Logic of a rentStill in 2003 - 2004 discussion of problems of property expansion of the state and state capitalism as factors, significant for economy of Russia, caused sharp tearing away. 2005 became critical, giving grounds to speak not simply about expansion of the state presence, but about a steady tendency to domination of the state in a number of leading branches. In 2005 objects of expansion of a steel oil and gas branches, the car - and mechanical engineering, the nuclear industry, avia - and vertoletostroenie and a number of others. In 2006 - 2007 it is possible to expect new absorption in oil and gas sector, it is mountain - extracting branch, the chemical industry, aviatransportations. However the given reason official substantiations of expansion of direct participation of the state in economy does not exist. We will try to allocate some hypotheses, understanding that in life they can closely intertwine.
a variant the first - “ management and efficiency “ - Means apologia of advantages of management of economy by means of large economic state structures. The model (state) holding has as advantage (in some branches), and lacks. As a bright example it is possible to specify in problems which it was necessary to face during attempts of formation of holdings only in one sector - VPK where their expediency by very few people is challenged. It is conventional also that attempts of replacement of private business by the state structures in the long term are fraught with negative economic consequences more often.
a variant of the second - “ a global competition and national safety “ - means that private structures do not hold out to level of modern international corporations. Formation of large state structures can be regarded, on the one hand, as a way of state support chosen “ the force centres “ for global positioning in the world (extracting branches and VPK). With another - as the protectionism tool in those sectors which are subject to influence of a global competition and bear on itself social or infrastructural loading. But it means transition to a policy of financial state support (with all possible costs) strategically significant projects. And scales of expansion of 2005 call into question exclusiveness of this variant.
a variant the third - “ the state rent “ - it is connected with idea of nationalisation of a natural rent in oil and gas sector, black and nonferrous metallurgy. Certainly, direct populist measures here could find support of the Russian society, but a choice in 2003 - 2005 has been made in favour of a complex of indirect measures: the new tax to mining operations, export duties, practice donachislenija taxes. In other words, the state and so actively enough pursues a policy of redistribution of incomes TEKa. It is possible to assume that nationalisation is considered as its closing stage. But also it does not give exhaustive explanations to the interest of the state shown in 2005 to other sectors of economy.
a private rent?
at last, a variant the fourth - “ strengthening of personal influence and a private rent “ - the most difficult for interpretations on faktologicheskim and to ethical reasons. However its triviality and a pragmatism give to it if to start with “ a principle of Okkama “ the right to existence on a level with others.
distribution of the political power in a society is defined by political institutes and distribution of resources. Requirement of the new power always is the establishment of the greatest possible control over accessible resources. The further measures are caused by concrete representations about a place and bureaucracy functions in a society and the state and possibilities which are opened by political system. If political institutes do not provide effective terminators for extraction the power prederzhashchimi a rent from stay in power economic institutes are transformed in interests “ rentoobrazovanija “. The system becomes efficient if control of financial streams becomes isolated on built state and private “ the profit centres “ in Russia and abroad. This logic assumes state sector expansion: not on abstract motives of strategic interests and national safety, and rather tochechno - at the expense of sectors and the companies which vysokorentabelny also do not demand the big momentary administrative, investment or innovative efforts.
Such system means also occurrence new “ oligarchs “ which expansion at a certain stage will make efforts rent transformation in the property. Accordingly, the situation, when with activity end on " is quite admissible; to ordering “ financial streams of state holdings and to building “ the force centres “ their management will receive cards - blansh on creation of own private groups on their basis.
it is interesting to mention thereupon a design which is offered by Michael Dmitrys in the article in (see from January, 30th, 2006). In view of the negative relation of the population to privatisation 1990 - h nationalisation is represented to the author “ expiation of a fall of man “ and possibility of new privatisation, which " is in the long term discussed; will create the distributed structure of the corporate property where the role of small shareholders and institutional investors behind which there are interests of millions people will amplify. Naivety of such reasonings is obvious. In - the first, in 1990 - e years the sharpness of negative estimations of the Russian privatisation was not smaller. In 2004 - 2005 the quantity of the polls showing the negative relation to a private property and to " has sharply increased; to oligarchs “ but, in our opinion, it is connected in a greater degree with maintenance of an ideological platform of the state expansion. In - the second, the appeal to interests of millions people in large corporation with the distributed structure of a share capital as is senseless, as well as at discussion “ the public socialist property “ (it concerns and Anglo-Saxon corporate system). In - the third, at least in third from 20 largest Russian private companies and so today there is a shift from “ oligarchical “ to “ public “ corporate model. In - the fourth, the doubt causes sequence of processes: nationalisation on a wave of share lifting and growth of capitalisation of the companies and privatisation in the long term at not clear economic conjuncture. However, if nationalisation is financed from budgetary funds the sequence has no value.
at the same time Michael Dmitriev`s design possesses one doubtless advantage: it can be really realised in the future, however character “ the distributed structure of the corporate property “ it is possible to predict with some error already today.