Such a shift resulted from reduction in the total structure of federal share holding (interest holding), both full share holding (100% participatory interest) from 62.2% to 57.4% and majority share holding (more than 50%, but less than 100% of equity) from 4.6% to 4%. Blocking share holding (from 25 to 50% of equity) decreased much more (more than 1.5 percentage points (p. p.)), whereas minority share holding (up to 25% of equity) increased considerably (less than 22% to 29%) through the increase (less than 13% to 20%) in the smallest share holding (less than 2% of equity). A special emphasis should be placed on the doubled growth in the latter category of federal share holding (interest holding) vs. the pre-crisis period, while only full share holding (interest holding) saw a small increase of only 3.3 p.p. among other categories.
In the period between 2008 and 2011, the absolute number of majority, blocking share holding (interest holding) decreased by almost 60% as well as the share holding (interest holding) accounting for 2% to 25% of equity. Full share holding decreased by much less (less than 19%). The same trends were reported in 2011. However, the number of the smallest share holding (interest holding) increased 1.6 times vs. as of the beginning of 2008, 1.5 times in 2011, while their number was getting smaller in 2009 – 2010 after a rapid growth in 2008.
The upward trend for the minority share holding, especially the smallest share holding during and after the economic crisis is questionable. Its negative nature is quite obvious, because Considering only business entities with a state-held interest (exclusive of JSCs which are subject to the “golden share”), the given value was reached as early as the beginning of 2010.
Section Institutional Issues the size of such share holding gives no opportunity to the state to either sell at best or provide sufficient control over business entities.
Regarding trends in the structure of the whole body of property assets registered with the federal property registry (according to the data provided by the CFPAS), they can be seen through the data provided in Tables 3 and 4.
Table Dynamics and structure by type of the federal property assets registered with the federal property registry, in 2008 – Total quantity of immov- by type As of De- able and movable prop- immovable property assets land plots movable property assets cember 31 erty assets, total (save for land plots) q. % q. % q. % q. % 2008 14096 100.0 7538 53.5 1517 10.75 5041 35.2009 1193201 100.0 600842 50.35 116274 9.75 476085 39.2010 1552121 100.0 718114 46.3 165281 10.6 668726 43.2011 1367975 100.0 800143 58.5 192825 14.1 375007 27.Source: the data provided by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russia on the basis of the federal property register, IET’s estimates.
It should be reminded that paper inventory of the federal property assets registered with the state federal property database as of the effective date of Russian Government Order No. 447, dd. July 16, 2007 was completed by the beginning of the summer of 2010. This hard work on converting the relevant data into e-format by entering thereof to the Computerized Federal Property Accounting System in 2010 – 2011 allowed the paper data to be covered almost in full with the relevant e-data (Table 1).
As of 2011 year-end, immovable property assets (58.5%) dominated in the structure of federal property, which was also typical of the previous periods (except as of the end of 2010).
The category of movable property assets was ranked #2. These items decreased from 43.1% to 27.4% during the year, mostly because in April thru May 2011 movable property assets with a value of less than Rb 500,0001 were withdrawn step by step from the CFPAS. Land plots account for a total of about 14% of federal property assets, but this has been the max.
value over the recent few years. It should also be noted in this context that the area of federally owned land plots has increased more than 1.7 times to reach 1,007,938,198 ha over the recent eighteen months, as based on the data provided by the Federal Agency for State Property Management2. Such a growth could result from intensified delimitation of public ownership of land by level of public authority and state registration of the Russian Federation ownership of land plots.
A major part (more than 2/3 as of 2011 year-end) of the federal property assets are secured for titleholders on the basis of operational management basically applicable to government agencies. The process of reducing the number of unitary enterprises is also reflected in the structure of federal property, where a pronounced reduction trend in the property assets secured on the basis of economic management, however, in 2011 it remained almost at the level reported in the previous year (nearly 18% vs. more than 24% as of 2008 year-end). Further The foregoing movable property assets were excluded because Order No. 47 issued by the Government of Russia on February 4, 2011 entered into force, under which the minimum initial value of movable property assets regarded as stand-alone property was to be increased from Rb 200,000 to Rb 500,000.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks more, a share of federal treasury items increased slightly (about 15% vs. 11 to 12% in 2009 – 2010) in the previous year.
Table Dynamics and structure of the federal property assets registered with registry by category of titleholders, in the period between 2008 and Total quantity of Total By category of property right quantity of immovable secured for titleholders on secured for titleholders on constituting a state treasAs of Deand movable property the basis of economic the basis of operational ury of the Russian Federacember assets, total management management tion * q. % q. % q. % q. % 2008 14096 100.0 3418 24.2 8202 58.2 2476 17.2009 1193201 100.0 226818 19.0 827234 69.3 139149 11.2010 1552121 100.0 279402 18.0 1096547 70.6 176172 11.2011 1367975 100.0 245060 17.9 921252 67.35 201663 14.* – net of business entities’ share holding (interest, deposits).
Source: the data provided by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russia on the basis of the federal property register, IET’s estimates.
According to the Rosstat’s public sector composition monitoring, the quantity dynamics of public sector economic agents in the period between the mid-2010 and mid-2011 can depicted as follows (Table 5).
Table The number of public sector organizations registered with territorial offices of the Federal Agency for State Property Management and government bodies for management of state-owned property of the constituent territories of the Russian Federation in the period between 2009 and Business entities with more than SUEs, includ- a 50% Date Total* ing state-run Government agencies share (interest) held by state-held share (inenterprises public sector business terest) entities as of July 1, 2009* 77082** 8706 63019 4007 as of January 1, 2010* 76658** 8122 63087 4089 as of July 1, 2010* 74867** 7230 61493 3915 as of January 1, 2011* 73498** 6761 60266 4051 as of July 1, 2011* 72047** 6245 59483 3928 * – federal property is subject to accounting pursuant to Russian Government Order No. 447, dd. July 16, 2007, “On the Enhancement of Federal Property Accounting”;
** – including organizations whose state registered articles of association registered contains no specific types, but excluding joint stock companies with more than 50% shares (interest) held on the basis of joint state and foreign ownership.
Source: On the development of the public economic sector of the Russian Federation in H1 2009 (p. 7), in (p. 7), in the first half of 2010 (p. 7), in 2010 (p. 7), in the first half of 2011 (p. 7). М., Rosstat, 2009 – 2011, IET’s estimates.
As is seen from Table 5, the total number public sector organizations decreased 6.5% over the two years (from July 1, 2009 till July 1, 2011) (or more than 5,000) to amount to about 72,000 as of July 1, 2011.
The result was achieved basically through a decrease of 28.3% (or almost 2,500) in the number of unitary enterprises. Though the number of agencies deceased much less (5.6%), it was more impressive in absolute value (3,500). The number of business entities with more than 50% state-held interest decreased even less, only 2% (or about 80) July 1, 2011. In this respect, the number of business entities with more than 50% interest held by public sector Section Institutional Issues business entities, increased more than 1.7 times. Their number grew up more than 1040 to reach almost 2,400 as of July 1, 2011, i.e. the historic maximum throughout the entire 2000s.
Within a period of one year, between the mid-2010 and mid-2011, the total number of public sector organizations decreased by 3.8% (or more than 2,800 entities) basically due to a reduction of 13.6% (or almost 1,000) in the number of unitary enterprises. Though the number of agencies deceased much less, only 3.3%, its absolute value was found to be twice as much as that of unitary enterprises (2,000).
At the same time, the number of business entities with more than 50% state-held interest remained almost at the previous level (3,900 entities). In this context, however, it should be emphasized that the number of business entities with more than 50% interest held by public sector business entities increased (up 7.3%). They grew up more than 160.
The crisis of 2008 – 2009 raised a question of how they effected the state as manufacturer of (works, services) in the economy. The Rosstat’s monitoring only partially supports the view of growing state participation in different final figures of economic performance (Table 6).
Table Public sector’s share according to various indicators in the period between 2008 and 2011, % Indicator 2008 2009 2010 H1 Volume of shipped goods produced by the company, completed works and services w/o subcontracting :
- mineral recourses production 13.5 11.5 9.8 17.- fuel and energy recourses production 13.2 11.1 9.0 17.- manufacturing sector 8.5 9.5 8.7 9.- production and distribution of electric power, gas, and water 13.0 14.0 17.8 22.Scope of construction works performed w\o subcontracting 3.6 3.8 4.1 4.Passenger turnover at transportation companies * 63.9 63.2 56.1 66.Volume of commercial transportation (dispatch) of cargos by transportation companies 71.1 76.6 78.4 78.(net of companies involved in pipeline transportation) Commercial cargo turnover performed by transportation companies (net of companies 94.3 93.8 93.6 93.involved in pipeline transportation) Communication services ** 9.9 13.9 15.2 14.In-house research and development costs 72.6 74.4 73.4 73.Volume of paid services rendered to the general public 16.3 16.5 18.9 18.Capital investments from all sources of financing *** 21.5/ 22.8/ 24.5/ 26.0/ 15.9 17.1 17.8 19.Net proceeds from sales of goods, works, services (net of VAT, excise taxes and other 9.8 10.6 18.9 11.similar mandatory payments) Average staffing number 24.0 24.6 24.9 25.* – save for municipal electric passenger transport organizations;
** – net revenues from sale of goods, products, works, services (net of VAT, excises and other mandatory payments);
*** – in the numerator, net of small enterprises and volume of investments which can’t be observed through direct statistical methods.
Source: On the development of the public economic sector of the Russian Federation in 2008 (с. 13, 43, 4546,47, 53, 61-62, 63, 67-68, 88), in 2009 (с. 13, 45, 47-48, 49, 52, 60-61, 62, 66-67, 87), in 2010 (с. 13, 46, 4849, 50, 53, 61-62, 63, 67-68, 88), in the first half of 2011 (с. 13, 33, 35-36, 37, 40, 43-44, 45, 49-50, 70). М., Goskomstat of Russia (Rosstat), 2009-2011, IET’s estimates.
However, as it can be seen from Table 6, in 2010 and H1 2011, However, as it can be seen from Table 3, in 2009 and H1 2010, like throughout the entire period of 2000’, that the public sector had an insignificant share in most indicators (no more than 10–15%), with a slightly bigger share in the field of investments (more than 15–25%) and employment (24–25%), RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks whereas only cargo transportation (more than 60–90%, depending on an indicator) and internal research and development costs (more than 70%) remained significant exceptions.
However, official statistics reported a small decrease in 2010–2011 vs. 2008 in the public sector’s participation share in the field of production and distribution of electric power, gas and water, communication services, capital investments, paid services to the general public, and such a generalized financial indicator as net proceeds from sales of goods, works, services (net of VAT, excises and other mandatory payments) 1.
A substantial increase of up to 17% in the first half of 2011 vs. 11 to 13% in the period between 2008 and 2009 in the public sector’s participation share in mineral production (including fuel and power minerals) should be noted. The same is true with generation and distribution of electric power, gas and water, where at the end of H1 2011 the public sector reached 22.5% (against 13 to 14% in the period between 2008 and 2009), and passenger traffic of transportation organizations in which public sector’s share increased again after a visible fall in 2010, thus exceeding 2/3 of the total volume vs. 63 to 64% in the period between 2008 and 2009.
A closer look at the situation reveals that at year-end 2010 the public sector was dominating in some of the industries, namely railway cargo shipment and passenger transportation, forest regeneration, production of sodium carbonate, externally powered broadcasting radio receivers, helicopters. In most other cases the public sector accounted for less than 20%, save for production of ethyl alcohol made of food raw material, wooden unimpregnated railway and tramway sleepers, cargo mainline cars, production of electric power at hydroelectric power stations, passenger automobile transportation service, all types of paid services, where the public sector accounted for less than a half anyway. An increase, up to 21.8% vs. 15.9% at 2010 year-end, in the public sector’s participation share in oil production, including gas condensate, should be noted among the changes highlighted in the first half of 2011.
It should be noted, however, that the foregoing data should rather be regarded as minimal given the complexity of measuring the public sector’s share for the following reasons:
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.