Why we voted against Russia`s accession to the World Trade Organization
Article of the constant author " the Spark " Vladislav Inozemtseva about advantages of Russia`s accession to the World Trade Organization (" the Market of the seller or the buyer? " " a spark " N 25 for 2012) a worthy occasion to discussion. As when the author wrote article, the State Duma yet did not ratify the report on joining of our country to the WTO, and now this decision already became a reality. But mister Inozemtsev, correctly having predicted voting in the Duma (one fraction " for " three others " against ") Has accused us and our colleagues, deputies from " Fair Russia " in unwillingness to admit in Russia more effective competition, in monopolism and state capitalism protection, in grovelling before omnipotent officials. It is difficult not to react.
we will begin with the theory. On what to be guided in economic policy on the market of the consumer or the market of the seller? In the end of the market of the seller really deadlock, more precisely, breakage which we observed at wreck of the whole public system in the end of 1980 - h years. But also adherents of the market of the buyer have a weak place: unless today`s financial crisis in the West has grown not from a connivance to borrowers in the mortgage market of the developed countries, unless trading deficiency of the USA is caused not by desire to have lower prices in the consumer market, a leah and to budgetary crisis endlessly and without edge in Europe have come on waves " the consumer market "?
It is thought, Eric Rajnert has extremely clearly described a situation: " Two utopias take place harmony of planning and automatic harmony of the market ". The buyer always the seller. Without having sold the labour possibilities for the worthy income, " the economic person " to become simple not in a status the active buyer. And an exit from this theoretical circle in practice not in budgetary tools (indexation of incomes, grants to manufacturers), and in understanding of till what time and in what form the state should strengthen the influence on economic processes and when to depart aside. Till what moment to adhere the protectionism and when to start to open.
it is difficult to disagree with mister Inozemtsevym that accession to WTO leaves to the authorities wide both #150; almost unbounded possibilities for the state support (especially if to compare to that support which appears now to separate branches). And it is valid, about what dispute, if for agriculture admissible support in 15 times above that which takes place today? But a question in that, as well as whom dotirovat. All is private and solved problems.
at the same time it is impossible to remove questions on from the agenda, a leah it is necessary to connect to itself hands on the eve of recutting of economic space which will inevitably begin after crisis overcoming; a leah the rules written for absolutely other epoch as in the history of the WTO practically it is not appreciable new significant arrangements have become outdated? And, what the most essential how much our power is capable to operate effectively within the limits of the WTO, how much correctly it can expose strategic targets and problems?
we will result a simple example. In a sharp phase of crisis all automobile powers have carried out the action on replacement of second-hand cars on new with the grant from the budget to manufacturers. Russia also realised a corresponding series of measures. But the conclusion to the market of essentially new models of cars, including accessible electromobiles and cars with hybrid engines became result of actions of the European governments, and in a number of the countries the network on operation of electromobiles (France, Israel) has started to be formed. Our copying of foreign idea has given on an exit sharp increase in release of the most primitive and cheap models of cars 40 - summer prescription. A leah
so we can with advantage for business use the international tools in practice? We do not call in question any figure resulted by Inozemtsevym, and at all we do not challenge its major thesis, according to which " the Russian companies after accession to WTO really become less competitive, but not so much competition from the outside, how much extreme zavyshennost tariffs from outside " will appear the reasons of it; natural " Monopolies, an exclusive inefficiency of the state institutes and persistent unwillingness of the power to suppose in home market that competition which could prepare the companies for functioning normal conditions ". However confuses " the price " an offered medicine. That to us it is more favourable: to go on essential costs in the form of risk to strengthen raw dependence of the Russian economy (and the openness for many countries became full accident, it is possible to remember Mongolia or Peru) or all - taki to continue internal efforts on economic policy change (in view of that protectionism at target to installation on support " national champions " in modern branches has given in the same South Korea phenomenal result)?
Actually, in this moment we also disperse from the opponent.
he does not see internal administrative resources: " If 18 years in the Kremlin nobody tried to modernise the country differently as in words, now it is not necessary to regret for the missed chances them it was not simple ". How with it to argue? But if within last 8 years decisions which will complicate our life at the WTO very much even easily since September we will start to live in " are constantly made; Greece " that is in conditions when external standards do not correspond to internal social possibilities.
our import to the basic weight consists of the goods of that group on which we lose in labour productivity taking into account quality in times. For example, in motor industry this rupture already makes 1:10 if to compare Autovases and factory of the company of Hyundai in the next Czechia.
the problem consists not in accession to WTO or abiding outside the limits of this organisation. It consists in what acts need to be accepted before the accession to WTO, what measures will help to secure domestic economy against the excessive risks interfaced to integration into global economic structures.
so, first of all it is necessary to pass the federal law on state regulation of tariffs for services of natural monopolies; to go on real privatisation (not on 7,58 or 25 percent a minus 1 action, and up to controlling stock sale) the large state companies, being guided thus not budgetary, but technological criteria; to return parliamentary control over streams of the means directed from budgets of different levels in authorised capital stocks of state companies and in support of the enterprises with the state participation; to reconstruct model of development of the housing market from individually - the mortgage form in favour of rent; to reconsider logic " strategic branches " As much as possible having opened space, defensive sectors for private business, especially in the light of the American decision on expansion of access of the private companies to realisation of space programs; to realise the offer of the operating prime minister on decentralisation of the consolidated budget; to cancel huge excises on gorjuche - lubricants and some other. Agree, not such great volume of work, a maximum for a year if to roll up sleeves. But present for an instant that it is made. Already absolutely other sensation of possibilities to meet competition strengthening in home market even within the limits of the WTO.
Besides, in discussion about the WTO the regional aspect is almost completely missed. It is partly explainable the power at us vertical, and most effectively is lobbied by the interests large federal players. But the branch principle is abstract, and territorial it is approached to practice. From the branch point of view bankruptcy of the small enterprise or curtailment of production in this or that sphere on 10 - 15 percent not the problem, but for people on places it can mean cessation of work gradoobrazujushchego the enterprises, crash of the whole life. Accession to WTO is counter-indicative for Russia not only until we still have noncompetitive some large branches but also until in the country there is no effective migratory policy and the thought over strategy of harmonious regional development.
our fraction has voted against ratification of the report on Russia`s accession to the World Trade Organization because from the practical point of view it is the decision looks essentially differently, rather than with theoretical. The pressing forward of the government in a hurry to pass laws leads to reproduction of former problems at new level. One year ago our fraction voted against the law on militia reform. Today someone is ready to denounce us for it?