8, 85, 92–93, 94, 103, 137, 139, 146–147, 167; Development of the public sector of economy in the Russian Federation in 2006, M, Rosstat, 2007, p.. 8, 82, 89–90, 91, 100, 134,136, 143–144, 164; Development of the public sector of economy in the Russian Federation in 2007, M, Rosstat, 2008, p. 9, 42, 90–91, 92, 103, 134, 136, 143–144, 164; Development of the public sector of economy in the Russian Federation in 2008, M, Rosstat, 2009, p. 13, 43, 45–46,47, 53, 61–63, 67–68, 88; Development of the public sector of economy in the Russian Federation in 1H of 2009, M, Rosstat, 2009, p. 13, 42, 44–45, 46, 49, 52–54, 58–59, 79.
As seen in Table 6, the share of the public sector in 2008 and in the 1H of 2009 was insignificant for the bigger number of the indicators (the similar trend was observed in all 2000’es) not exceeding 10%-15%. The share of the public sector was a little greater for investments (15–20%, without small businesses) and employment (24–25%), while the traffic (over 60– 90% depending on the indicator) and internal R&D costs (over 70%) are obvious exclusions.
However, the official statistics agencies reported a considerable increase of the weight of the entire public sector in 2008 – 2009 vs 2006-2007 in production of mineral resources (pri M&A market review in 2008, Ernst I Yong, 2009, p. 17.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks marily, fuel and energy), in manufacturing, communications, R&D costs and investments into main capital 1. As a result, the 1H 2009 share of the public sector in the production of fuel and energy resources which was obviously lower than the public sector input into the production of mineral resources on the whole, surpassed this indicator.
Going into a more detailed review of the situation, we can say that according to the year and 1H 2009 results, the public sector domineered on a few positions (cargo and passenger traffic by rail, forest restoration, caustic ash). In almost all other cases the unit weight of the public sector was less than 20% except production of sodium chlorite, ethyl alcohol from food staffs, railway packers for broad gage lines, certain types of machine building products (cargo cars, tractor grain drills, radio receiving sets), all types of paid services, where the public sector share did not exceed 50%.
It should be noticed that the Rosstat data based on the definition of the public sector as stated in Resolution of the RF Government of January 4, 1999 No 1 (the current version of this document adopted by Resolution of the RF Government of December 30, 2002 No 393) do not reflect the real unit weight of the public sector in the Russian economy2.
5.1.4. The effect of the federal government property policy on the budget revenues in 2000 – The crisis that hit the Russian economy in autumn 2008, naturally led to reduction of budget revenues on almost all budget items in 2009. The revenues received by the budget as a result of the implementation of the government property policy were no exception.
Let us remind that all federal budget revenues generated by the property owned by the state can be divided into two groups depending on their nature and the source. One group comprises revenues generated by the use of the government-owned property (renewable sources). The other group comprises revenues generated by non-recurrent/one-off sources that can not be renewed because the government having sold the property transferred the property rights to some legal entities and physical persons including by way of privatization (nonrenewable sources).
Below (Table 7 and 8) we show data on revenues that are (with minor exceptions) contained in the Laws on the execution of the federal budget for 2000-2008 pertinent to the use of the state-owned property and property sales (tangible objects only)3.
The 1H 2009 results did not confirm this trend for the last indicator.
See for detail: Russian economy in 2007. Trends and prospects (Ed. 29), M, IEPP, March 2008, p. 485-490.
An additional factor that negatively affects validity of data in the formal statistical reports is establishment of several state corporations that are given assets.
Have not been considered the revenues of the federal budget received as payments for the use of natural resources (including water, biological resources, revenues from the use of the forest fund and subsoil), reimbursement of agricultural losses resulted from withdrawal of agricultural lands, financial transactions losses (revenues from investment of budget funds (revenues from the federal budget balance and their investment, since 2006 – also revenues from managing funds of the federal Stabilization Fund (in 2009 the Reserve Fund and National Wealth Fund), revenues from investment of funds accumulated during auctions of stock owned by the Russian Federation); interest received on budget credits granted inside the country from the federal budget funds; interest on state loans (funds received from foreign governments and foreign legal entities in the form of interest paid on loans granted by the Russian Federation; funds received from enterprises and organizations in the form of interest and guarantees payments on loans received by the Russian Federation from the governments of foreign countries and international finance agencies); revenues from paid services or compensation of the government costs; remittance of profits to the RF Central Bank; certain payments from federal and municipal enterprises and organizations (patent and registration fees for official registration of software programs, dataSection Institutional Problems Table Federal budget revenues generated by the use of the state-owned property (renewable sources) in 2000 – 2009, in mln rubles Stock dividend Revenues from (2000–2009) remitted profit and revenues Land lease pay- Revenues from leas- that remains Revenues from Year Total from other ments for state- ing of state-owned after FGUPs Vietsovpetro JV forms of equity owned land property have paid taxes business participation and other man(2005–2009) datory payments 2000 23244.5 5676.5 – 588.,7 – 11687.2001 29241.9 6478.0 3916.72 5015.73 209.64 13621.2002 36362.4 10402.3 3588.1 8073.2 910.0 13388.2003 41261.1 12395.8 10276.85 2387.6 16200.2004 50249.9 17228.2 908.16 12374.57 2539.6 17199.2005 56103.2 19291.9 1769.28 14521.28** 2445.9 18075.2006 69173.4 25181.8 3508.08 16809.99 2556.0 21117.2007 80331.85 43542.7 4841.48 18195.29 3231.7 10520.2008 76266.7 53155.9 6042.8 114587.79 2480.3 – 2009 31849.3 10114.2 647.,5 113507.3 1757.3 – – according to the Ministry of State Property of the Russian Federation, in the 2000 Law on the execution of the federal budget there was no separate item, the total amount of payments of government enterprises (RUR9,887.1 mln) was shown (with no break down);
– the rental amount for (i) lands in agricultural use and (ii) city and settlements lands;
– total revenues from renting property assigned to (i) research institutions (ii) educational institutions, (iii) health institutions, (iiii) state museums, state institutions of culture and arts, (iiiii) archives, (iiiiii) RF Ministry of Defense, (iiiiiii) organizations of the RF Ministry of Railways, (iiiiiiii) organizations of scientific services for Academies of Sciences with a government status and (iiiiiiiii) other revenues from renting of state-owned property;
– according to the Ministry of State Property of the Russian Federation, in the 2001 Law on the execution of the federal budget there was no separate item, the amount coincided with the amount of other revenues in payments of federal and municipal organizations;
– total revenues from renting of state-owned property (land rents are not shown separately);
– rent amount for (i) lands of cities and settlements and (ii) lands in federal ownership after state ownership on land was delineated;
– total revenues from renting property assigned to (i) research institutions, (ii) educational institutions, (iii) health institutions, (iiii) state museums, state institutions of culture and arts, (iiiii) state archives, (iiiiii) postal offices of the federal postal communications of the RF Ministry on Communications and Information Support, (iiiiiii) organizations of scientific services for Academies of Sciences with a government status and (iiiiiiii) other revenues from renting of state-owned property;
– rent payments after the federal ownership to land was delineated and proceeds from sale of the right to conclude rent contracts for lands in federal ownership (for 2008-2009 – except land sites of federal autonomous institutions);
bases and topologies of integral microchips and other revenues which before 2004 had been a part of the payments by the state-owned enterprises (except revenues from Vietsovpetro JV activity since 2001 and remittance of part of FGUPs’ profits since 2002)); revenues from PSA implementation; revenues from disposal and management of confiscated and other property converted into government revenue (including property converted into government property received by way of inheritance or gift, or treasures); proceeds from lotteries, other revenues from the use of property and rights in federal ownership (revenues from disposal of rights to intellectual property results (R&D and technological works) of military, special and dual purpose; revenues from maintenance and use of highway property and other proceeds from the use of property in federal ownership); also from the allowed activities of organizations to be accounted in the federal budget; proceeds from sales of government reserves of previous metals and stones.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks – revenues from renting of property in operating management of federal government authorities and institutions established by these authorities and in FGUPs’ management: transferred to operating management to the following institutions with a government status: (i) research institutions, (ii) organizations of scientific services for Academy of Sciences and sector Academies of Sciences, (iii) educational institutions, (iiii) health institutions, (iiiii) federal postal offices of the Federal Communications Agency, (iiiiii) government institutions of culture and arts, (iiiiiii) state archives (iiiiiiii) other revenues from renting of property in operating management of federal government authorities and institutions established by these authorities and in FGUPs’ management(for2006–2009 without revenues from the allowed types of activity and federal property use located outside the Russian Federation gained abroad which had not been separated in previous years ).
Source: Laws on the execution of the federal budget for 2000 – 2008; Report on the execution of the federal budget as of January 1, 2010, www.roskazna.ru; estimates made by the authors.
As for the analysis of preliminary results of the budget effect of the government property policy in 2009 regarding renewable sources, first of all a considerable drop of revenues should be noted that is a direct consequence of the economic performance results (dividends and remittance of a part of profits of unitary enterprises).
The dividends on federal stock fell sharply, by 5.3 times vs 2008 being compared to the 2002 level (slightly more than RUR10 bln), not mentioning the benchmarks outlined in 20084.
In this connection the Federal Property Management Agency was active in recovering debts from joint-stock companies which shares are owned by the Russian Federation and the companies that evaded from their obligations to transfer dividends to the federal budget or failed to transfer dividends in full volume for 2006 – 20085.
As of summer 2009, the Agency issued 20 claims against major debtors which total debt to the government was about RUR60 mln. Some of the debtors wishing to avoid court proceedings that would enforce them to pay outstanding dividends and interest on those dividends repaid their debts at once or expressed their intent in doing so. As for other debtors, the Agency lawyers prepared statements of claim for court prosecution. The aggregate debt amount (several hundreds million of rubles) does mot make us believe that the general situation with dividends payment to the federal budget can change for the better even if such debts are retired quickly and in full amount.
Certain parts of FGUPs profits demonstrated lower sensitivity to the crisis. They reduced roughly by 30%, and their absolute value (RUR1.75 bln) exceeded the 2002 indicator by almost two times though was lower than the transfers to the budget in all subsequent years.
In 2008-2009 FGUPs as a source of revenues from renting of property in economic control were not mentioned while renting of property in operating management of federal authorities and institutions established by these authorities excludes the property of federal autonomous institutions..
According to the RF Ministry of State Property, the revenues from the use of federal property being abroad (in addition to revenues due to the interest of the Russian participant of JV Vietsovpetro) amounted to RUR315 mln in 1999 and RUR440 mln in 2000. Further on FGUP “Predpriyatie po upravleniyu sobstvennostiyu za rubezhom (Company for managing property abroad) came to play a major role in the organization of commercial use of the federal property abroad.
It should be noticed that in 2002 in addition to dividends on the shares of Russian joint-stock companies inside Russia the federal budget received about RUR13.4 bln as revenues on the stake of the Russian participant in JV Vietsovpetro. However, after completion of the actions for development of JSC Zarubezhneft which charter capital in 2007 in addition to stock of two joint-stock companies (research institutes) received a share (50%) of the Russian participant of JV Vietsovpetro., the federal budget ceased to receive revenues from this source which was not mentioned in the revenue structure from the renewable sources in 2008-2009.
See Russian economy in 2009. Trends and prospects. (Ed. 31) M. IEPP.
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.