| ... | 5
| ... | 12
In September 2005, against the previous month, the prices for oil products on average went up by 6,3% (gasoline went up by 8,1%, diesel fuel - by 5,9%, fuel oil - by 6,5%). In January-September Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Apr Okt Apr Okt Apr Okt Apr Okt Apr Okt 2005, as compared to the respective period of 2004 the prices for oil products were on average greater by 47,5% (diesel fuel went up by 51,8%, fuel oil - by 46,1%, gasoline - by 29,2%).
In September 2005, as compared to the previous month, the prices for natural gas in Europe went up by 0,3%, in the U.S. - by 33,7%. In January-September 2005, as compared to the respective period of 2004, the natural gas went up in Europe by 47%, in the U.S. - by 36%.
In September 2005, against the previous month, the world prices for products of the Russian fuel and energy complex went up on average by 0,3%. In January-September 2005, as compared to the respective period of 2004, they were higher by 46%.
In September 2005, against the previous month, the prices for ferrous metals did not change, while in January-September 2005, as compared to the respective period of 2004, they were higher by 15,5%.
In September 2005, on the world market of non-ferrous metals the prices for aluminum and nickel were lowering. In particular, the prices of aluminum were affected by the information on the growth of stock reserves of this metal. At the background of lowering the exchange reserves and growth of copper consumption in China and India the prices for it in September 2005 continued to grow.
In September 2005, against the previous month, the prices for non-ferrous metals went down on average by 2%, with aluminum to go down by 2,5%, nickel – by 4,5%, and copper going up by 1,5%. In January-September 2005, as compared to the respective period of 2004, the prices for non-ferrous metals were higher by 11% (aluminum - by 10%, nickel - by 13%, copper – by 25%).
Table Monthly Average World Prices in September of Corresponding Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Oil (Brent), USD/ barrel 22.9 18.12 13.1 22.6 32.15 26.18 28.26 27.1 42.68 61.Natural gas, USD/1 mln BTU 2.743 2.251 1.858 2.62 5.118 2.204 3.625 4.678 5.483 12.Gasoline, USD/gallon 0.648 0.579 0.421 0.683 0.941 0.757 0.797 0.832 1.26 1.Copper, USD/t 1932.6 2032.7 1676.4 1876.8 2037.5 1452.9 1498.3 1816.4 2892.6 3858.Aluminum, USD/t 1428.3 1544.6 1391.3 1493.6 1600.2 1342.6 1294.7 1415.0 1726.0 1840.Nickel, USD/t 7426.4 6523.6 4229.8 6932 8654.3 5040.9 6592.5 9996.1 13298 Source: calculated according to the data of London Metal Exchange (Great Britain, London), International Petroleum Exchange (London) As a result of existing state of affairs on the world market, 90% of increment of the volume of Russian export in January-September 2005 had been obtained by means of increasing prices, and only 10% – by means of boosting physical volumes, including by fuel and energy resources the share of price increase accounted for 93,2%, metals and items – 73,7%.
With the very high export price index this year (131,1% versus 120% in January-September 2004) the growth rate of goods export in physical value lowered three times: over January-September the index of actual volume was 103,4% versus 110,3% in the respective period of 2004.
The growth of import is supported by continuing over the last few months of a trend of strengthening of the real ruble exchange rate: over the 9 month of the current year, compared with the respective period of the prior year, it amounted: 12,4% to dollar, 10,4% to euro, 7,2% - to the basket of currencies of trade partners, considerable part of which belongs to the currencies of CIS. The other factor of growth of import – the growth of real income of the population (which amounted 9,3% over the months of 2005) - also has an effect, In January-September 2005 the growth of imports was ensured primarily by means of increase of physical volumes of importation from the far-abroad countries. The growth of imports from CIS countries was provided fully due to growth of contract prices.
As before, more than 50% of growth of domestic demand is satisfied by means of import, though in January-September 2005 the share of import deliveries in the structure of sources that cover increment of the domestic demand in January-September 2005 lowered to 51,2%, as compared to 59,7%, over the respective period of 2004, including in the 3d quarter of 2005 it amounted 48,9%.
On December 31, 2004 validity on trade in pipes expired between Russia and Ukraine. A new agreement was to be signed in August 2005, but the parties could not agree. As a result, in 2005 the Russian pipes producers considerably reduced the output rates: in the first half of 2005, in comparison with the respective period of the prior year, the volume pf pipes output reduced by 3% - up to 3 mln tons. The main cause of lowering the growth rates in the pipe industry lies in the following: proper measures had not been taken in time to protect the domestic producers from the unfair competition on the part of Ukrainian suppliers.
The period of special defensive inquiry, which subject was the growth of volumes of pipes of large diameter imported into Russia, completed on November 3, 2005. The period of the second inquiry, conducted by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russia basing on the facts of dumping deliveries of Ukrainian pipes of small and mean diameter expired on November 20. However, the resolution on introducing special protective measures with regard to the dumping deliveries of pipes has not yet been adopted. As well, no preliminary duties have been introduced as protective measures.
As a consequence, the growth of uncontrolled import became a threat. According to FCS (Federal Customs Service), importation of stainless, pumping-compression and shaped pipes for water, oil and gas transport has grown over the 10 months of the current year by 26-770%.
The importation of pipes of greater diameter for the same period increased by more than 5%. The real import has grown even more, as numerous facts are known of illegal entry of pipes from the Ukraine –around about the customs posts, while one can see even the brands Russian plants on the pipes.
In parallel with that, the Ukrainian pipes producers supply their production at dumping prices, which became possible because the Ukrainian government for a few years provided their metallurgists with unprecedented supportive measures in the form of tax remissions, decommissioning of penalties and fines – in all, for a total of more than USD 1 bn. Using preferences, the Ukrainian pipes producers, as compared to Russian ones, will have their “place in the Sun” up until 2012. As a result, the losses of the domestic pipe industry from dumping deliveries of Ukrainian pipes had already amounted about USD 350 million.
According to the data of the Fund for development of the pipe industry, in 2005 Ukrainian pipemakers will deliver to the Russian market around 620-630 thou. t. pipes, while in 2007 9the figure may grow to 860 thou. t., unless decisions have been taken in the shortest possible time on intro9duction of protective measures in the form of antidumping duties and import quotas concerning pipe production from the Ukraine.
According to IET forecasts, an average increment of export indicators in December 2005 and January and February 2006, as compared to the respective period of 2004-2005, is forecasted at the rate of 32%, export to non-CIS countries - 32%, import - 18%, import from non-CIS countries - 35%.
An average increment of the export surplus with all the countries and non-CIS countries in December 2005 and January-February 2006 to the respective period of previous year amounts 45% and 30%, accordingly. The balance of foreign trade with all countries over December 2005 and JanuaryFebruary 2006 is forecasted in the amount of USD 38 bn.
On an annualized basis the forecasted increment will make on average for two models for indicator of the volume of export of 23,5% and the one of the volume of import of 18,5% - for all the countries.
For indicators of the volume of export to and import from non-CIS countries the forecast of annual increment will make 29 and 27%, accordingly.
N.Volovik The expenditures of the federal budget to be placed on the secret list: an ominous tendency Summary: An analysis of the percentage of secret expenditures in the 2003-5 federal budgets has reveals their considerable growth, whereas legislation on state secrets remains unchanged. In this connection, it is suggested that the secrecy of state budgetary expenditures be used as one of the indices of the effectiveness of a number of ministries and the government as a whole.
Placing some of budgetary expenditures on the secret list is a traditional institution in the sphere of state administration; however, despite the fact that in developed countries the issue of the reasonable relationship between the transparency of the budget and the protection of really important secret information has long been solved, its importance in Russia, far from becoming any less, is, on the contrary, continuing to grow.
After the publication of the data of the last study on the classified expenditures of the RF federal budget, there have occurred certain political and institutional changes that produced their impact, among other things, on the practice of making information secret, as it will be shown later.
In the situation which emerged in the State Duma in 2004, there was a decrease in the motivation to openly discuss the problems of defense and security, as well as to obtain objective information on budget expenditures in these spheres. Also, alongside the administrative reform carried out in the spring of 2004, there emerged another important factor in the sphere of state finance – the switchover to a new budget classifier, better adapted to the recommendations of the international standards in the sphere of the functional and economic classification, in accordance with the UN System of National Accounts and the IMF’s “Guide to State Financial Statistics”.
From the point of view of researching the restrictedness of information, the direct outcome of implementing the new classifier during the development of the federal budget, starting from the year 2005, had become the need for a certain methodological adaptation, as well as a more complicated procedure of comparing new data on the degree of restrictedness to the previously accumulated data.
Within the framework of the present study, investigation was focused on the classified aspects of the expenditures of the 2005 budget and the draft federal budget for 2006. The degree of the restrictedness of expenditures (or the share of classified expenditures) in the federal budget was determined as a relation between the difference of the values specified in the distribution of expenditures throughout the sections and subsections of the functional classification and the amounts for the target items and types of expenditures calculated on the basis of the distribution of allocations, and the above-mentioned expenditures. In order to compare the newly obtained data with the degree of restrictedness of the 2003 and 2004 federal budgets, the results of the aforesaid previous research were used.
The performed analysis, the main results of which are demonstrated in Table 1, indicates that, firstly, the degree of the restrictedness of expenditures have increased throughout practically all sections of the 2003-2006 federal budgets, and, secondly, that from the year 2005 onward, classified expenditures emerge in the federal budget’s sections which are not directly related to defense and security. At the same time, it should be understood that the aforementioned effect of “spreading” the classified expenditures over the whole budget is most likely caused not by the intention to conceal, from domestic and foreign observers, some of the rapidly growing expenditures on defense and security, but by the fact that, in accordance with the recommendations of international standards, the power structures’ expenditures on housing, education, health care, etc. are to be assigned to the corresponding sections in the new functional classification. And yet, of course, one question remains: what were the motives of the developers of the federal budget to place such expenditures on the secret list and then to leave them classified In this connection, attention should be given to the hypothesis put forth by a number of independent observers, that the main reason for these developments is the opportunistic behavior of the state apparatus interested in salary increments for working with classified documents; however, this question still needs further consideration.
Ekonomiko-politicheskaia situatsiia v Rossii (The economic and political situation in Russia), 2004, January, pp. 8-12.
For the year 2006, see Annex 8 to the draft federal law “On the Federal Budget for 2006”.
For the year 2006, see Annex 39 to the draft federal law “On the Federal Budget for 2006”.
| ... | 5
| ... | 12