WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

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

Thus one can conclude that the introduction of quotas will rather aggravate the Russian agricultural sectors situation than foster its development. The only positive effect can be the replenishment of federal budget.

E.Serova, N.Karlova, O.Shick Regions: industrial output dynamics The changes in the balance of growth rates across industries, which occurred in 2002 in comparison with the period from 1999 till 2001 (Table 1), resulted in significant shifts in the character of regional differences relating to industrial output dynamics. While in the pre-crisis years regions (notwithstanding their geographical location) where prevailed export oriented industries demonstrated more favorable output dynamics (in 1999 through 2001 it was true for regions where industries were primarily oriented towards the domestic market, however, the geographical location was an important factor), in 2002, when the rates of growth in fuel industry became maximal for the first time in the post-crisis years, all the factors determining regional differences in terms of industrial output dynamics in the preceding years overlapped. Besides, while in the preceding years (especially in 2000), industrial output grew practically across all regions oriented towards the domestic market, in 2002 the picture became more complex (growth and decline in output became more dependable on competitive power of individual enterprises).

Table Indices of industrial output across major industries (in %) Industries 2000 2001 Power engineering 102 102 99,Fuel industry, including 105 106 107,- oil extracting industry 106 108 108,- oil processing industry 102 103 104,- natural gas industry 102 100,4 103,- coal mining 105 105 96,Ferrous metallurgy 116 99,8 103,Non-ferrous metallurgy 115 105 106,Chemistry and petro-chemistry 115 105 101,Mechanical engineering and metal working 120 107 102,Wood, woodworking, pulp and paper industry 113 103 102,Industry of construction materials 113 106 103,Light industry 121 105 96,Food industry 114 108 106,Total industry 112 105 103,The favorable economic and geographic location along with high capacity of the domestic market is a factor explaining the leading positions the Leningrad oblast and the city of St. Petersburg hold in terms of rates of growth in industrial output (see Table 2). The same factors may explain the fact that Moscow has begun to stand out in comparison with other regions for the first time in the post-crisis years. As concerns the Moscow region, in contradistinction to the aforesaid three regions the index of industrial output there was minimal in the last four years; however, this region is still among the leaders in terms of rates of growth in industrial output.

Table Regions demonstrating the most and least favorable industrial output dynamics in Regions demonstrating most IOI, 2002 in % Regions demonstrating a decline IOI, 2002 in % significant rates of growth in of 2001 in industrial output of industrial output Leningrad oblast Perm oblast 135,6 99,City of St. Petersburg Kemerovo oblast 131,4 98,Chukotka AO Samara oblast 120,5 97,Aginski Buryat AO Voronezh oblast 115,6 97,City of Moscow Republic of Altai 114,2 96,Republic of Buryatia Murmansk oblast 113,8 96,Lipetsk oblast Chita oblast 112,5 95,Republic of Dagestan Kurgan oblast 112,4 94,Tomsk oblast Republic of Adygea 111,0 93,Yevreyskaya AO Orel oblast 111,0 91,Omsk oblast Komi-Permyak AO 110,8 88,Nenetsian AO Sakhalin oblast 110,5 87,Orenburg oblast Kamchatka oblast 110,5 84,Republic of Mordovia Taimyr AO 110,0 79,Krasnodar krai Ust'-Orda AO 109,5 76,Ulyanovsk oblast Koryakian AO 108,9 74,Moscow oblast Republic of Ingushetia 108,7 73,Kaliningrad oblast Republic of Kalmykia 108,5 72,Republic of North Osetia Evenk AO 108,2 50,IOI industrial output index The great gap between St. Petersburg and the Leningrad oblast and other regions in terms of the rates of growth in industrial output has determined the apparent leadership of the North West federal okrug (see Table 3). As concerns this okrug, the differences between regions of the former North West and Northern economic areas formed in 2001 became even more apparent in 2002. While the Novgorod and Pskov oblasts make use of their transition location between Moscow and St. Petersburg (these regions demonstrated higher rates of growth in industrial output as compared with the national average), only the oil extracting Nenetsian AO among the regions situated in the former Northern economic area showed rates of growth above the national average (in 1999 and 2000, regions with wood, woodworking, and pulp and paper industries, first of all the Arkhangelsk oblast and Karelia, were among the leaders in terms of industrial output dynamics). As concerns the Kaliningrad oblast, there the positive effect of the special economic zone regime may be a factor behind the favorable development of industrial situation.

Table Indices of industrial output across federal okrugs (in %) Federal okrugs 2000 2001 Central federal okrug 115 110 107,North West federal okrug 123 103 116,Southern federal okrug 116 113 103,Privolzhski federal okrug 111 105 102,Ural federal okrug 111 106 105,Siberian federal okrug 109 107 104,Far East federal okrug 107 99,9 99,Russian Federation 112 105 103, The Central federal okrug is the second in terms of rates of growth in industrial output, although many of the regions within the okrug lag behind other regions. In 2002, the dynamics of industrial output in the Vladimir, Ivanovo, Kaluga, and Orel oblasts were below the national average for the first time in the postcrisis years. It seems that the factors behind these developments were the exhausted possibility of growth in domestically oriented mechanical engineering and food industry and the problems plaguing these industries.

In 2002, for the first time since 1998, regions specializing in export oriented industries were among the leaders in terms of rates of growth in industrial output, including the Lipetsk and Belgorod oblasts with developed ferrous metallurgy, as well as the Nenetsian AO, Omsk, and Tomsk oblasts where production includes oil extraction and processing.

Since domestically oriented food industry maintains high growth rates, North Caucasian regions (Dagestan, North Osetia, Kabardian-Balkarian Republic, Krasnodar krai) are among the leaders in terms of rates of growth in industrial output. The factors behind these developments are relatively new fixed assets in food industry, most cheap agricultural produce in the country, and low levels of wages and salaries (the dynamics of agricultural produce were most favorable in the North Caucasus, see Table 4). However, some regions of the Russian South began to lag behind. While the rates of growth in industrial output in the Rostov oblast and Stavropol krai were below the national average, Adygea demonstrated a decline in production (both industrial and agricultural).

Table Indices of volumes of agricultural produce across farms of all types (in %) Federal okrugs 1999 2000 total crops cattle Central federal okrug 98,0 114,0 100,3 102,0 102,6 101,North West federal okrug 110,0 104,0 103,0 100,4 99,0 101,Southern federal okrug 108,0 110,0 114,5 107,3 109,2 104,Privolzhski federal okrug 108,0 102,0 109,6 99,9 97,2 102,Ural federal okrug 114,0 97,0 107,0 97,7 92,6 102,Siberian federal okrug 102,0 112,0 108,1 99,0 94,4 103,Far East federal okrug 94,0 99,9 108,5 103,9 105,0 102,Russian Federation 104,0 108,0 107,5 101,7 100,6 102,The Far East federal okrug demonstrates a decline in industrial output for the second year running;

however, situation differs considerably across Far Eastern regions. A major factor behind the decline is the extremely unfavorable business situation in fish industry (while in Russia at large the volumes of production of fish and other sea products declined by 10.8 % on the average, the respective indicator in the Far East made 19.6 %). Therefore, the regions specializing in this industry (Kamchatka and Sakhalin oblasts, Primorski krai) demonstrated decline or extremely low rates of growth in industrial output. An important fact is that while oil and natural gas extraction grew in Russia on the whole, in the Sakhalin oblast the extraction of oil and natural gas production declined in 2002 (by 13.7 and 2.3 % respectively), what is an illustration of limited effectiveness of production sharing agreements. A positive trend was the persistence of higher (as compared with the national average) rates of growth in industrial output in the Khabarovsk krai.

On the whole, in 2002 there were registered 19 regions where industrial output declined (in 2001 there were 9 such regions), among them those specializing in mechanical engineering. An illustrative example is the Samara region, where production of cars fell by 7.8 % (a 4.0 % decline in the country at large). In contradistinction to the situation in the country, a decline in output of steel and rolled products at the background of increasing coal production was registered in the Kemerovo oblast (therefore the Kemerovo oblast is an example of output dynamics depending not on the regional industrial structure, but the situation of individual enterprises).

The fact that national autonomies due to their small sizes demonstrated extremely unstable dynamics of social and economic indicators and were both among leaders and outsiders in terms of the industrial output dynamics in 2002 corresponded to trend registered in the preceding years.

O. Kuznetsova Foreign Trade The conditions, under which Russian foreign trade developed in 2002, were rather difficult and was characterized by opposite trends. At the background of the negative impact of external factors deceleration of the development of the world economy and deteriorating situation on world markets of goods in the first six months of 2002 there was observed a decrease in the amounts of Russian exports. However, in the second half of 2002 the dynamics of development of Russian exports changed as a result of improving business situation on the oil market. In December of 2002 the Russian foreign trade turnover reached the record high in the last 12 years making US $ 10.9 billion. The respective indicator of 2001 was exceeded by 32.9 %.

-1997 . 1998 . 1999 . 2000 . 2001 . 2002 .

Source: RF Goskomstat Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct.

Balance Export Import Figure 1. Main indicators of Russias foreign trade (in US bln.) The dynamics of oil prices was uneven in 2002. After the September hike in prices (Urals) up to US $ 28.26 per barrel, in November prices fell by US $ 2.03 per barrel. However, this decline was rather short and in December prices began to grow again. On the average, in December Brent oil price made US $ 27.48 per barrel. A significant growth in prices of oil, natural gas, gasoline, and nickel was registered in comparison with the figures observed in December of 2001.

Table The average monthly world prices in December of the respective year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Oil (Brent), USD / metric ton 22,8 17,8 11,5 24,1 25,6 19,0 27,Natural gas, USD / thous. m3 3,093 2,393 2,251 2,558 8,713 2,694 4,Gasoline, USD / metric ton 0,6691 0,5648 0,3739 0,6986 0,7649 0,5398 0,Copper, USD / metric ton 2273,3 1834,7 1601,6 1748,1 1914,4 1528,7 1618,Aluminum, USD / metric ton 1459,9 1535,5 1305 1470,7 1562,5 1346,3 1376,Nickel, USD / metric ton 6920,0 6099,0 4202,0 7984,2 7315,4 5219,5 7255,Source: calculated in accordance to the data presented by London Metal Exchange (UK), International Oil Exchange (London) .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The stable expansion of domestic demand in Russia, as well as cheaper food and agricultural imports, were factors behind the persisting high positive dynamics of the import of goods. In December of 2002, Russian imports reached the record high since March of 1998 US $ 6.5 billion, what was by 16.1 % above the level registered in 2001.

As a result of higher rates of growth both in exports and imports, in December the Russian foreign trade turnover reached US $ 17.4 billion and exceeded the respective indicator of the preceding year by 26.1 %. It was the record high in the last 15 years.

The trend towards a decrease in the Russias balance of trade observed over the last 2 years reversed in August. In December of 2002, the active balance of trade made US R 4.4 billion, what was by 69.2 % above the respective indicator of 2001.

In December of 2002, the amount of Russias trade vis--vis CIS member countries made US $ 2.billion. Similarly to the situation of the preceding year, exports grew at a more rapid rate and by the end of the month reached US $ 1.65 billion thus exceeding the respective indicator of 2001 by 37.7 %. Imports grew by 17 % and made US $ 1.24 billion.

However, the dynamics of imports and exports vis--vis CIS member countries observed over the last months of 2002 permits to forecast that this year imports will grow at a faster rate (up to 5 % over the year), while in the preceding year the amount of Russias imports declined by 5.5 %.

As concerns relations with Russias CIS partners, it shall be noted that practical implementation of the Customs Union with Belarus is still braked due to disputes concerning customs duties.

Armenia and Russia singed the Agreement on customs cooperation in February of this year, what, no doubt, will positively influence the bilateral trade.

The creation of the common customs space in the framework of EvrAzEs is planned for year 2005, however, at the moment more than 60 % of customs duties are harmonized already. It shall be reminded that five countries Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tadzhikistan, and Russia - signed an agreement on the common customs space yet in 1999.

In the end of January, the Government submitted to the State Duma the draft law On special protective, antidumping, and countervailing customs duties on imports. The new law shall replace the current law On measures aimed at the protection of the RF economic interests relating to foreign trade with goods, which does not agree with the WTO regulations. The law, adopted in 1997, for instance stipulates that such definition as heavy damage may be applied not only in the case of dumping on the part of producers, but also if domestic producers are squeezed out of the market as a result of fair competition.

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



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .