Formed in 2003, the trend towards increase in the share of direct investments still remain preserved. The increment of direct foreign investments in 2004 comprised 138.9% and their respective share grew up to 23.3%. The share of other investments in the aggre gate foreign investments into the Russian Federation in the year of 2004 remained at the level of 75.8% and the portfolio ones went down to 0.8%.
Table Volume of foreign investments into the non financial sector of the economy of Russia by kinds* in mln dollars in % to the preceding year Year Total Direct Portfolio Others Total Direct Portfolio Others 2000 10 958 4 429 145 6 384 114.6 104.0 467.7 121.2001 14 258 3 980 451 9 827 130.1 89.9 311.0 153.2002 19 780 4 002 472 15 306 138.7 100.6 104.7 155.2003 29 699 6 781 401 22 517 150.1 169.4 85.0 147.2004 40 509 9 420 333 30 756 136.4 138.9 83.0 136.* With no account taken of the money credit regulating bodies and the commercial and saving banks, including the rouble investments, re counted in the US dollars.
Source: The Federal Service of the state Statistics.
It is for the second year running that the volumes of the foreign investments into the Russian economy outstrip such of the business activities of Russian investors in foreign countries (Fig. 1). In 2004, the value of foreign investments in the Russian economy ex ceeded Russian investments into foreign countries by 6.74 bln US dollars. In 2003, the same indicator was estimated as 6.44 bln US dollars.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks 2,2 1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0 Dynamics of foreign investments into the RF, mln US dollars Investments from Russia abroad, mln US dollars Ratio of foreign investments into the RF and Russian investments into foreign countries Fig. 43. Foreign investments in the Russian Federation and investments from the Russian Federation abroad in 2000–As of the end of December, 2004, the foreign capital accumulated in the non finance sector of the Russian economy, comprised 82 bln US dollars which is 43.8% higher than the indicator as of January 1, 2004. The structure of foreign investments accumulated as of the end of December, 2004, is predominated by other investments which account for 54.0% (as of January 1, 2004, this indicator was estimated as 51.7%). A similar indicator for the direct foreign investments comprised 44.1% (January 1, 2004 – 45.8%).
According to the results of 2004, the leaders in the total volume of the accumulated foreign investments were Cyprus, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany and the Great Brit ain whose share comprised 67.9% (the year of 2003 – 57.1%) (see Table 24). The top five investing countries also account for 64.5% of direct investments (the year of 2003 – 51.4%), 48.9% of portfolio investments(the year of 2003 – 73.0%) and 71.3% of other in vestments (the year of 2003 – 61.4%).
Table Foreign investments in the economy of Russia by the main countries – investors, in mln US dollars Accumulated by 01.01.2005 Accumulated by 01.01.Total Direct Portfolio Others Total Direct Portfolio Others USA 6624 4310 418 1896 5296 4297 41 Germany 9324 2550 8 6766 10204 2542 383 France 3 874 433 0.3 3 441 4776 331 0.1 Gr. Britain 8673 1602 142 6929 7220 2828 107 Cyprus 13790 10094 585 3111 8085 5037 547 Netherlands 11996 8805 43 3148 3575 2796 5 Luxembourg 11880 263 1 11616 3464 222 1 Other states 15836 8090 396 7350 14394 8078 344.9 Total 81997 36147 593 44257 57014 26131 1429 Source: The Federal service of the state statistics.
The real sector In 2004, like in the preceding year, the concentration of foreign investments in the two spheres of the Russian economy, that is in industry and in the sphere of trade and public catering, remained preserved. The highest growth rates of foreign investments in 2004 at that, were observed in the sphere of finance, crediting and insurance. Distribution of foreign investments by the basic industries of the Russian economy is presented in Ta ble 25. Definitely positive is the fact that the growth of investments in industry remained preserved in the year of 2004 as well.
Table Branch structure of foreign investments in the Russian economy in 2002–In mln dollars. In % to the total 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 Industry 7 332 12 330 20 170 37.1 41.5 49.Transport & communication 610 1 083 2 033 3.1 3.6 5.Trade & public catering е 8 800 10 516 13 037* 44.5 35.4 32.Commercial activities for ser 1 355 3 403 2 572** 6.9 11.5 6.vicing the market Finance, credit, insurance 130 640 1 001*** 0.7 2.2 2.provision of pensions Other branches 1 553 1 727 1 697 7.9 5.8 4.* In connection with the changed procedure of providing information by the RF Rosstat (The Federal Service of the State Statistics) in 2005, the column contains data on foreign investments for organizations whose main business activities are “wholesale and retail trade, repair of the transport means, motorcycles, domestic goods and personal usage goods”.
**This column contains data on foreign investments for organisations whose main business activities are “commercial operations with real estate, renting and provision of services”.
*** This column contains data on foreign investments for organizations dealing with financial activities.
Source: Federal Service of the State Statistics.
Other industries - 27.Extraction of energy and fuel fossils - 43.Metallurgy production and production of metallurgy goods- 25.Chemical production - 3.Fig. 44. Branch structure of foreign investments in industry in 2004, % RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks Like in the year of 2003, the structure of foreign investments into industry is charac terized by a higher share of direct investments (the year of 2004 – 34.7%) as compared against the corresponding structure of the total volume of foreign investments into the Russian economy.
Significant changes in the structure of foreign investments in a number of industrial branches were observed in 2004. The specific weight of direct investments in the chemical industry in 2004 grew up to 31.1% while in 2003 it comprised but only 19.1%. A similar situation was observed in the metallurgy industry – the share of direct investments in this industry increased more than 6 times over and comprised 22.4%.
Considerable growth of investments in the fuel industry (about 65%) resulted in changes in the regional structure of foreign investments into the Russian economy. The volume of investments in Moscow, for instance, remained at the level of 2003 while such foreign investments in the Tyumen region within the period of 9 months of the year of comprised 4.7 bln US dollars which is 3.1 times more as compared against the same pe riod of 2003. A similar indicator for the Khanty – Mansi administrative okrug (AP) is esti mated to be in the amount of 3.9 bln US dollars which is 2.7 times higher than such level in 2003. On the whole, foreign investments in Saint Petersburg grew in 2004 by 41.6% as compared against such in 2003 (up to 985.1 mln US dollars) and by 44% in the Littoral Re gion (up to 65 mln US dollars).
The leading position in the geographic structure of foreign investments into the Rus sian economy belongs to Luxembourg whose share comprises 20.8% of the total volume of foreign investments in the Russian economy in the year of 2004, the second place takes the Great Britain – 17.3% of the total volume (Fig. 45).
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Netherlands USA Cyprus Gr.Britain Germany France Luxembourg Others 2002 2003 2004 2002 mln 2003 mln 2004 mln Fig.45. Geographic structure of foreign investments in the Russian economy in 2002–In 2004, investors from Luxembourg increased their investments into Russian econ omy 3.8 times while investments from Netherlands during the same period grew up to 2.times. The most significant reduction of investments in 2004 was observed among the German investors. Relevant investments from Germany in the period under consideration mln dollars.
In % to the total Section 3.
The real sector comprised 1.7 bln US dollars (4.3 bln US dollars in 2003). French investments in Russian economy also reduced down to 2.3 bln US dollars (from 3.7 bln US dollars in 2003). Differ ences in the dynamics of investments from various countries resulted in significant changes of the geographic structure of foreign investments in Russian economy. The spe cific weight of Germany, for example, went down from 14.5% in 2003 to 4.3% in 2004, such for France decreased from 12.5% down to 5.8%, Netherlands increased their share from 5.9% up to 12.6%, Luxembourg increased it from 7.5% up to 20.8%.
The year of 2004 also witnessed changes in the branch priorities of foreign investors from different countries. For instance, in the year of 2003, investors from Luxembourg usually invested in the trade public catering (60.1 of total investments from Luxembourg in the Russian Federation in 2003) and in the metallurgy industry (35.2%), but in 2004, they already gave preference to the extractive industry (45.2% of the total investments from Luxembourg into the Russian Federation in 2004), to the communication enterprises and to the sphere of trade (35.4%).
Entrepreneurs from the Great Britain considerably lowered down their investments into the general commercial activities for ensuring market functioning in the year of 2004.
At that, they also increased investing into the sphere of trade (from 39.6% in 2003 up to 53.4% in 2004) and in the metallurgy industry (from 10.3% up to 19.8%). The share of the communication industry in the investments from the Great Britain accounts for 6% (any data on investments in communication in the year of 2003 are not available).
In 2003, a priority industry for the investors from France was the fuel industry into which they invested 2.7 bln US dollars or 72.5% of the total investments from France into the RF in 2003. In the year of 2004, the share of trade in the French investments into the Russian economy grew up to 55%.
3.4. Russian agrifood sector: basic trends in 3.4.1. Exhaustion of growth factors and dichotomy forming in the sector The Russian agrifood sector performance in 2004 definitely indicates that the period of recuperative growth launched by 1998 crisis is over. Both agriculture and food industry stopped growing (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
In recent years the basic growth factor in the sector has been the shelter of domestic market from import due to devaluated ruble. Larger exports can also be attributed to this factor (although to a lesser extent). But beginning from 2000 the deficit of agrifood trade started to build up again. Given the agrifood imports’ growth rates throughout the last year, their annual value in 2004 will surpass the 1998 indicators. In this situation the gov ernment attempts to extend the factor’s effect by strengthening trade protectionism. Year after year budget support to agriculture in real terms diminishes while the overall level of protection (estimated by PSE4) increases quite intensely. In other words, on the national level the government tries to prolong growth in the sector by protecting it from import. In deed, in recent years the weighted average import duty5 on agrifood items got higher (in 2002 it amounted to 13.2%, in 2003 – to 15.3%6), meat quotas, duties on import of rice and other commodities were introduced, cases of non tariffs barriers to import became more frequent.
PSE – producer support estimate is a complex indicator of state support’s level. It includes both budget transfers to farm producers and price transfer – the result of measures leading to higher prices for agricultural commodities (including trade protectionism tools).
Ad valorem part without specific component.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks However, all these measures have failed to improve the sector’s performance – the average growth rates are falling at a high pace. Production indicators in some agricul tural sub sectors deteriorate. Although the output of many farm crops in 2004 exceeds the level of extremely poor crop 2003, it still remains quite low as compared with previ ous years (Fig. 3). Production of basic livestock products decreases as well, the only ex ception being poultry the output of which grows by 15–19% per annum for already sev eral years.
Does this mean that opportunities opened before the Russian agrifood sector after 1998 have been fully missed We find that it’s not exactly so. The above mentioned facts reflect the situation in domestic agrifood sector at large. However, from the Soviet period it inherited quite a lot of marginal producers that long remained afloat due to soft budget constraints, lack of efficient bankruptcy mechanism, non developed land market and other market reform failures. Actually, the sector is rapidly polarizing: on the one side, we wit ness the emergence of quite competitive producers that succeeded in modernizing tech nologies, management and production structure within the short respite after 1998; on the other side, enterprises for which the period of recuperative growth only protracted the dy ing agony still continue operating.
This process is most apparent in agriculture where bankruptcy of enterprises is cou pled with acute social problem and poor legislative basis. One can surely assert that two segments shaped in the sector presently referred to as “agriculture”: farm production proper characterized by larger output, higher productivity and modernization, and the segment of former Soviet agricultural enterprises that became marginal producers and currently survive only thanks to state support at all levels having just one goal – to provide a source of income for local population. In fact, the second segment cannot be regarded as a part of the sector, and these are its performance indicators that pull the national aver ages of growth and productivity down. This assertion is supported by a lot of indirect evi dences that will be described below.
First of all, agricultural production is quite clearly concentrating in a limited number of producers (Table 26). For instance, the top 100 companies account for the following shares in output: grain – 4% before the crisis and over 8% after the crisis, sugar beets – less than 15% and over 20%, respectively. This concentration is even more apparent in livestock production. Before the crisis the top 50 companies produced 15% of poultry, to day – over one half; the top 100 pig producers accounted for 22% of output before 1998, presently – also for over one half.
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.