WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 12 |
INSTITUTE FOR THE ECONOMY IN TRANSITION RUSSIAN ECONOMY: TRENDS AND PERSPECTIVES June 2007 MONTHLY BULLETIN Moscow 2007 Institute for the Economy in Transition, 1996.

5 Gazetny pereulok, Moscow 103918, Russian Federation Phone: (495) 203-88-16 Fax: (495) 202-42-24 E- Mail: todorov@iet.ru 1 UT June of 2007: political and economic outcomesUT................................................................................................3 UT Budgetary and Tax PolicyUT..................................................................................................................................6 UT Monetary and Credit PolicyUT.............................................................................................................................10 UT Financial MarketsUT.............................................................................................................................................13 UT Real Economy Sector: Trends and FactorsUT......................................................................................................21 UT Investments in the Real Sector of the EconomyUT..............................................................................................24 UT Foreign Investments in Russian EconomyUT.......................................................................................................28 UT Foreign TradeUT...................................................................................................................................................32 UT Business and Education: New Opportunities for InteractionUT...........................................................................35 UT On Financing of Preventive Measures and Fight against HIV/AIDS in Russia in 20062007UT......................37 UT The public sector of the Russian economy in 2005 through 2007: the dynamics of quantitative characteristics and trends of developmentUT.......................................................................................................UT Issues, Discussed at the Meeting of the Government of the Russian Federation held on 7, 14 and 21 June 2007UT.................................................................................................................................................................UT A review of budget legislation introduced in June of 2007UT............................................................................. June of 2007: political and economic outcomes In June, there became noticeable an increased, and not without reason, interest to the person of S. Ivanov, the first Vice Prime Minister. He compelled attention at the St. Petersburg economic forum, which Mr.

Ivanov opened. At the forum S. Ivanov met with some representatives of the pro-Kremlin youth organizations (about six months ago, D. Medvedev already met representatives of the same organization, no other official bureaucrats have had official meetings with pro-Kremlin youth groupsTF F) and once again presented P TP his ideas concerning the sovereign democracy, the present regime in Russia and its evolution. According to the thoughts made public by S. Ivanov, the states, where the people independently determine their own fate, could be counted on the fingers of one hand. According to Mr. Ivanov, the criteria of democracy are very simple: at least four and not two political parties should be represented at the Parliament, whereas the President should be elected by the people and not by special electors (i. e., according to S. Ivanov, there is no democracy in the United States). Mr. Ivanov demonstrated his liberalism by criticizing the youth organization Nashi (Ours) for the infringement on the provisions of the Vienna Convention during the anti-Estonian actions, as well as advocating the right of the opposition to have mass actions. Just a month ago, the same liberalism was demonstrated by Mr. Putin under the public pressure on the part of the European Union at the summit held in Samara. In June, the authorities also refrained from the measures aimed at the prevention of the Moscow Dissenters' March; however, the authorities could at the same time partially satisfy the demands of the dissenters (they could defend their right to hold demonstrations, which the authorities had in fact prohibited) and upset their plans (it was permitted that only 1 to 2 thousand people could take part in the meeting held in Moscow, what, apparently, had no relation to mass protests and could not help the opposition to demonstrate its strength).

However, even more interesting development was observed in June there appeared the information, which was not refuted by anyone, that there existed a high probability that S. Ivanov was going to officially lead the party list of the United Russia. In the case it really happens, the use of the model, in the framework of which only one candidate should be nominated as the successor trusted with the whole administrative vertical, including the United Russia party already appointed as the winner of the Parliamentary elections (it should be noted that in such a case the election results of this political party headed by the candidate for the role of the successor may be better than otherwise, and, on the contrary, high election results achieved by the United Russia political party may be used for substantiation of the nomination of the candidate heading its party list as the successor) becomes very probable.

From our point of view, it is too early to assert the leading positions of S. Ivanov in the successors race. First, the next day after the information on the potential leading position of Mr. Ivanov on the United Russia party list was made public, I. Shuvalov, a V. Putins aide, made a detailed statement to the effect that some third person, the name of which V. Putin kept yet in secret, and neither S. Ivanov, nor D. Medvedev could be nominated as the successor. Soon after that, S. Naryshkin, the chief of the RF Government staff and a Vice Prime Minister, presented his rather interested report, which many observers assessed as a political statement, at the conference organized by the investment bank Renaissance Capital. Second, publications based on the information received from sources at the Kremlin, remind rather of not the information on already predetermined developments, but of a PR campaign in support of a certain scenario addressed, as it may be the case, not only to S. Ivanov himself, but the leadership of the United Russia political party and, possibly, even V. Putin. It should be noted that not a single most important decision on appointments and resignation of officials taken over the last few years (resignations of M. Kasyanov and V. Ustinov, the Caucasus exile of D. Kozak, appointments of D. Medvedev, S. Ivanov and S. Sobyanin) has demonstrated any leaks of information and may be rather defined as special operations.

As yet, it may be reliably asserted only that the idea to nominate Mr. Ivanov as the leading figure of the United Russia political party list has been supported by V. Surkov, the head of administration of V. Putin.

However, it is highly questionable if he is able to persuade others. The scenario, in the framework of which there should be nominated a strong successor with no other alternatives (among the members of the V.

Putins team), and who should directly inherit the United Russia political party has, no doubt, at least the advantage concerning the controllability of the situation; however, the one but very important minus of such a decision is the level of risks related to the possibility that such a successor may take independent and wrong decisions, which can not be countermanded.

PT TP A couple of years ago A. Fursenko, the RF Minister of Education and Science had such a meeting; however, apparently that meeting was not related to his Presidential ambitions.

In the sphere of the economy, in June there were observed two events concerning in particular the foreign investors operating in Russia.

First, there was settled the issue of the Kovykta gas condensate field situated in the Irkutsk oblast, one of the largest deposits of this kind in the world. The open joint stock company Russia Petroleum is the operator of this project, whereas TNK BP has the controlling interest in this gas field. Since long, Gazprom has been interested in the acquisition of a block of shares in the project and therefore set absolutely impractical terms of access to its pipelines at the same time prohibiting the company to build its own pipelines. Last year, in order to soften the positions taken by the shareholders in the Kovykta project, similarly to the Sakhalin 2 scenario the RF Ministry of Natural Resources (Minprirody) and the RF Federal Agency for Subsoil Use (Rosnedra) threatened to recall the license and even held the respective meeting of the commission;

however, the minutes of this meeting had not been made available to the public. As a result, Gazprom, BP and the TNK BP have reached an agreement to the effect that the Russian British company should sell all its share in the Russia Petroleum to the natural gas monopoly within 90 days. In order to make apparent the role the Russias authorities played in this story and the guarantees of approval of the transaction, the agreement was signed in the Kremlin in the presence of D. Medvedev, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gazprom and the first Vice Prime Minister of the RF Government. It should be reminded that the preceding forced sale of shares in the Sakhalin 2 project was also signed in the Kremlin in the presence of V. Putin.

The preliminary agreement envisaged that the amount of transaction should make from US $ 600 million to US $ 800 million, at the same time, the TNK BP company should be granted the right to repurchase 25 per cent plus one share in the project on condition it creates a certain joint venture with Gazprom, the assets of which should make not less than US $ 3 billion. Not surprisingly, now it will turn out that the failure to comply with the terms of the license does not matter much after all (similarly to the existence of the unjust agreements on production sharing if the beneficiary is right), the gas extracted at the field is not needed to meet the demand on the Russian domestic market, and it is not necessary to delay the development of this gas field until 2017, as it has been proclaimed earlier by Gazprom officials. It should be noted that various measures undertaken by the TNK BP in support of the Russias authorities did not help the company even in spite of the fact that last year it was the only oil company from the developed countries, which took part in the purchase of additional shares issued by Rosneft. In other words, the behavior of the Russian authorities in this case was determined not by political, but by purely economic considerations.

Second, in June there was arrested the controlling interest in the oil company Russneft, whereas the Federal Tax Service accused Russneft of the failure to pay more than Rub. 14 billion in the Russias budget.

Besides, the Federal Tax Service put forward the claims demanding to recognize the transactions involving shares in Russneft null and void and transfer these shares to the state ownership (in accordance with article 169 of the RF Civil Code On the invalidity of transactions made for the purposes opposite to the principles of public order and morality). The company, the controlling block of shares in which is owned by the Gutseriyevs family and a minority interest belongs to the trader Glecore and which some time ago was even granted the permission to purchase some YUKOS assets by the Russian authorities, run into trouble long ago; however, until now it has appeared that these troubles amount to no more than the usual raider procedures with participation of Russian officials. However, at the moment the level of claims put forward against the company in fact demonstrates that the owners are forced to sell the company. Secondary factors behind the troubles Russneft run into ranging from the friendship with A. Lukashenko to wrong behavior in different situations are not so important. The only important thing is that someone in power has decided that the company may and should be taken over (purchased) and even various charity activities on the part of Gutseriyev, which answer the interests of the leaders of Chechnya and Ingushetia, appointed by Moscow, do not help him at all.

Therefore, the investment climate in the fuel and energy sector continues to deteriorate at a very rapid rate.

In June, the regular summit of G 8 group proceeded in a relatively calm atmosphere without confrontational rhetoric at Heiligendamm. At the final press conference, V. Putin told the audience about his proposals addressed G. Bush, the President of the USA, as concerned the American anti-missile defense system (to use the radar installation Russia leased in the territory of Azerbaijan) and promised not to aim Russian missiles at objects situated in Europe and deploy missile units in the Kaliningrad oblast after all. The G 8 summit adopted a declaration concerning Africa, which included the US initiative to increase aid provided to African countries: to write off the debts amounting to US $ 56 billion and increase credits (earlier, Russia had opposed these initiatives, it should be noted that Russian objections were justified, since the present African institutions turn the aid provided to Africa into the aid to its leaders). The G 9 summit also called for a reduction in the volumes of emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; however, no exact parameters were defined (this lack of clarity also answered the US interests, since exactly this country is responsible for a significant portion of emission of such gases). Russia still refused to change its position with respect to the Kosovo problem referring to the UN resolution proclaiming the territorial integrity of Serbia. Only once during the summit there was mentioned the issue of democracy in Russia one of the citizens staged a protest action at the press conference by spreading leaflets containing accusations addressed to V. Putin. In answer to this action V. Putin asserted that Russia will develop similarly to other Western countries. However, as concerns the sphere of economy, a standstill was observed in the course of the negotiations on the Russias accession to the WTO. For instance, in spite of the fact that the St. Petersburg forum was attended by P.

Pages:     || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 12 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .