Fig.15. The average Export prices for Oil and Diesel Fuel in 1996–2004 (USD/t) 0 Mln. t. (left scale) USD mln. (right scale) Source: computed basing on data of the Federal State Statistics Service Fig.16. Export of Oil and Oil Products in Natural and Value Equivalent in 1997–Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Nov-Nov-Nov-Nov-Nov-Nov-Nov-Nov-Nov-Mar-Mar-Mar-Mar-Mar-Mar-Mar-Mar-Mar-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Jan-Oct-Jan-Oct-Jan-Oct-Jan-Oct-Jan-Oct-Jan-Oct-Jan-Oct-Jan-Oct-RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks 130 Oil Gas 10 (right scale) 0 Source: computed basing on data of the Federal State Statistics Service.
Fig.17. Average Producer Prices for Oil and Gas in USD Equivalent in 1992– as USD/t., USD/Thos. cub.m.
Petrol Black oil Source: computed basing on data of the Federal State Statistics Service.
Fig.18. Average Producer Prices for Petrol and Black Oil in USD equivalent in 1992–2004 (USD/t.) Jul Jul Jan Oct Apr Jun Jan Oct Apr Feb Sep Nov Feb Sep Nov Aug Mar May Dec Aug Mar May Dec Jul Jul Jul Apr Apr Apr Oct Oct Jan Jan Jun Mar Jun Mar Jun Nov Nov Nov Feb Dec Feb Dec Feb Dec Sep Aug Sep Aug Sep May May Section 3.
The real sector Drilling, Thos.m Wells placement, units Source: the Federal State Statistics Service.
Fig.19. Operational Drilling for Oil and Placement of Oil Wells in Operation in 1996–To suppliers To budgets Source: computed basing on data of the Federal State Statistics Service Fig.20. Outstanding Arrears of the Oil Sector before Suppliers and Budgets of All Levels in 1996–2004 (USD bln.) Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Apr-Oct-Apr-Oct-Apr-Oct-Apr-Oct-Apr-Oct-Apr-Oct-Apr-Oct-Apr-Oct-Apr-Oct-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Jul-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Apr-Oct-Oct-Oct-Oct-Oct-Oct-Oct-Oct-Oct-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks 3.2. The IET Business Surveys3.2.1.The Dynamics of Demand or Industrial Produce Late 2003 traditionally became the period of decline in the demand for the domestic industrial produce. The sales growth rates (by balance) had begun to fall since October and by December they dropped to 6%. That meant that enterprises reporting the fall in their output began to dominate over the industrial sector. All the industry branches re ported an absolute fall in sales or, at least, a deceleration of growth at the end of the year.
The only exception was the food processing sector that, by contrast, reported, one of the highest growth rates. So, in 2004 the national industrial sector found itself far from the best shape.
The early 2004 likewise did not predict a rapid rise in demand. The January slump proved to be most intense over the past 5 years (Fig. 21). All the industries reported nega tive balances, except for the one for electricity (again, due to seasonality).
% -----months МЕСЯЦЫ -1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Fig. 21. The Monthly Dynamics of demand in 2000–(Balance = % of Growth – % of Fall) But as early as in February our surveys registered a rise in sales of industrial pro duce, which had not happened over the prior 3 years. Notably, it took place (or, at least, the respective decline decelerated) in all the industry branches. It was only the sector for electricity that was undergoing problems with the cash sales, which is an annual phe nomenon in the sector, nonetheless. The national industrial sector had been maintaining high rates of sales until the end of the 1st half year, with balances of changes in demand over this particular period being superior to their respective indices of 2001–2003. It was This section is based upon surveys on heads of industrial enterprises that IET has conducted monthly since September 1992. The surveys cover the whole territory of Russian Federation, with the panel comprising a. 1,200 enterprises with the number of employees accounting for over 20% of those employed in the industrial sector. The panel is biased towards large enterprises by each of 61 singled out subsectors, while the questionnaire return rate is a. 70%.
The real sector enterprises of ferrous metallurgy, chemical and petrochemical sectors, and the construc tion materials industry that reported the most intense growth in demand for their output, while, by contrast, the demand for the light industry produce almost always declined and the intensity of fall in sales would reach very big values (–38...–43% by the balance). Our reports have not registered such high rates of decline in demand for the light industry out put since August 1998. (Fig. 22). By contrast, the machine engineering sector demon strated absolutely different dynamics of demand – after the seasonal decline in January, it did not fall over the period in question. Even the May (not adjusted) balance proved to be positive, which did not happen both in 2002 and 2003.
% --Light Machine engineering --1/93 1/94 1/95 1/96 1/97 1/98 1/99 1/00 1/01 1/02 1/03 1/04 1/Fig. 22. Change in Effective Demand in the Industry Branches (Balance = % of Growth – % of Fall) In the 2nd half year, the demand growth rates lost their record breaking momentum vis аvis the preceding years (Fig. 21). The 2004 August growth rates in demand were lower than those of the 4 prior years, while in July – 3 prior years. Once in October, No vember and December the national economy manifested clear signs of deceleration of its growth (at, least, as evidenced by the official data on the dynamics of output), the growth rates of demand for industrial output were inferior to just the respective index of 2000. So, the monthly dynamics of demand for industrial output does not provide any grounds for pessimistic assessments of sales of industrial output in the 2nd half 2004. This conclusion is back upped by balances of change in the demand computed by half years (Table 18). The intensity of change in demand in the 2nd half year roved to be the greatest one over the last 4 years, while the aggregate result of the 1st half year also proved to be the best one over the period in question. The demand for its output basically fully enabled Russia’s industrial sector to maintain high growth rates of production, at least, not lower than in the preceding years.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks Table Changes in Effective Demand by Half Years in 2000–Year Half year Growth No change Decline No reply Balance 2000 1 22 65 12 2 2 22 65 11 2 2001 1 18 61 18 3 2 19 65 14 2 2002 1 15 58 25 1 –2 20 62 18 1 2003 1 21 58 20 1 2 22 62 14 2 2004 1 22 59 18 1 2 21 66 13 1 This thesis is also proved by the dynamics of the frequency of enterprises referring to a low domestic effective demand as an obstacle to production growth. This particular index dropped to 38% by the 4th quarter, which makes up the minimum value since October 1993, while yet in early 2004 it had been 50%. In 2004, it impeded output at just 46% of en terprises on average, which is the best value over the period 2000–04, except for the year of 2000 (Table 19). It was metal producers that had the least problems with domestic sales in 2004 (31%). When compared with 2003, the domestic demand formed a 2 fold lesser impediment to their output. The forestry held the second position in this regard (38%), fol lowed by the light (39%) and food (40%) industries. Thus, an insufficient domestic demand posed a problem to just 39% of Russian textile and sewing enterprises. By contrast, most other industry branches have found themselves in a far worse position. These results compel one to question the thesis of the domestic market being completely lost by the na tional light industry. Should it be able to solve its other problems (primarily, the lack of liq uid assets and qualified staff), its produce would enjoy the domestic demand. Interest ingly, the food processing industry was likewise challenged by the domestic demand roughly to the same extent as the light industry did. The aggregate 2000–2004 results evi dence that the domestic demand hampered 46% of food processing and 43% of textile and sewing companies on average to boost their output. The dynamics of output in these sectors were different though – while the food processing sector was progressing more or les successfully, the textile industry went downhill. Notwithstanding that, the domestic de mand did not appear the most cited cause for the fall in output in the domestic light indus try – in their post default growth stage, other sectors more often suffered from an insuffi cient domestic effective demand. For instance, in the machine engineering and metallurgical sectors, over the period in question the domestic demand on average ham pered output at 55% enterprises, in the sector for chemicals and petrochemicals – 53%, and in the construction materials industry – 50%.
But high growth rates in demand in the 1st half year had nearly zero effect on the en terprises satisfaction with their production volumes. The average balance of assessments (above or below norm) proved to be lower than its analogous indicator over the 2nd half 2003. Enterprises either expect greater results, or have failed to adjust their assessments to recent trends. This thesis is proved by the dynamics of satisfaction with demand (its as sessment as being normal). In the first 6 months 2004, across the industrial sector 49% of enterprises on average were satisfied with sales of their produce, while the respective in dex in the 2nd half year 2003 was 52. In terms of specific industries, the satisfaction with demand in the first half year 2004 ranged from 75% in the non ferrous metallurgy to 37% Section 3.
The real sector in the industry of construction materials and the light industry, while in the machine engineering sector the respective index accounted for 42% and 57% – in the food processing industry. It should be noted, however, that our survey data evidenced some “revaluation of values” (or demand) in the national industrial sector in 2003 – the balance grew from –65% to –39%, while the proportion of responses “normal” from – с 32 to 55% over the year. There were no such trends in early 2004, albeit a more accurate compari son, following the “a period of one year to the respective period of the prior year” principle shows the presence of positive tendencies in the dynamics of demand assessments, too.
Table The Frequency of Citation of Domestic Effective Demand as an Impediment to Growth in Output in Industry Branches (as % to the Number of Responded Enterprises, the Average Annual Data) Industry branches 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 All industries 56 64 61 63 51 45 47 62 58 Metallurgy 64 66 57 63 38 35 64 81 61 Chemicals and petrochemicals 50 71 69 63 51 47 46 65 54 Machine engineering 62 63 62 66 59 54 51 60 62 Forestry 49 70 55 45 22 26 32 39 29 Construction 55 67 66 73 65 45 44 59 53 Light industry 54 58 49 53 42 40 37 53 47 Food processing 52 51 62 62 56 52 41 46 49 The averaged balances of assessments of the 1st half year 2004 appear at 10 bal ance points greater than their 2003respective values and have proved to be the best ones since 1994. But negative values of the balance of assessments evidence that the enter prises that do not consider the demand for their produce normal mostly are inclined to opt for “below norm” assessments. As the proportion of the “above norm” answers, as a rule, accounts for several per cent, the enterprises’ satisfaction is most visibly characterized by the correlation between the “normal” and “below norm” assessments (Fig.23).
% below norm normal 1/94 1/95 1/96 1/97 1/98 1/99 1/00 1/01 1/02 1/03 1/04 1/Fig. 23. The Dynamics of Main Assessments of Effective Demand RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks The excess of the “normal” answers over those “below norm” was first received in mid 2003. In other words, by that time the volumes of cash sales of industrial produce had reached such a volume that the national industrial sector found itself dominated by the en terprises that believed the demand for their produce was normal, rather than by those be ing not satisfied with the demand. It took the economy 5 years of the post default rise in effective demand to reach that critical point. This domination had still been in place by late 2003, despite, first, the deceleration of growth rates, followed by their absolute decline in December. It was consequently lost only in January 2004, with the surveys registering a drastic (even for January) fall in sales volumes, and in February, when the restoration of sales proved to be insufficient. In March, once again, there were more enterprises satisfied with the demand for their produce than those dissatisfied with that. This domination re mained through the year and by October it reached 22 p.p. already, which became a re cord value for the whole period of monitoring. But a slowdown of growth rates in demand between November to December compelled enterprises to consequently adjust their de mand estimates: the rate of “normal” assessments slid by 2 p.p. in November and by an other 7 p.p. – in December, albeit the respective excess over the “below norm” assess ments was still there. (Fig. 24).
BALANCE OF CHANGES % --DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSESMENTS --1/94 1/95 1/96 1/97 1/98 1/99 1/00 1/01 1/02 1/03 1/04 1/Fig. 24. The Balance of Changes in Effective Demand and Difference between Its Main Assessments However not all the sectors proved to be capable to reach the volume of sales satis factory to most enterprises in 2004 (Table. 20). More specifically, the “below norm” as sessments were still prevalent in such sectors as machine engineering, construction mate rials industry and light industry, The greatest demand challenges still face the light industry, where over half of enterprises still consider the demand for their produce “below norm”. It was just in single months when our surveys noted the prevalence of the “normal” assessments in this particular sector. This happened once in 2003 and four times in 2004.
So, the positive trends are also present in the light industry – an increasingly greater num ber of enterprises find a satisfactory balance between heir production capacity and market opportunities.
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.