In the first interview since his appointment as Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukayev told "Kommersant" on how to implement any project involves ministry focus in the first few months. Among the main priorities - "financial maneuver in favor of small business", the reform of the tariff regulation and a new edition of the "Strategy 2020".
- Alexei V., with what mandate you have come to the ministry? It is known that you were negotiating the parish ministry in April 2013. Terms on which you ultimately accepted a proposal for a new job?
- I did not conduct any negotiations, I immediately accepted the offer and did not formulate any conditions. I believe that it is not quite correct: the employer knows who he hires and recruited knows who his employer. It seems to me, right from the start that. And some special talks, some conditions - this is too much.
- Under the employer you are referring to President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev?
- And the two. Ultimately, the president, of course.
- Functions of the Ministry of Economy at different times in the government formulated in different ways, and each new minister had on its version of this bill. In addition, in recent years, quite a number of issues which have already been, in essence, a monopoly Ministry of Economy, addressed meaningfully at the level of First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, the other vice-chairmen. You once discussed the return of these powers to the level of the ministry?
- Just what we did not discuss. I think that we have over the years formed a high degree of mutual understanding. But I believe that the Ministry of Economic Development of doing a lot of things, a very wide area of responsibility. Some of it seems to me excessive. If it is a voluntary expansion or contraction of authority, I would have preferred a voluntary contraction and work with clear authority.
In fact, we are not in a position of equal quality and a huge responsibility to cover the whole range of issues, including industry. To solve them, there are sectoral ministries. There is no use in the substitution of competencies. As for the level at which decisions are taken past - they can be made at the various levels. And at the level of the prime minister, and on the presidential level. Especially as president, the prime minister's passing loop has a taste for a particular economic work and understands it.
I'd like to have some issues on which the last judgment is the first deputy prime minister, would be delegated to the Ministry of Economic Development? For some items - I would. For example, I would like to see us more than ever, engaged in tariff policy and tariff regulation.
- And antitrust policy?
- The regulations of the Ministry of written and maintenance of antitrust policy, and promoting competition. I think that support for competition - this is what we are doing less than necessary. I would like to see us as a ministry, more would be involved not in the antitrust regulation, not law enforcement, and in support of the framework of competition.
- Do you intend to revive the policy of deregulation, which the Ministry of Economy is very much engaged in the past few years?
- Required.This is an area to which I was not involved on the previous work, but I understand that in fact it is - one of the most important areas of activity. I believe that now is the main problem in the economy - it costs, cost management at both the macro and micro level, the management of transaction costs.
Therefore, all that is associated with the assessment of the regulatory impact is very important. We are cracking down on business a lot of different regulatory material, create it in this sense, is very busy lives, it makes us constantly change their business model. For example, the obsession with mandatory types of insurance, excessive reporting requirements - all this involves huge costs. We arrange and reducing the number of licensed activities, but instead there is a system registry, registration, licensing procedure actually suggesting the activity.
If we can help the deregulation of business - it will be very good. There are important notification procedure for commencement of business, transfer of permits to electronic form, the restrictions at the request of documents during inspections.
- Do we understand your strategy for the near future - identified several topics on which the Ministry of Economy, will concentrate, and other topics will be maintained only to the extent necessary for the current job?
- You could say that.
- If so, what topics will be among those whom you will be busy in the coming months?
- First of all it's tariff policy, which we currently do not take into account the business cycle. It must combine two things: to be a long-term, but flexible. We are rightly left on the formula "inflation plus", but this general statement, it is right on a long investment horizon, and in terms of increasing and decreasing business activity, it must be different.
Roughly speaking, in decline rates should decrease relative to the long-term median value, and on the stage of recovery - to rise. We must share the advantages of economic growth and risks between the parties. It can be executed in different ways. Maybe something like the tariff of credit - and even pay the tariff of credit. Maybe just a tariff corridor, tied to the values of the deviations of economic growth, taken by industry or as a whole, relative to the baseline scenario. In any case, a decision is to look for. I think it's extremely important. We must not allow the growth stage accumulate too much means, and in decline - even undermine the foundations of simple reproduction of plants.
Second - the diversification of the economy, all for the support of non-oil exports. Commodity exports and the logic of commodity prices, and the logic of the physical volumes will not be able to sustain economic growth. We do not have a lot of space for the invention of such a mechanism, but we now have yet powerful mechanism for the WTO, which should allow the country to solve the problem of non-oil exports.
- Support for non-oil exports in Russia is largely degenerated into export subsidies to exporters in military-technical cooperation and support of farmed 'national champions'. There is another strategy - do not support exporters and exports, opening up the domestic market to foreign investors willing to develop their export industries from the territory of Russia. The political logic in recent years, forbade the second option. Are you really ready to assist Russian "daughters" of foreign companies to export from Russia?
- What is important is not the title of the property and localization business. Industrial assembly forms the Russian export as it is the same Russian jobs, enough high-tech, this is a Russian tax base, the order for Russian specialists and, accordingly, the Russian way of life in a comfortable environment, which occurs as a result of this process. From the fact that some part of the result will receive the owner of another jurisdiction, the situation does not change.
A raise of "national champions" ... They do grow up, why do we have something here? Ministry of Economic Development for this completely unnecessary. The main thing here - we need to help medium-sized businesses. He finds it difficult to go to other markets, it is information not ready, not ready in legal terms, is not ready in terms of logistics and financing.
In this regard, I believe it is extremely important that we try to change the functional and the practice of our trade missions. Need to make sure that they work as service centers - centers that enter into agreements with business and work under those agreements. And representatives of business, we will include in their structure.
- Nevertheless, there remains the problem of orientation support non-oil exports of military and paramilitary branch?
- No, it's not something that you need to focus. In fact, we have very scanty export support programs - and they almost do not work. Guarantees for export credits should be in the nature of a public offer, pointing to the business, rather than a pre-determined companies.
- In many ways, the refusal in the past to promote exports, and generally facilitate the globalization of the Russian economy - is the protection of the Russian producer in its territory. As long as there is no foreign competitor - the Russian manufacturer does not want to export, it is quite comfortable here, where it serves the growing domestic demand, which, in turn, pays his taxes from primary through deficit spending the government itself.
- I think that this way of being close to running out of business. This method is based mainly on the growth proceeds primary sectors. In addition, we have ended the period of excessively rapid growth of consumer credit, and the degree of household debt load, as measured, for example, an indicator of DTI (Dept To Income - debt-to-income), dangerously high. All this means that in the near time we are faced with a situation where income growth and walking him rise in consumer spending its role driver of economic growth exhausted.
- That is, from your point of view, we are approaching the ceiling of household consumption by around 2016?
- Or, rather, the ceiling faster growth in household consumption.
- All over the world to achieve such ceilings governments are prepared in advance, mitigating the process to stop other "carrots" - deregulation and the opening of the support system of their own business, big massive infusions of public transport, in infrastructure, in that it allows to maintain the effect of "growing prosperity". The government now has a provision for this kind of populism?
- It does not necessarily populism.
Provisions, of course, is - and that's all for small and medium businesses. Medium business - is the basis of serious economic growth, and the small - it's usually a social shock absorber, which can and must contribute to the restructuring of the budget system and the restructuring of the industry. After all, when we say that we will be introduced high-tech jobs, in practice, this means that non-technological areas will be minimized. And apparently, tech jobs to less than the output will be low-tech. Consequently, the maximum assistance to small businesses is simply vital. Do not know whether this is the "carrot", but it is, at least, a piece of bread that people receive.
- Small business in this context usually means three constraints that five years ago, the Ministry of Economy, by the way, is quite active in the field. This is a return of powers to municipalities - The Ministry of Finance then resisted his arms and legs. This reform of the Interior Ministry, which did not happen - at least, we decline to consider what has happened, the reform of the Interior Ministry. And finally, this massive financial support for small businesses - it's pretty big expense that previously hopelessly lost vital military and police expenditures. Do you think that this agenda is no longer relevant?
- As for the local government. Subject real fiscal federalism, the theme of matching its mandate and the financial security of funding mandate - is unquestionably correct. For a long time the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation was balanced, and now - probably due to the stagnation of income - this balance is disturbed. To meet this challenge, we need to develop the property tax, real estate tax of individuals first, then legal entities. And - an underlying cause of this tax: kadastrirovanie accounting system, the removal of infrastructure constraints, including those related to energy tariff, the opportunities for citizens - to form themselves a piece of land, to require the government in order for it to be put up for sale so they can buy it .
Part of the problem is already solved - for example, the connection fee, we cease to be such an important topic. But we need to deal with the tariff policy areas, moving away from the "uniform" of the principle. Requires simplification of administrative procedures for small business, including the purchase of premises.
Finally, in fact, a financial maneuver in favor of small business seems to me not so scary. I would say that the cost for these purposes should be increased by an order in comparison with the past - but it's still amount that is comparable to a large investment of the federal budget. We need to create a federal guarantee fund and strengthen regional guarantee funds. Due to the comfort of the refinancing of loans to small and medium-sized businesses, which will give banks, according to my calculations, it is possible for about 400-500 billion rubles. year increase in the loan portfolio. In this case, the loans will accrue at the rate of small business, in any case, not more than 10% per annum. More about 400-500 billion rubles. You can increase this amount if to provide interest rate subsidies, putting through VEB NWF, it could reach about 100 billion rubles. year. In principle, the more, in my opinion, and is not necessary. This means it is overhead, they can fit into the budget strategy. Together with non-financial measures, it will be a powerful mechanism for real demand business.
- Basically the same thing with small and medium-sized businesses in the agricultural sector all done the last five years. There perfectly learned withdraw all subsidies and all means of state support in cash and increase zakreditovannost sector. Why is there not the same happen?
- I believe that our large multi-branch banks - such as Sberbank and VTB 24 - able to run the model "credit factory" with proper risk-based. These models they work well in retail lending, and they may well be extended to lending to small and medium-sized businesses, adding to the normal operation of the credit bureau. I think the information database on personal property tax will also help to keep the level of credit default within reasonable limits. We are able to distribute the risks and get away from the fact that we did observe in agriculture.
All this is largely a matter of organization. Level debt load and ceiling will depend on other factors as we shall use in the development of the sector itself. Now indebtedness of small and medium-sized businesses - about 4.5 trillion rubles. Well another trillion or so ramp up for three years - and upremsya ceiling debt load, unless it is to grow the sector itself. Removing administrative barriers to growth, we will avoid this ceiling.
- The current state of the economy is estimated as the Ministry of Economy starting as stagnation or recession? How long can be a recession in the economy, if you suspect it?
- Recessions are not. And will not. Stagnation is probably relevant term. Very low rate of growth, it is - a factor institutional, structural, macroeconomic. And this is what will need to be engaged in a very long time.
Now we will revise the forecast for the coming three-year budget and long-term prognosis in preparation of the budget strategy until 2030. Perhaps all of these documents we will give a more conservative estimate of future economic growth, which will take into account the prospects for global growth and our competitiveness.
- We almost always proceed from the assumption that the current stagnation - a reflection of the ceiling is made of institutional development: economic incentives will not work because there are no structures capable of responding to stimuli as the government wishes. You close to this point of view?
- Once again, we have a very high cost, and it is determined by a number of factors that are difficult to undo. Russia - middle-income countries, but we are currently in the amount of social commitment that is greater than typically have middle income country.
On the one hand, we have a huge burden on the part of the pension system. On the other hand, we have grown very strongly all the costs associated with the tariff policy: costs associated with gas supply, the transportation of goods by rail, network costs, the costs of energy supply. Finally, we have a very bad relationship between wages and GDP growth. All this leads to a rapid decrease in competitiveness and financial health of our businesses and the economy as a whole. All this greatly limits the opportunities for co-financing and investment growth.
- Why, then, do you think that the recession is not possible? In the world there are cases where the achievement ceiling lasted less smoothly, and collapse, including the politically organized.
- Because there is still consumer demand is exported. Net exports of Russia can not be a powerful driver of economic growth, but it is quite capable for many years to provide low but positive growth. Our structural, and social matrix is able to keep a growth rate of around 3%. This is about the expected growth rate of the global average. And without major changes in the institutional environment it is difficult to count on the fact that we will grow much higher than the rest of the world average.
- When you talk about reducing costs in the economy, you support and reduction of budget investraskhodov?
- Why cutting costs - it certainly budget cuts?
- As we have seen conflict between the two positions in the government on this issue: either reducing costs should be provided limited public investment, or, conversely, growth in public investment is needed to increase the competitiveness of the economy. Often it looks reasonable belief that in reality, no government investment will not occur and is inflated state funding for a variety of schemes. The Ministry of Finance, respectively, its mission is to reduce government spending, so we ask that thinks in this regard the Ministry of Economy. Furthermore, we see the preparation of the Ministry of Finance and the regulatory limit inflation to government investments - for example, drafting a bill on state and municipal investments ...
- From the point of view of the budget process logic consolidated consideration of investment and current expenditure budget is correct. We have to move on to the project financing of budget priorities. With budgetary investments have problems. Of course, we strongly sprayed at a very large number of objects that produce long-term construction, thanks to our fiscal policy does not ensure long-term contracts. We are pushing those who exercise investment, to ensure that they were not embedded in the solution of problems of economic development.
However, at the same time, from my point of view, there is the problem of bottlenecks in the transport, energy. Remove these infrastructure constraints - a problem of public investment. Better, of course, if they are not just government, and public-private. A good model, in which participate in such investment projects and budgetary and quasi-fiscal funds: funds SWFs, pension funds, managed by VEB. If we are able to organize and form a control investment projects in such a way that they provide a reasonable sharing of risks and returns for all the profile, we can collect, so projects that will contribute embroidered with these bottlenecks.
On the other hand, did the number of construction projects that we are planning - we are not in power. Need optimization on a number of projects.
In this case, the Ministry of Finance are already doing a lot of useful work he did today - the guardian of macroeconomic stability. But, unfortunately, this work is often conducted on the basis of the so-called optimization - vneprioritetnogo even lower trims costs.
I know colleagues - it somehow works, and a different approach may not work at all. Nevertheless, we need to work together to find a balance between obscheobemnymi restrictions and priority projects. From my point of view, the priorities - it is an investment in the elimination of infrastructure constraints to growth.
- All last year we watched a marathon of creating state programs, which were taken with several financing options - and with the support of the Ministry of Economy, which is often on many state programs pointed to the fact that only a maximum expenditure for state programs will accelerate economic growth. Do you think it possible to give up on the requests of government programs over fiscal space?
- I think. The state program must correctly orient the participants. Three or two of its variants - this is the wrong approach. Now all the participants in the budget process focused on the so-called additional revenue budget system. We are entering a period when incorporated in the program "dopa" will be implemented, most likely with a negative sign.
The current situation with the state programs leads to the fact that we are pushing business to enter into contracts unfulfillable. I believe that the state program must be done in a single form of financing. There should be a clear coordination within government programs between the objectives and investment security. The chances are that we will have the possibility of financing some optimistic, almost none.
- Discussion about the use of NWF for stimulating economic growth beyond the three infrastructure projects listed president, and a fixed amount of 450 billion rubles. already closed?
- I believe that this is not the limit. We can no significant macroeconomic risks to use for investment purposes anymore. Provided, of course, that we introduce a reasonable pension formula, which will reduce the demands on the possible use of NWF for the purpose of balancing the pension system. Maybe half - now it is 1.3-1.4 trillion. - It is possible to invest in projects. Of course, on the return and paid basis. But, unfortunately, we are always a little behind in the regulatory work. For example, we still have not formulated requirements, rules and procedures for the selection of projects that we can co-finance from the NWF.
I am convinced that this can only be a co-financing. In each project the proportion of NWF should not be above 30%. We also need a guarantee of repayment and ensure minimum income to the state (Downside Protection). It is desirable that this funding took place mainly on the basis of debt instruments. Only a limited part of the resource can be used to participate in the capital of companies.
- How do you assess the effectiveness of the structures that are considered development institutions Even in the government adopted the extreme points of view on this matter - some believe that "the institution of development" is synonymous with "additional budget expenditures gun," and that's fine. Others - on the contrary, they believe these development institutions that are about to show their high efficiency.
- I think that the main thing in this matter - the rules and procedures. Unfortunately, the Russian development institutes pereobremeneny tasks, and so they do not get to be targeted for development as such. As an institution of me for various reasons, like the Russian Direct Investment Fund. It seems to me that this is really a good combination to ensure economic priorities with Corporate Business start.
I do not believe that development projects can be nebiznesovymi in nature. Any investment should provide a return on capital. We can in many ways be considered a return on capital. Sometimes he can not accumulate on the balance of the investing organization, and on the other the balance sheets - but the refund should be. From my point of view, this is a mandatory rule.
- From your answer to the previous question, we can assume a special relation to privatization. It is true whether we are aware that you are not very important who will own a controlling stake in the structure, where it will sit a reasonable and rational manager? Yea, the White House has always proceeded from the assumption that the structure of government property without behaves fundamentally differently than the state agency that the state simply can not behave as an effective owner. But now, there are those who argue - just loosen the corporate state control, and conditional Igor Sechin in "Rosneft" will behave almost exactly the same as the private manager because he would not be important in a package of state property or state property.
- Of course.Title of the property and the exercise of the powers of the owner - different things. We usually focus on the title of the property. In fact, in some cases, in the course of privatization, except go the title, nothing happens.
In this sense - yes, I believe that a formal rejection of the state of the property title is not as important as behavior management. And the central bank may for a long time to maintain control in the Savings Bank, and the government - in VTB. And in many ways it is even safe to private business. When we once developed a program out of the Central Bank of the capital Moscow stock exchange, we talked business: it is necessary to keep a certain proportion of state participation in the exchange, albeit small. It would have marked the business interest of the state in such a project would provide circumstantial guarantees of its stability, the promise that the project will not be thrown.
The state needs to get out of the regulatory function of excess exposure. It is more important than the content or rejection of a particular title of the property.
- That is, in the near future we may see and review the forecast of the privatization plan towards reduction? At least for the largest objects?
- We can see a reduction, but we can see the opposite. Offer for sale - this is largely a function of market conditions. On the other hand, the failure to realize the fair value does not mean a ban on the sale of this - the market seems a long time will not be very good for the seller.
To achieve an understanding with the business it is desirable that the privatization program was executed.
- As far as the Ministry of Economy is important for the fiscal component of the sale of these assets?
- It is not the first place.For sale at fair value is important because it gives a signal to the international community: we are not ready to dump assets for a pittance. But from a fiscal point of view, privatization means - it means to cover the budget deficit. No need to keep yourself temptations to increase the budget deficit and to keep in the privatization of important fiscal goal. If you need to leave money on the development of the company, I think we should do it, and this applies primarily to state-owned banks.
- All of this conversation, anyway, confirm the need for the third round of the revision of the "Strategy 2020". He's getting ready?
- There will probably be a new edition of the "Strategy 2020". This is the current version is a good program, but it is very big and multitopicality. We now have, in my view, to make a much more targeted version, concentrating on a much narrower range of areas. It should make smarter, recognizing that the challenges are more demanding than ever.
That's all we've discussed with experts and, I think, in a rather short period of time will be able to make this work. The new version of the "Strategy 2020" will have to improve, and a list of measures to stimulate economic growth - including in lending and in supporting small businesses, and in the field of "packaging" of projects eligible for state funding.
- But these changes will still be worth the extra expense budget?
- I think so. At least there will be costs to support small and medium-sized businesses.
- A Ministry of Finance is satisfied?
- No.
- And how will be decided this is still quite common for the Ministry of Economy of the problem?
- I assume that this increase in costs must be held within the budget parameters that exist now. Ministry of Finance will offer something in return. We shall look for him opportunities to reduce costs.
Interview took Peter and Dmitri Netreba Butrin
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
sepheronx
