Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 3 | 4 || 6 | 7 |   ...   | 9 |

Second, the growth rates in output have remained high: the indicators of the past two months proved to be the best ones since September 2001. The rise in output continued in all the industries, except electricity, with the best performance being demonstrated by the industry of building materials, forestry, chemicals, petrochemicals, and machine-engineering sectors. Third, the loading rate of production capacities has grown by 5 percent points since the start of the year and reached the best value across the industrial sector as a whole over the past 10 years (62%). The leaders in this respect are: the non-ferrous metallurgy (83%), the fuel sector (81%), and forestry ( 78%), while in the machine-engineering sector this indicator accounted for 58%.

The main obstacles to boosting the output still are a low domestic demand and shortages of liquid capital, but the frequency of citing these particular factors has fallen substantially. While currently the low demand still affects operations of 51% of the national enterprises, the respective rate was 63% in the beginning of the year. The lack of liquid capital in July was referred to just by 44% of enterprises, which forms a historic minimum, while non-payments inhibit operations of 21% of those, which has also became a historic minimum. At the same time, the constraining effect of imports, on the contrary reached its maximum, with 21% of enterprises considering import products to constrain the rise in their output. In the ferrous metallurgy, the share of such responses made out 51%, in the sector for chemicals and petrochemicals-35%, in the light industry- 29%, and 25% in the machine-engineering sector. Interestingly in early 1998 the share of such enterprises accounted for just 13%.

Fourth, a more intensively boosted output vs. demand has led to a rise in the volume of finished goods in stock, which became especially notable in metallurgy, machine engineering and the food sector, while other industries did not reported rise in their stock of finished goods. However, there was no growth in excessive stock: the balance of responses (above-below normal) dropped by several points, while the share of normal estimates reached 54%, which formed yet another record-breaking value for all our 135 surveys. So, enterprises hope for steady sales over the upcoming months and to cover a part of demand with their produce in stock.

Fifth, though profit decline rates showed a slight growth over the month, the overall estimates of enterprises financial and economic state reached an absolute maximum: 73% of them believe their situation satisfactory, while in specific sectors the respective rate is even high: in the ferrous metallurgy -91% and in the electricity sector- 82. The worst rates were registered in the constriction sector and forestry (62%), while the proportions of bad and very bad estimates fell to a minimum rate.

In July, forecasts of changes in demand became at 3% less optimistic compared to June, but retained their positive values. The industrial sector still holds high expectations of a rise in effective demand, with the greatest sales rates forecasted by the sectors for chemicals and petrochemicals, the light industry and forestry.

Forecasts of change in output continued to gain optimism in July. While compared with April 2003 (the bottom line) the balance (growth-decline) improved by 14 points, with all the sectors planning to boost their output, while those for electricity, non-ferrous metallurgy and forestry predicting its most intense rise. That allowed enterprises to revise their employment forecasts that once again became positive, which means a greater number of enterprises in the industrial sector that plan to increase their staff. During the past five quarters our surveys registered the prevalence of the plans to lower the number of staff, while now its is only the sector for electricity, non-ferrous metallurgy and forestry that still view job cuts as a possible option.

Enterprises price forecasts in July proved to be most moderate over the whole post-default period, with the majority of producers (74%) not intending to change their prices over the coming months.

S. Tsoukhlo Import substitution in Russian Federation between 1998-A rapid and intense, more than three-fold, depreciation of Ruble between August to September 1998 has resulted in a drastic fall in the real exchange rate. At the same time, the populations and enterprises incomes declined considerably, followed a shortly by the emergence of a trend to production growth. This trend has been steady through sevarl past years. The fall in the RUR real exchange rate led to a relative price rise for import goods. That is why, perhaps, one of the reasons for the noted production growth is that such a price rise boosted demand for domestic goods that began to substitute for import ones. This assumption suggests there should be seen a decline in the domestic consumption of import goods and, accordingly, in the volume of their importation, and a rise in the domestic consumption of domestic goods. Naturally, this assumption proves to be correct only with regard to the goods for which such substitution is possible, otherwise, given other conditions equal, this particular effect is noted only with respect to tradables.

Interestingly, in different industries it can manifest itself in different ways, which depends on elasticity of demand, inclination to import and a possibility of a prompt adjustment of import purchases and domestic output. In such a situation, we understand the process of import substitution as a rise in output and domestic consumption of domestic goods against the background of a declining consumption of import goods (in physical equivalent).

Table 1 illustrates dynamics of industrial output, import and export indexes (in USD, in prices of 2000) and the RUR real exchange rate indexes.

While explaining the ongoing economic growth, one also needs to consider a vast array of other factors that affect demand for import and domestic goods. In addition to the noted depreciation of the RUR real exchange rate in autumn 1998, there also occurred a decline in enterprises and populations incomes that resulted in the overall fall in demand for all kinds of goods. In such a situation, the price rise for import goods due to depreciation should result in an asymmetric change in demand for domestic and import goods.

Rising consumption of domestic goods in parallel with declining consumption of import goods can be generated not only by a change in relative prices, but also by a change in the structure of import, export and domestic output, as well as due to a change in consumers preferences.

Table Dynamics of indexes of industrial output, RUR real exchange rate, import and export (in USD, in prices of 2000) For all indexes 2000=100 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 I II III IV I II III IV RUR real effective 142,6 146,8 145,9 127,1 85,3 82,8 88,9 93,8 90,8 100 118,7 124,exchange rate index Industrial output index 88,7 87,9 83,1 79,3 87,9 87,9 89,2 93,8 99,1 100 105,2 104,Export, index 93,6 70,5 70,1 69,8 75,2 60,7 65,9 70,9 91,9 100 97,8 93,Import, index 183,0 166,1 161,4 128,7 82,8 86,1 93,3 89,0 101,8 100 127,4 132,Note: quarterly import and export indexes were computed as the ratio of export and import over the respective quarter to their value in the basic year multiplied by 4.

Source: Goskomstat RF, IMF Financial Statistics.

The transformational slump in Russian economy in the wake of the price liberalization in 1998 has been replaced by a steady economic growth, that was spearheaded by structural shifts and transformational processes in the economy, among others5. Accordingly, key growth factors became enterprises rising efficiency and investment activity, change in the structure of investment, adaptation of labor resources to new conditions, etc. It can be assumed that a drastic real depreciation of RUR formed a protective shield for domestic producers, as for quite a long time it weakened competition on the part of import goods and boosted domestic output.

The dynamics of consumption of domestic and import goods can also depend on changes in the inclination to consumption of the latter. A rapid loosening of restrictions on importation of goods and their expanding assortment that became available for consumers in the early 1990s together with the appreciating real exchange rate of RUR have resulted in a growing inclination to consumption of import goods even if there existed their domestic analogues. It can be assumed that the 1998 RUR depreciation generated a shift of consumption towards domestic goods without consequent reverse move towards import ones under the noted recent real appreciation of RUR (hysteresis effect). There also may occur another effect, that is, the rise in demand for import driven by an imperative need to maintain earlier imported equipment.

As already noted, the 1998 RUR depreciation and the respective shock proved to be drastic and concentrated in time, while the period between 1999-2002 saw an appreciation of the RUR real exchange rate accom-anied by a relative price fall for import and increase in its physical volumes. At the same time, the growth in import took a greater pace vs. the rise in domestic output, which means, in the frame of the terminology we use in this paper, a counter-import substitution process, i.e. the substitution for domestic goods by cheaper import analogues.

The formal analysis of import substitution necessitates understanding of the fact that the two factors, that is, change in relative prices for import goods and change in real incomes may not by themselves be identified with substitution effect and income effect in the frame of the traditional macroeconomic model of choosing between domestic and import goods. In addition to the substitution effect, the relative price rise for import goods as a result of the RUR depreciation has also created a negative effect of income generated by the contraction in the set of goods available for purchasing. In addition, consumer demand was lowering due to the income decline generatd by the the crisis.

Evaluation of demand for domestic goods and imports. To compute income and substitution effects, one needs to evaluate elasticities of compensated demand for those in terms of prices and elasticities of noncompensated demand in terms of income. Then, basing upon Slutskys equation one needs to divide the overall effect from a price change into (import) substitution effect and income effect. In this paper, to evaluate the system of functions of demand for domestic goods and imports, we use Rotterdam model6.

See: Gaidar, Ye. (2003) Sovremenny ekonomicheskyi rost i strategicheskie perspectivy sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo razvitia Rossii. M.: IEPP.

For more details, see: Theil, H. (1965). The Information Approach to Demand Analysis. Econometrica. Vol. 33. Is. 1. . 6787., Marquez, J. (1994). The Econometrics of Elasticities or the Elasticity of Econometrics: an Empirical Analysis of the Behavior of U.S. Imports, The Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 76. Issue 3., Deaton, A. (1986). Demand Analysis. Handbook of Econometrics. Vol. III. 17641829.

The model describes demand for domestic goods and imports in the form of a system of two functions from consumers demand and prices for domestic goods and imports and can be presented in the following form:

1 1 X X 1 (1) log Xit = c0i + c1i( log It - w1 log pit - w2 log ptIm)+ c1 log pit + c3i log ptIm + it 2i 2 2 X 2 X 2 (2) log Imit = c0i + c1i( log It - w1 log pit - w2 log ptIm)+ c2i log pit + c3i log ptIm + it where:

log Xit the industrial output growth rate in i-sector in RUR-equivalent prices as of 2000.;

log Imt the growth rate in the volume of imports analogue to produce of i-sector in RUR terms as of late 2000;

log It the population income growth rate;

X log pit the price rise rate for domestic produce of i-sector;

log ptIm the price rise rate for imports;

w1 and w2 the share of spending on domestic goods and imports, respectively.

In terms of the variables used herein, main hypotheses tested in the course of an econometric analysis of consumer demand can be formulated as follows:

1 c0i c0i are insignificant(i.e. there were no structural shifts of consumer demand, while the overall effect of change in demand is determined by the change in relative prices and consumer incomes);

1 c1i c1i elasticities of the non-compensated demand for domestic goods and imports appear positive in terms of income, given other conditions equal, as the populations growing incomes boost demand for domestic goods and imports;

c1 elasticity of the compensated demand for domestic goods at a price for domestic goods appears 2i negative, as soaring prices for goods lead to a lower demand for them;

c3i elasticity of the compensated demand for domestic goods at a price for imports is positive, as once prices for such goods soar, the substitute goods enjoy a greater demand;

c2i elasticity of the compensated demand for imports at a price for domestic goods is positive, as once prices for such goods soar, the substitute goods enjoy a greater demand;

c3i elasticity of the compensated demand for domestic goods at a price for domestic goods appears negative, as soaring prices for goods lead to a lower demand for them.

In the frame of the Rotterdam model, the separate evaluation of equations of demand for imports and domestic goods is not quite accurate. That is why such equations were evaluated in the form of the Seemingly Unrelated Regression, using a one-step method of the least squares with the use of weighting covariation matrix.

To conduct evaluations in the frame of the present research, we used the monthly data of Goskomstat of RF on dynamics of the populations monetary income and volume of industrial output across sectors, quarterly data of the RF Customs Committee on dynamics of the volume of importation across groups of goods, the IMFs monthly data on dynamics of the RUR effective real exchange rate, the monthly data of the Central Bank of RF on dynamics of nominal exchange rate, and the monthly data of the Center of Economic Conjuncture on indexes of industrial output across industrial sectors within the period between January 1994 through September 2002.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 3 | 4 || 6 | 7 |   ...   | 9 |

2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .