богато, как люди живут в Москве, потому что у них нет этих природных ресурсов. Но это такое поступательное планомерное экономическое развитие, его результаты будут гораздо более устойчивы в долгосрочном периоде.

— То есть в 2030-х они будут более богатыми?

— В среднем — безусловно. Они и так в среднем богаче.

— Пандемия, кажется, ухудшила все, о чем мы говорили.

- Yes. Это самый большой шок. Интересно, что он не экономический, но на экономику влияет очень сильно.

— Тебе не кажется, что все правительства несколько перестарались с ограничениями, касающимися бизнеса? И этот осиновый кол в бизнес вбивался напрасно.

- Absolutely. Было несколько провалов. В Китае этот вирус появился, грубо говоря, в ноябре 2019 года. Что это серьезная проблема, стало известно в январе. И уже было понятно, что эпидемия перейдет в разные страны. Был буфер в два месяца, когда можно было серьезно к этому подготовиться. Но как в Европе, так и в Америке эти два месяца были потрачены бездарно. Не было произведено простейшего оборудования защиты для работников, каких-то простейших масок, перчаток.

— Что ты думаешь про экономический рост 2021 года? В какой степени он все еще зависит от пандемии?

— Это будет год восстановления. Потребуется довольно много времени, чтобы всех вакцинировать. Никто не рассчитывает, что до лета 2021 года мы будем вести ту же жизнь, что до пандемии. На пике безработица в Америке была 15%, сейчас она опустилась до 8%. Это было очень быстрое восстановление. Дальше — ключевой вопрос: как будет падать безработица с этих 8% до традиционных для американской экономики 4–5%? The answer is not obvious. Часть рабочих мест, возможно, просто пропадет, и люди будут долгосрочно безработными.

— А в какие сферы люди могут не вернуться?

— Сфера услуг. Все, что связано с путешествиями, туризмом, развлечениями, ресторанами, барами, развлечениями спортивными, культурными мероприятиями. Какое-то количество бизнесов просто не вернутся. И вопрос в том, найдут ли люди, которые раньше работали в этих бизнесах, себе занятость в других, роль которых увеличилась. Например, очень сильно выросла роль доставки, дистанционных услуг, многие из которых по-прежнему требуют большого количества людей. Возможно, количество рабочих мест будет сравнимое.

— Есть мнение (не знаю, насколько оно обоснованно), что дистанционное образование и в школе, и в высшей школе не так эффективно, как очное. Is that so?

- Certainly. Большая часть того, чему дети учатся, происходит из их прямого общения. Они учатся общаться в школах — со своими одноклассниками и преподавателями. Это гораздо важнее на ранних этапах, чем то, чему их учат. Считать или писать можно научиться дистанционно. А набрать социальные навыки — этому пока у нас нет замены.

— А высшее образование уже не предполагает освоения социальных навыков?

- Yes. На уровне лекций студентам на PhD практически ничего не теряется. Когда я преподаю через Zoom, эффективность — 85–90%.

— Ты веришь, что после пандемии роль дистанционного образования возрастет?

— Это произойдет, я думаю. Но образование изменится и в другом плане. В элитные топ-университеты могут попасть не все студенты. На эти университеты спрос будет оставаться колоссальным. И возникнет вопрос, что лучше — послушать онлайн-курсы профессора из Чикаго или Стэнфорда или пойти в коммьюнити-колледж. The answer is not obvious. Возможно, какая-то часть образования в более низком сегменте будет заменена дистанционным образованием топ-университетов.