Evgeniy Gontmakher: “They will cut people’s hair.” Evgeny Gontmakher: Russia has to make a civilizational choice Evgeny Gontmakher articles

Evgeniy Shlemovich Gontmakher(born July 6, Lvov) - Russian economist. Deputy Director for Research, Institute of World Economy and international relations. Doctor economic sciences, Professor. Member of the Board of the Institute of Contemporary Development, Member of the Committee of Civil Initiatives (chaired by A. L. Kudrin).

Biography

Head of department in the presidential administration in 1994-1995.

In 1999-2003 - head of department social development apparatus of the government of the Russian Federation.

In 2003-2006 - vice-president of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.

Since March 2008 - member of the board (chairman of the board - Igor Yurgens).

Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Member of the Presidium of the Russian Jewish Congress.

Married, has a daughter and son.

Interview

• - 10.12.2012

Write a review of the article "Gontmakher, Evgeniy Shlemovich"

Notes

Links

• . (Russian) - 02/19/2009.
• - (video), 06/18/2009
• - (video), 11/25/2008

An excerpt characterizing Gontmakher, Evgeniy Shlemovich

My strange “walks” were now repeated every night. I no longer went to bed, but was looking forward to when, finally, everyone in the house would fall asleep and everything around would plunge into the deep silence of the night, so that I could (without fear of being “caught”) Once again to completely immerse myself in that extraordinary and mysterious, “other” world in which I was almost accustomed to being. I was waiting for my new “friends” to appear and for the amazing miracle to be given anew each time. And although I never knew which of them would come, I always knew that they would definitely come... And whichever one of them came, he would again give me another fabulous moment, which I would treasure in my memory for a very long time , like in a closed magic chest, the keys to which only I had...
But one day no one showed up. It was a very dark moonless night. I stood with my forehead pressed against the cold window glass and kept looking at the garden covered with a shimmering snow shroud, trying until it hurt in her eyes to look for something moving and familiar, feeling deeply lonely and even a little “treacherously” abandoned... It was very sad and bitter, and I wanted to cry. I knew that I was losing something incredibly important and dear to me. And no matter how hard I tried to prove to myself that everything was fine and that they were just “late”, deep down I was very afraid that maybe they would never come again... It was insulting and painful and I just didn’t want to believe it . My child's heart I didn’t want to put up with such a “terrible” loss and didn’t want to admit that this would still have to happen someday, but I still didn’t know when. And I wildly wanted to push back this unfortunate moment as far as possible!
Suddenly, something outside the window really began to change and flicker in a familiar way! At first I thought that one of my “friends” was finally appearing, but instead of the familiar luminous entities, I saw a strange “crystal” tunnel that began right at my window and went somewhere into the distance. Naturally, my first instinct was to rush there without thinking for a long time... But then it suddenly seemed a little strange that I did not feel that usual warmth and calmness that accompanied every appearance of my “star” friends.
As soon as I thought about this, the “crystal” tunnel began to change and darken before my eyes, turning into a strange, very dark “pipe” with long moving tentacles inside. And a painful, unpleasant pressure squeezed my head, very quickly developing into a wild exploding pain, threatening to crush all my brains. Then for the first time I truly felt how severe and severe a headache could be (which later, only for completely different reasons, would poison my life for nineteen years). I felt truly scared. There was no one who could help me. The whole house was already asleep. But even if I hadn’t slept, I still wouldn’t have been able to explain to anyone what happened here...

Economist Evgeny Gontmakher: an economic collapse may occur at the end of the year.

The Ministry of Finance has already admitted that there will be no structural changes in the economy, and at 50 dollars per barrel there will be a long-term crisis. An alternative is proposed by Evgeny Gontmakher, deputy director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, member of the Committee of Civil Initiatives (chaired by Alexey Kudrin).

“We don’t need privatization for the sake of privatization”

Evgeniy Shlemovich, what is the government anti-crisis program - will it help our crisis economy?

My attitude towards the genre of current anti-crisis programs is negative due to the fact that, in essence, they do not change anything. This is just a set of points for targeted injections of money into various industries. Only a program of real reforms will help us get rid of the crisis, and not another feverish patching of holes called the “anti-crisis program.”

The program contains a provision on privatization. Putin demanded that the participants in the process have exclusively Russian jurisdiction. That is, foreigners are cut off from privatization. Is it good?

Of course, I believe that cutting off foreign business from this process- Badly. Competition is always good. When foreign business is cut off, it results in “competition” among our own, but this trick is still more difficult to do with foreigners. Therefore, in our case, it will be possible to make an application on behalf of some Cypriot offshore company, behind which “our” people will actually stand.

If we talk about privatization in general, which is supposed to be according to the program, I don’t consider it such at all. You can sell some small stakes in our state corporations, such as Rosneft or Russian Railways, but the owners of such stakes will not have any influence on their policies. Let's take Gazprom: you can go to the stock exchange and buy its shares, but this does not mean that you, as a minority shareholder, can influence anything, because over 50% of the shares belong to the state. This means that Gazprom is doing exactly what the Russian government dictates to it. From here we observe the slowness, inefficiency and opacity of the corporation, as everyone has already recognized. From my point of view, privatization is when the state hands over most of the assets into private hands, in a competition in which a wide range of investors, and not only Russian ones, participate. Privatization should not lead to the emergence of super-owners who should own 60-70% of companies, as was the case in our country in the first half of the 90s of the last century. No, privatization of the 21st century is when a specific individual owns no more than 2-3% of the company. By the way, almost all large manufacturing companies in the West are built according to this scheme. Now, if this is the case, I agree to call it privatization.

“That privatization was initiated by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, the majority was on the left. The government represented by Gaidar and Chubais was forced to go for exactly this type of privatization” RIA Novosti/Igor Mikhalev

The point is also that this process should not be institutionally isolated. They took over and privatized some company, but everything else around remained the same. This is wrong and will not give the desired results. We need to work on systematically increasing transparency and competition. This is what, from my point of view, real privatization is.

In your opinion, are the assets that the state will offer investors attractive at all? Will businesses be afraid to buy them, knowing the unenviable fate of some large businessmen who eventually lost their property? They say that in Russia there are no large owners - just appointed ones.

This is a philosophical question. Of course, you are right, both Russian and foreign businesses do not trust our state, which can take away assets at any time, put you in prison, and so on. Therefore, we must at all costs change the attitude of business, including Russian business, towards working in Russia. As I just said, privatization in itself, without improving the situation as a whole, is meaningless. Privatization is only part of a large package of reforms, which should include not only economic transformations, but even the foreign policy vector. Russia lives under sanctions, and if suddenly some foreign investor wants to buy part of Russian property, he will face great political risks. In order to start buying assets in Russia, you need to regain trust in yourself so that you can work with us without risk - both politically and economically. Without this, the declared privatization is impossible; even if someone buys something, it will not bring any effect.

So, do you have confidence that privatization will not become a repeat of the check auctions of the second half of the 90s, when huge chunks of state property went for free to “their” oligarchs in exchange for extending the regime of the fading Yeltsin? That is: won’t it turn out that a new wave of privatization will only strengthen the neo-feudal structure of our society? And then, there are strategic sectors related to the country's security.

Firstly, I’m not saying that everything needs to be privatized down to the last nail. I agree that Rosatom or Russian Technologies are specific corporations associated with our military-industrial complex, so I do not at all call for their privatization. In France, for example, a democracy and a market economy, the majority of electricity is produced by state-owned nuclear power plants.

“Privatization in itself, without improving the situation as a whole, is meaningless” RIA Novosti/Alexey Danichev

I say that the drivers of our economy are oil, gas, railways and much more, already work poorly in the hands of the state. They need efficient private owners. Yes, of course, in people's memory privatization carries a negative trail: the pun “privatization” appeared. But I must remind you that that privatization was initiated by the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, in which the left had a majority. And the government, represented by Gaidar and Chubais, was forced to undertake precisely this type of privatization. Few people remember this, but it is true. I don’t deny that mistakes were made with vouchers back then, which were concentrated in the hands of various types of businessmen who were far from the most effective as managers. Then there was the stage of loans-for-shares auctions, which, in my opinion, was completely ugly. There is no need to repeat all this.

We need to prepare, study the experience of the past in order to avoid mistakes. Let me emphasize again: we do not need privatization for the sake of privatization. We need to radically improve the efficiency of the economy.

- So simply privatization is not suitable as a means to overcome the crisis?

Absolutely right, the main task of real privatization, what I am trying to convey, is not to extract funds for the budget. Well, the Russian government will sell part of some assets, receive 200 or even 500 billion rubles and close another hole. But no economic processes will change qualitatively. A radical increase in the efficiency of the economy is, I repeat, the fundamental goal of privatization.

“The modern economy and our political system are two mutually exclusive phenomena”

- The question remains: where to get funds when the Reserve Fund is depleted?

This is a valid question. If oil averages $30-35 per barrel in 2016, the Reserve Fund will be exhausted by the end of the year. I repeat once again: it will be possible to sell something from state property and, through this, solve some current problems, but only for this year. What will you do next in the coming years? Selling property again - and so on ad infinitum? This is physically impossible. So, maybe it’s better to start preparing real privatization, the goal of which is not to patch up holes, but to improve the quality of the economy?

You, liberal, are not the only ones who criticize the government program. From Glazyev, Boldyrev, Delyagin, we see the same rejection and calls, on the contrary, not to privatize, but to nationalize, introduce protectionism, pour more money, for example, in agriculture. It turns out that the government program is neither yours nor ours. What's the point? Whose interests does it reflect?

Please understand that this entire anti-crisis program is just for show. As far as I remember, last year we already had a similar program. Read the reports of the Accounts Chamber on its implementation - and everything becomes clear. So why work the same way again? A crisis is developing in the economy, the government can no longer ignore this fact, so it comes up with all sorts of euphemisms, such as an “anti-crisis program,” so that you and I can believe that they care about us, that something is being done to correct the situation. At the same time, they cannot propose or begin real large-scale reforms that could pull our economy out of the crisis. Because everything depends on the political will of Vladimir Vladimirovich. He doesn’t want any reforms, he believes that everything will somehow sort itself out on its own: you just need to add a little money here, increase subsidies there, and the rest will somehow get out on their own. So it turns out to be some kind of palliative - neither this nor that. Neither “liberals” nor “statists”. It is quite natural that they are unhappy with this approach.

"Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev spoke at the United Russia congress, and what did he say about the crisis? Nothing!" RIA Novosti/Dmitry Astakhov

As for economists like Glazyev, they are simply industry lobbyists, in particular, the military-industrial complex and a number of other sectors of the economy. Only calls to give more money - what else can you expect from them? Well, how will all this end? They will print additional money, give it to our extremely inefficient “real sector”, where “their people” manage everything, and there they will either simply eat it up without any visible result, which we can already observe in the example of the military-industrial complex, or there will be more worst option: Most of this money will be converted into foreign currency and taken out of the country.

What if the president’s will swings towards the sentiments of those very leftists, Glazyev and his like-minded people? Well, they will be able to convince him that it is urgent to support agriculture or the production of tanks and missiles, nationalize everything, increase taxes on big business. And then what?

I'm afraid this is quite possible variant. We are missing a real discussion. According to all canons, if it is recognized that there is a crisis in the country and we have not yet passed its bottom, then the president comes out to the people and says something like “Brothers and sisters...”. Back in 2013, when oil cost more than $100 per barrel and there were no sanctions, GDP grew by only 1.3%. Even then everyone said, by the way, like Glazyev, that this economic model had gone bankrupt, had outlived its usefulness, and needed to be changed. But have you ever seen the president sound the alarm and declare that the time has come for change? Maybe he tried to organize a competition for programs to overcome the crisis? No. At the same time, Putin has a so-called Economic Council. But, as far as I know, he has not held a meeting for two years. Why then did Vladimir Vladimirovich create it?

So it turns out that the government continues to engage in palliatives for show, apparently expecting that oil prices will suddenly return to the levels of two years ago. Recently, Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev spoke at the United Russia congress, and what did he say about the crisis? Never mind! Just something about the fact that we won’t take taxes from tutors, nurses, nannies, and household service providers. And this is the chairman of the Russian government! This is the result of the fact that the entire economy depends on the will of one person. This speaks of the backwardness of our political system. A modern successful economy and our political system are two mutually exclusive phenomena. That's all.

“The horizon for ending the crisis is very long”

You just said that the bottom of the crisis has not yet been reached. But, as far as I remember, Putin said at the end of last year that we had passed it. So, who to believe?

We like to judge the depth of the crisis by the dynamics of GDP. Last year it seems to have fallen by 3.7%, and this year the decline will continue, although the pace may be a little slower. Are we feeling for the bottom? Of course not. And it’s not about changes at the level of tenths of a percent. To get out of the current systemic crisis, we need GPP growth of at least 5% per year. Anything less than this figure is a crisis. But without a radical change in the economic model and an equally profound reform of the state, such growth will not happen in the foreseeable future.

If we do not approach this, then the attack on the standard of living of our population that has already begun will “successfully” continue. Let's take pensions, for example. This year they are actually declining, and by the way, we have about 40 million pensioners. And this trend will last for a long time, miracles will not happen. Even if there is a second indexation of pensions, which the government is talking about, it will be timed exclusively for the elections to the State Duma. But in reality there is no money even for it.

“By the way, we have about 40 million pensioners” RIA Novosti/Vladimir Fedorenko

Then, look what happens with benefits: they are canceled under any pretext. And although in Krasnodar region people began to openly protest, and the local authorities, frightened, returned everything back; in other regions of the country this happens all the time. Or the same truck drivers, about whom everyone has already written and spoken: the welfare of this group was hit with all its might. Russians' real wages are falling: for last year on average by 10%. And there are no prospects that it will increase. Let's look at healthcare, the accessibility of which for the population is falling, and government spending on it is being reduced from year to year. These are just some indicators of the country's real crisis.

But what else is the problem? To get out of the crisis, we need, as I already said, reforms. And even just starting them requires years of preparation, not to mention time for implementation. And if successful, we will be able to see the effect only in a few years. So the horizon for ending the crisis is very long, and jumps in GDP by a percentage down or up a percentage have nothing to do with it.

“We need to normalize relations with Europe and the outside world”

But, as we can guess, Vladimir Putin, as a person who painfully experienced the collapse of the USSR, is panicky afraid of all sorts of reforms; in his head, reforms are, apparently, the collapse of the regime and, perhaps, even a change in the geography of Russia. And Putin will do everything possible to prevent this from happening, even if the price is the well-being of the population.

No, I am sure that nothing will happen to the geography of Russia. In the 21st century, the forceful remaking of borders is an attempt to return to the 19th century with all the ensuing unpleasant consequences for the initiator of this process. IN modern world the state increases itself through soft power (foreign policy " soft power" - ed.). For example, China has invested enormous amounts of money in Africa. This does not mean that Africa has become a province of China. But it definitely influences many internal political processes there. The same China is investing huge amounts of money in the “Silk Road” (project of trans-Eurasian transport corridors - ed.), in Central Asia, in Pakistan, expanding its zone of influence. This is the 21st century. No one is encroaching on Russian territory; this is all unhealthy mythology. We need to determine our civilizational identity ourselves, and if we do this correctly, everything will fall into place. I am convinced that we are part of the European civilizational space: from the USA, Canada and Europe to Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

But there is another factor due to which reforms do not occur. We must admit that it is no coincidence that we entered the current crisis. We ourselves, with our own hands, have been building a model since the time of Boris Nikolaevich, which today has completely exhausted itself. This is very important conclusion, which prompts you to ask Vladimir Vladimirovich a question: you have been in power for 15 years, why didn’t you change the economic model, say, in 2000? We remember Gref’s program, which spoke about the need to diversify the economy. Then came the years of oil abundance, a waterfall of money poured down on us, and enormous prospects for economic reform opened up. It was possible to allow small businesses to develop, freeing them from taxes and unnecessary checks.

Just then it was possible to develop your own high-tech and much more. But the moment was lost. Why? Well, apparently, because the elite and Vladimir Vladimirovich himself believed that there would always be oil and gas abundance. Several years ago I saw forecasts that the price of oil would be $200 per barrel. And they lay on Putin’s desk, and after that he probably could no longer positively perceive any information about the need for reforms. And this turned out to be a mistake that must be admitted.

“Vladimir Vladimirovich, you have been in power for 15 years, why didn’t you change the economic model in 2000?” RIA Novosti/Vladimir Vyatkin

But this is only the first point. Secondly, it is necessary to normalize relations with Europe and in general with outside world. Otherwise, we will never have a normal economy, we will not be able to diversify. You have to understand that Russia is not like that powerful country, with the exception of territory, we do not have the greatest potential in the world. We can no longer produce everything ourselves as part of the so-called “import substitution”: cars, computers, robots. This is again the thinking of the 19th century: in the 21st century, any, even the largest countries, are looking for those niches of the world economy in which they will be competitive and, therefore, earn good money.

Third, we need to have an open discussion, including with opponents. What do we see in response? The most powerful, Orwellian-type propaganda. Remember: “In times of universal lies, telling the truth is extremism”? And - continuation of tightening the screws, as if this will help overcome the crisis.

Therefore, economic reforms are a political issue.

The situation you described is reminiscent of an attack of radiculitis: neither here nor there, if you try to straighten up, it’s terribly painful, and it’s impossible to stand in the same position for the rest of your life. Putin doesn’t seem to be going anywhere in the coming years. And that means that the whole country froze along with him in this attack. So, what is next?

The King of Prussia, Frederick the Great, somehow became involved in a war simultaneously against all his neighbors, including Russia. At first everything seemed to be fine, but then a series of defeats began and, it would seem, he would soon be forced to shamefully capitulate. But then she suddenly died Russian empress Elizabeth the First, and in her place came Paul the Third, who was an admirer of Frederick, and he ended the war with Prussia. This was where everything ended happily for Friedrich.

Maybe Vladimir Vladimirovich is waiting for something similar: that in Europe or America the political vector will suddenly change and the attitude towards today’s Russia will suddenly radically change? But it seems to me that this is a very risky game. The beginning of reforms is also a risk for one’s own positioning: the bitter lesson of Gorbachev’s perestroika, I am sure, is important for Putin. But it’s better to take a risk by trying to manage the process than to expect a miracle that may not happen.

“We need to start with foreign policy - this is a condition for successful reforms”

- Then name, say, the five main directions of the reform package. And what could prevent their implementation?

We need to start with foreign policy. But I take this point out of brackets. Because this is not even a reform, but a condition for successful reforms. What I mean? First of all, Ukraine. This is the main point because of which we fall out of the world community of civilized countries. It gave rise to sanctions and anti-sanctions. What kind of investment climate can we talk about in such conditions? When anti-sanctions were introduced, our domestic manufacturer immediately began to raise prices for their products, which, by the way, are not always of high quality.

Now the points of reform. The first is judicial. This is a difficult and very long undertaking. Its cornerstone is the procedure for occupying the position of judge. It must be independent from executive power. Further, we need strict control over the activities of judges, when the slightest signs that they played along with someone or are affiliated with someone serve as grounds for resignation. And there is much more that experts from the Committee for Civil Initiatives are currently working on.

The second is local government reform. Now it is suppressed here, there are no taxes, no money, no resources. Moreover, the meaning of elections there has almost been reduced to nothing; the positions of city managers have been introduced, in whose hands all finances and elected mayors play the role of “wedding generals.” And somewhere there are popular elections of heads of cities and districts. generally cancelled. To fix this, we need to leave money locally, start stimulating elections, and introduce mechanisms such as public participation in developing the budget. We need to wake up people, show them that something depends on their opinion. Otherwise, what kind of self-government is this?

Third is support for small businesses. The economy of the future is not large enterprises, and small ones. Nowadays, small business accounts for about 20% of both employment and GDP. And it should be at least 50%. At the same time, the third reform is closely related to the second, because small business is at the municipal level. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that there are no obstacles on the part of officials to the development of small businesses. Here we need to actively involve governors. In general, one of the most important indicators of the governor’s performance should be what the governor is doing with small businesses, based on a survey of entrepreneurs themselves, and not based on indicators in reports. I can add that for the successful development of a small business, it generally needs to be exempt from taxes and all kinds of inspections, at least for the first time.

"The current state will not allow an independent court, municipal police, strong local government, developed small business, it is not interested in supporting education and healthcare" RIA Novosti / Andrey Rudakov "The current state will not allow an independent court, municipal police, strong local government, developed small business, it is not interested in supporting education and healthcare" RIA Novosti / Andrey Rudakov

Fourth is budget reform. It should involve the use of budget funds, first of all, for the needs of education and healthcare, that is, for the development of human capital. By reducing funding for these areas, we are undermining the foundations for a successful future for our country.

Fifth, police decentralization. It is necessary to create a municipal police. It would be she who would restore order locally. Decentralization will reduce risks to personal security, which are not uncommon nowadays. It is clear that the federal police are needed to investigate serious crimes. It is necessary that the police be a factor in the peace of everyday life of people; the behavior of the police must be exemplary, so that they cannot be undermined.

And to these five points I will add two more. We need to bring back diversity in the media. We must stop using television, radio and leading print media for the purposes of state propaganda, which brings hatred, hysteria and psychological breakdown into the minds. Without diverse media independent of the state, there will be no successful economy.

Evgeny Gontmakher (left): “If successful, we will be able to see the effect only in a few years. The horizon for ending the crisis is very long” RIA Novosti/Alexander Utkin

And finally, the main point, on top of this entire reform program, is reform government controlled. Because the current state will never allow an independent court, municipal police, strong local government, developed small business, it is not interested in supporting education and healthcare. Everything needs to start with this reform. And this is political reform. It is necessary to determine the functions of the state, what it should do and what it should not do. Maybe self-regulatory organizations, professional associations, NGOs, and local governments should do something.

I'm not even talking about the party system, the legislative branch, elections. These institutions should also have their turn. And then the State Duma will have to become a place for discussion and will be able to oppose the government and the president. Do you remember how the State Duma adopted the 2015 budget? Based on $90 per barrel, when everyone was already saying that this would not happen. And United Russia voted “for”. That is, she acted politically absolutely irresponsibly, mindlessly following someone’s superior instructions. As a result, throughout the beginning of last year the country lived virtually without a budget. In April, the same deputies, with the same unanimity, actually voted for a new budget. The same situation, I'm afraid, will repeat this year. In a word, in order to begin long-overdue large-scale and deep reforms, we must first of all restore order in the state.

Illustration: Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

It would have been possible to continue to exist this way, without trying to define the civilizational haven into which Russia should be led after the troubled late Soviet times, if it had not been for the systemic economic crisis that had begun in our country, intensified by the Ukrainian crisis, sanctions and the fall in oil and gas prices. The population, accustomed as a whole to being guided by European standards of consumption and who received something here in the “prosperous” 2000s, could (and can) express their dissatisfaction with the authorities in one form or another. Of course, to prevent this from happening, an unprecedented propaganda machine has been created that dissects information so that people think that black is white. Naturally, the most important argument is that Europe is in crisis. It is being torn apart by migrants, weak governments, and the “traditional values” on which Mother Russia has been based for centuries are being eroded.

Of all the mouthpieces, and often actually high level in one form or another the idea sounds that . But so far there is not a single more or less complete document that would not only describe European ills, but would give, as Vladimir Putin likes to say, a “positive agenda.” But what kind of harbor is the president leading us to? Or are we being carried by the will of the wind and waves to an unknown destination?

It would be interesting to hear the answers to these questions. Everything we will do in the coming years and in the long term depends on this.

Wandering in search of some kind of Eurasian civilization is a path to a historical dead end, backwardness and slavery

What about Europe? Was Oswald Spengler really right when he wrote about its decline exactly 100 years ago? Indeed, after this, dictators came to power in Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary and a number of other countries, and nothing needs to be said about Russia after the revolution of 1917. But, as shown further history, European values, built on individual freedom, rose up after 1945 and gradually became leading in countries not only of geographical Europe, but also North America. On the basis of these values, people received unprecedented mass prosperity, personal security and freedom of expression.

Yes, now Europe as a civilization is experiencing better times: migration crisis, rise of right-wing populism, disappointment in integration processes within the European Union and much more. But does this mean that Europe has come to an end and is being replaced by something that some vaguely call “Post-Europe”?

Does this mean that we are abandoning individual freedom in favor of the state as a sacred institution with irremovable persons? But is it really not clear that even if we do not take into account purely humanistic things, technological progress alone (digitalization, robotization, etc.) decisively requires precisely free man? Fortunately, the times of “sharashkas” are over, although, apparently, we still have people who would like to repeat this experience.

Does this mean that it is possible to ensure the well-being of people, and not just the narrow ruling elite, by building an authoritarian or totalitarian society? The previous historical experience of both Russia and many other countries says that this is impossible.

Wandering in search of some kind of Eurasian civilization is a path to a historical dead end, backwardness and slavery. Now we need something else: to join in the discussions that are taking place in the European space about the image of the future, which is being born in agony before our eyes. Much is unclear, but one thing is clear - such a basic value as human freedom will simply receive a new institutional design. How faster Russia realizes the importance of this historical moment, the greater our chances for success and prosperity.

In the coming years, Russian economic system“a fundamental renewal” is awaiting, provoked by global “challenges and changes,” Dmitry Medvedev said in his article “Russia’s socio-economic development: finding new dynamics,” published in the journal “Economy Issues.” The Prime Minister of the Russian Federation promises to provide Russia with " significant place in the modern world": optimization of budget policy, improvement of the investment climate and business environment, improvement of the quality of the state itself and development of the social sphere.

These are dreams. What's really happening?

Let's discuss with Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor Evgeny Gontmakher, Doctor of Geographical Sciences Natalia Zubarevich and head of the department for studying consumption and living standards of the Levada Center Marina Krasilnikova.

Conducts the program Mikhail Sokolov.

Mikhail Sokolov: In the coming years, the Russian economic system will face a “radical renewal,” Dmitry Medvedev said in his article in the journal Voprosy Ekonomiki. The Russian Prime Minister promises to ensure Russia "a significant place in the modern world." Let's try to understand what is happening not in the dreams of the formal leader of United Russia, but in reality.

Our guests today are Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor, Member of the Committee of Civil Initiatives Evgeniy Gontmakher and head of the department for studying consumption and living standards of the Levada Center Marina Krasilnikova. A geographer, professor, will join us by phone.

The Ministry of Economic Development, during the discussion of the budget, there is such a leak, the budget was discussed with the Prime Minister, predicted the stagnation of the Russian economy for the next three years. Where does the Russian government's optimism come from?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: By the way, I also ask this question, because I don’t see any rational sources for this optimism. Because the same article that you mentioned by our Prime Minister, I read it, at least in the version that was in " Rossiyskaya newspaper“, I got the impression that yes, we really need, on the one hand, an economic model, competitiveness in the world, and on the other hand, everything is fine, nothing needs to be changed. It turns out that the results are comforting, everything is fine.

Mikhail Sokolov: So he reported?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: There is only one small detail - the standard of living has fallen, but everything else is fine, import substitution is progressing successfully. It is necessary to reduce the number of officials, the design office should be modeled after national projects, which works.

Mikhail Sokolov: What it is?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: A strategic council under the president has been created, the presidium or executive committee is headed by Medvedev, they are now discussing some new projects, like those that existed.

Mikhail Sokolov: Under Medvedev as president?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Like everything is fine, nothing else really needs to be changed. That is bad times we survived. I don’t know who this optimism is aimed at, maybe the voter, but the voter has already voted.

Mikhail Sokolov: Kicking pretty much.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: In the sense that we already have a Duma, all the optimists are very strong in the Duma. I don't understand, to be honest.

Mikhail Sokolov: What about citizens, according to your latest polls, do they have any grounds for any optimism in the economic field, in their assessment of the economy?

Marina Krasilnikova: No, citizens do not share this optimism either. Let's look at the indicators that Levada Center measures. The first graph we have is the so-called social sentiment index, the temperature of society. It shows us that over the past two years we have been observing a gradual deterioration in public sentiment. This is happening despite a boom in assessments of government power at the beginning of 2014, which somewhat raised the general temperature of sentiment.

Mikhail Sokolov: This is Crimean enthusiasm.

Marina Krasilnikova: Yes, this Crimean enthusiasm raised the general mood, but very quickly the real economic reality returned people’s sentiments to that sluggish negative trend, which actually formed quite a long time ago, around 2010-11. Therefore, there is no particular optimism. And the worst thing is that in this entire structure of public sentiment, the darkest side is the look into the future.

Mikhail Sokolov: That is, they don’t see the future, so they don’t invest in the future?

Marina Krasilnikova: They don’t see the future, they don’t invest in the future, they don’t imagine the future well at all. According to our surveys, approximately a little more than a third of the population say that they do not know at all what will happen to them tomorrow, another third say that they can only plan their lives for the next few months. Perspective, what is called in economic plans medium-term plans are what is available to a few percent of Russian citizens.

Mikhail Sokolov: I think that we will now compare what is in the Levada Center polls and in our completely unrepresentative polls. We presented the same phrase of Dmitry Medvedev about radical renewal to Muscovites. Let's see what they told us.

​Mikhail Sokolov: Whose opinion of those who spoke here seemed to you the most widespread and representative?

Marina Krasilnikova: The most common and representative opinion was formulated as follows: I hope, but I don’t believe. Because indeed, the upward gap in assessments of the actions of the president and the government in shaping public sentiment actually reflects not only and not so much a real assessment of what is being done by the heads of state, but the fact that people in many ways feel deprived of the opportunity to independently plan their future, build their own personal future on their own, because they do not have the resources for this and they do not see a suitable infrastructure for this, economic, social, and so on. Therefore, the only thing left for them is to hope for someone. Because we will not completely close the image of the future.

But this image of the future becomes absolutely amorphous, so that there is something good, but what is unclear. Current ratings what is happening now in the country does not provide explanatory structures for the formation of a positive image, which one still wants to have. That’s why it’s like this: I hope, because I want everything to be fine, but based on today’s realities, I don’t really believe in it.

Mikhail Sokolov: An indicator such as loans, if people take out loans, it means they are planning something for the future. It seems to me that you are measuring something in relation to these sentiments. Are they ready to really invest at least in their own future?

Marina Krasilnikova: People's willingness to buy on credit last years, namely starting in 2014, went down sharply because people say that now is not the right time for this, because they are completely unsure of what will happen tomorrow. Our surveys show that more than half of our respondents say that our financial situation and their families have worsened, and do not expect improvements in the near future. During this time, people not only reduced purchases on credit, people generally reduced their purchases.

We can demonstrate this on the graph of the consumer sentiment index - this is an indicator measured in all market economies, which shows people's willingness to spend money here and now.

As we can see in this chart, consumer optimism is quite low right now. The maximum that was reached before the 2008 crisis remains a historical maximum; we are still very far from the level of consumer optimism that was 8 years ago. What does it mean that people don't want to buy? This means that trade is curtailed, which means that the national economy is not growing due to this factor.

Mikhail Sokolov: The share of retail trade in August was minus 6% compared to August 2015.

Marina Krasilnikova: Absolutely right. Our macroeconomic modeling, which we did at the Levada Center and calculated how consumer sentiment affects the dynamics of trade turnover, shows that the increase in consumer sentiment itself gives approximately 0.2% of the increase in trade turnover, even though there will be no cash income change. And accordingly, the deterioration in consumer sentiment further strengthens the factor of declining incomes that we see. We have been experiencing a decline in real cash incomes of the population for almost two years now.

Mikhail Sokolov: I saw an optimistic figure here, Medvedev says that inflation will not go beyond 6%, somewhere it was even 4%. How realistic is this or are these just psychotherapeutic measures to calm people down?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Inflation is actually being suppressed. The trend, for example, this year compared to last year, last year was almost 12%, if we are talking about the official level that was announced, this year it will, of course, be less and next year too.

I wanted to remember from the same article by Medvedev, there is such an interesting phrase about the prospects for demand, he said: we will not support economic growth by increasing demand. We do have some suggestions.

Mikhail Sokolov: Stolypin club?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: For example. Guys, let's give people money, they will go to stores, everything will move forward, the economy will produce more.

Mikhail Sokolov: Do you think this project is over, the Growth Party has failed?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: The Growth Party failed a long time ago, from the very beginning. I mean the so-called Stolypin Club program, based on what is written in this article very strictly, that no emissions, no interest rates on loans matter for business development, demand should not be stimulated as a driver of economic growth. These are the main points they put forward.

Mikhail Sokolov: This good news, Means?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: For me, as a person who monitors the situation, I consider this news to be good.

Mikhail Sokolov: That is, this adventure will not happen, but what will happen then?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: But no one knows this. If Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev wrote in a sluggish mode, everything will be fine.

Mikhail Sokolov: Is this a reform program?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: No, this is absolutely not in line with the reform program. I have the following questions: why is nothing written there about budget policy, for example, about defense spending? There is no word about it. I understand that defense is the prerogative of the president, but Dmitry Anatolyevich could write: “Yes, of course, the president decides, but we believe...” He writes there that money must be invested in education and healthcare, he writes correctly.

Mikhail Sokolov: But where to get them?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: This raises the question: a tough budget policy, there will be no emissions, we are suppressing inflation, and of course we are not expanding the budget deficit, which is correct, from my point of view. The question arises: where will you get money for education and healthcare? He writes about investments in infrastructure. As they say, the bedside table is empty, which means something needs to be taken away from somewhere.

Mikhail Sokolov: Will they take it from the Reserve Fund?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: This is no longer serious. The reserve fund will probably run out next year. There is a National Welfare Fund, which can also be uncorked. What Medvedev wrote is not a program of economic reforms, these are some pieces.

Mikhail Sokolov: We want to understand what they will do.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: I don't think they know it themselves. Honestly speaking, the people who make decisions are Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Three days ago, he said at a meeting with members of the government: we need to reform everything, but so that, God forbid, there are no symptoms of shock therapy.

Mikhail Sokolov: Cut off the dog's tail piece by piece. It must be very painful.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: I think, if you look at what will continue, the degradation of social services will continue, there will be a decline in the standard of living, from my point of view, this will go on for quite a long time, but slowly, they will try to do this very gradually, counting on the population adapting. It will, of course, be dissatisfied, but it will not be, as we saw now in the survey, but we still hope.

Mikhail Sokolov: I wanted to ask Natalya Vasilyevna, as a regionalist and economic geographer, to explain to us a little what is happening with the regions, with regional budgets.

Since today, in semi-closed mode, the Security Council discussed the draft fundamentals public policy regional development, I will later quote something from Putin’s speech, but first you just tell us. Our fellow citizens already live quite poorly in the regions, but will they live even poorer?

Not yet. Compared to the results of 2015, the first half of 2016 is a little different. Budget revenues increased by approximately 2.5-3%, and expenses by 5%. If last year they cut education, culture, and housing and communal services, this year the pre-election period did not allow this to be done. Expenditures on education in nominal terms and on health care increased by 2-3%, which is lower than the inflation rate, on social security by 6%, on benefits by 8%.

And the second positive growth of 7% is housing and communal services. This means that the authorities have made two priorities for themselves: the first is to try their best not to increase housing and communal services tariffs, this is very painful. How to compensate? Increase budget support.

And secondly, to maximize benefit payments to the population. But this is pre-election politics, it will end. I would be very interested in testing the results of the year, because I have a suspicion that starting in October these expenses will shrink. Because the situation with the budget deficit has not gotten better.

Yes, the picture is beautiful, formally there is a surplus, but it is ensured in fact, with Moscow’s gigantic surplus of almost 180 billion, Sakhalin’s large surplus of about 70 billion and the same 15-20 billion each Khanty-Mansiysk District, Tyumen region, Moscow region, St. Petersburg. Somewhere around 6-7 subjects set the final plus, and the number of regions with a deficit is even slightly higher, which in the first half of last year was 52, not 50. By December it will be significantly worse. That is, the situation is not deteriorating sharply, it is frozen, and the money spent in the first half of the year was with great anticipation of the pre-election situation. But in October there will be a pullback.

This means that the hellish crisis did not happen, temporary repairs for the elections were completed, but the same trend will continue, the regions will not have more money - this is completely understandable, incomes are almost not growing. For now, we are reaching plus 8 in regional budgets at the expense of personal income tax, because salaries are rising a little, and therefore personal tax is rising, but nothing else is particularly good. And the saddest thing: in the first half of the year, transfers to federal subjects decreased by 12%. That is, guys, spin yourself.

Mikhail Sokolov: I can’t help but ask you about the election results. There is, as Dmitry Oreshkin says, special zone voting, where approximately 10 million people vote in a controlled manner for Putin, for United Russia, somewhere around 90%, almost like in Chechnya, somewhere a little less. This zone North Caucasus, Volga region, Tyva, does she get the right vote for this?

My numbers are very simple - not everyone gets it. If we look at the dynamics of transfers, Chechnya received well, for the first half of the year, plus 14%. But, excuse me, this is an individual gift to Kadyrov; a person must be elected well. Plus 30% of Ingushetia. But if you think, they added something in advance to Tatarstan, Bashkiria, or we now have new Russian regions with the same interesting voting structure of 70% turnout, 70% for United Russia, unfortunately, this is now both Tula and Ryazan Oblast, Voronezhskaya, to my sadness and surprise, no, nothing was added in advance. Let's see at the end of the year.

But usually such gifts were made through a subsidy for balance; in any case, it was born as a bonus after the elections in the mid-2000s. But to be honest, for the last 5-7 years it has had a different function - it is a fire brigade that donates money in difficult situations, distributes it to many. I don’t think it’s such a linear relationship – vote correctly and you’ll get a bonus. This was true once upon a time, but now everything is so complicated in the economy that there is no time for bonuses. And especially certain comrades receive bonuses without any kind; they will receive them anyway.

Mikhail Sokolov: That's what I want to say to the Russian people: gentlemen-comrades, vote correctly, don’t vote correctly, you’ll still get what you know, that is, you won’t get enough, except, as Natalya Zubareich correctly said, these very named comrades who were the first to stand in line.

Natalya Vasilievna, a meeting of the Security Council and some very vague words from Vladimir Putin: “We need to improve the system of interbudgetary relations, achieve sustainable financial support for the powers of the authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation and municipalities. In general, the system of interbudgetary relations is, of course, one of the key ones. Let’s consider "at a separate meeting with the participation of representatives of the government and regions. It is necessary to improve the system of targeted subsidies and subsidies." I can’t translate this into normal Russian, but can you?

Can. Everything that has been said is correct, a lot needs to be corrected - this is true. But since I know what is really happening and what the trends are, I will tell you them. In recent “fat years,” I mean before 2014 and even before 2014, the main additional funding was received by geopolitically priority regions. Not those who are the poorest, but those who are in the North Caucasus, and even then not all, Far East, not necessarily all, but in general, and Crimea as last story. Crimea has already been cut, it was cut well in the first half of the year.

Mikhail Sokolov: That's why they didn't do well in the elections.

Again, we need to speak very carefully, because half a year is not a year yet; transfers can be moved to the second half of the year.

But compared to 2015, transfers to the city of Sevastopol decreased by 50%, and to the Republic of Crimea by almost a quarter. I believe they will shift them to the second half of the year. But this is a kind of sign that this territory has ceased to be a priority, it remains geopolitically important, but as a political priority, so what, they will vote anyway.

Therefore, we need to look at what is behind these words. The words are streamlined and, in principle, correct. But if again this is a distribution to individual people for being so good, or for the fact that they shoot there, that’s one story, if this is an increase in the share of subsidies in the structure of transfers, subsidies for equalization, which is still considered according to the formula , if these terrible other inter-budgetary transfers finally go away, when Moscow is given half the budget of some average Russian region, then St. Petersburg will also receive a good figure. Why? By the way, that's what we agreed on.

If this is reduced, I will be very happy. Because the first task of inter-budgetary policy is to increase its transparency and sharply reduce the number of subsidies, which are managed by ministries; they do not want to give up this function. Because whoever distributes the money has the power.

Mikhail Sokolov: Perhaps you, as a specialist in social issues, can add what is happening at the regional level, will we find something good or is it completely bad?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: I want to recall the figure that Putin cited today at this Security Council meeting, that the differences in the budgetary provision of the regions reach 30 times in Russia. As one of my acquaintances said several years ago, even before the start of all these events in Crimea and others, that in general Russia is the United Nations, where there is African countries and there is a type of Europe - Moscow, Khanty-Mansiysk Okrug, for example, and others.

I must say that for security, when it comes to the Security Council, this is very dangerous. Because Russia actually broke up into several, Natasha wrote at one time “four Russias”, it was a very interesting concept, into several clusters where people even live differently not only in terms of how much money they have. Today I saw a petition on the Internet, they ask me to sign, in the Krasnodar Territory people are moaning that there are not enough schools, children go in three shifts. It would seem that the Krasnodar Territory is not the Republic of Tyva, the Krasnodar Territory is the richest potential region, good climate and so on.

Mikhail Sokolov: Sochi.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Yes, Sochi. And children go to school in three shifts, people are desperately trying to turn to Putin. It turns out that the internal situation is somehow developing in the Krasnodar Territory, that, all other things being equal, in some other region of Russia there are completely different orders, there is a completely different level of social intensity. This is about the question of social status.

Everything is very fragmented. Maybe that’s why the Security Council met, I don’t know, because somehow they talk about spiritual bonds, I would say that let us consolidate Russia economically, consolidate it socially - this is much more important.

Mikhail Sokolov: Mr. Patrushev was frightening with some Finnish separatists in Karelia, there were no Finns left there anymore. He has such a role, he must come up with threats and then prevent them.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Maybe they carry passports that say they are Karelians?

Mikhail Sokolov: Don't know. Do Russians realize this feudal fragmentation, the fact that Russia is different? Are there any grievances against Moscow, against the center, or are people willing to tolerate it? Let Moscow spend 200 billion on new sidewalks, and we will live without sewerage.

Marina Krasilnikova: Of course, this resentment and confrontation between the center, province, periphery, city and village, it certainly existed historically, there is nothing new here. But I would say that this resentment is slowly fading into the background, I don’t want to say that it doesn’t exist, but it is being replaced by momentary problems, and most importantly, it is being replaced by the fact that both there and there people feel essentially quite unprotected and helpless, oriented towards some abstract supreme power that should help. She, of course, will help the capital faster than us, but in the capital they also do not rely on themselves, but appeal to the very hopes that we talked about.

For me, the experience of the 2008 crisis in terms of changes in public sentiment, the social sentiment index, was very indicative. It consists of different components, there are assessments of power, there are assessments of one’s own position. Before the 2008 crisis, the most affluent people in Russian society—about a third of Russian society—demonstrated a completely different structure of social optimism. Their social optimism was based on assessments of what was happening to them, what was happening to their family, what they expected from their future; there they drew their main optimism, in contrast to the least affluent segments of the population, for whom optimism was equated with hopes for power .

It turned out that the margin of safety of the wealthy part of Russian society was very small; as soon as economic difficulties arose, the entire population began to think approximately the same way: we ourselves cannot do anything, but we must rely on the authorities, there is nothing else left for us. This desire to stand under the protection of the state and appeal to it, this paternalism immediately manifested itself in the broadest strata of Russian society and united everyone - residents of the provinces, residents of the capitals, rich, poor, and so on.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: A significant portion of our employees simply receive salaries from the state. State employees, doctors, teachers, cultural workers, social security workers – that’s more than 10 million people. We have a couple of million officials, including municipal and regional ones. Plus take family members, they also depend on it. The military, the police, the military-industrial complex, which is now supplied with orders very heavily, I would say, employees of state corporations, the same Gazprom, Rosneft, although formally this joint stock companies, but you and I understand perfectly well that these are quasi-state corporations.

Therefore, our state controls more than 60% of the economy directly or indirectly - this is a well-known fact. As an economist, it is absolutely not surprising to me that as soon as troubled times come, people turn to the breadwinner: well, you give it to me from your hand, please give it to me. These people are not in the mood, even if there were conditions for doing business, let’s say they aren’t, these people are not in the mood to go into business or do anything else. We have a state-type economy, hence this paternalism. Plus pensioners.

Mikhail Sokolov: Pensioners were offended; their pensions were not indexed this year. Were they happy? Once I saw that they agreed with this.

Marina Krasilnikova: They, of course, were more often indignant than happy. But in general, a week after the announcement of the decision on a one-time payment instead of indexation, we conducted an all-Russian survey and asked people: have they even heard about this decision? It turned out that on average almost half had not heard anything about it. We reasonably thought that maybe not everyone is interested in this, although it is strange why a person at the beginning of his working life is not interested in what is happening with the pension system. We have identified a group non-working pensioners, for whom pension is the only source of income, and it turned out that among them every fifth had not heard anything. People are not interested in this.

Mikhail Sokolov: Maybe they weren't told?

Marina Krasilnikova: This is another side of how the state works, how the social system of the state works. The state, which is concerned about the supposedly low financial literacy of the population, nevertheless does not seek to popularize and convey to stakeholders decisions that directly affect these stakeholders.

Mikhail Sokolov: It seems to me that propaganda tools were simply at work here. They are told about Ukraine, about Donbass, about Poroshenko, about something else, about the elections in the United States, how bad everything is there, what a crisis in Europe, and then they quickly say: you will be paid 5 thousand rubles, not to mention that they will not pay about 35 thousand debts. People think that they will be paid 5 thousand, but they don’t even know about these 35 thousand that were stolen.

Marina Krasilnikova: Indeed, even those who knew about it were less interested in this event than Olympic Games. This decision, to my disappointment, made about a quarter of pensioners happy. This speaks of such an unlimited readiness for long-suffering, which is the basis that allows the government to now slowly, gradually reduce with complete impunity the standard of living of the mass Russian population.

Mikhail Sokolov: Or maybe they are just like in a besieged fortress: orders are not discussed, the enemy is at the gate, the commandant ordered to give money for food, please give it, we will defend ourselves. Is there such a mood?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: It seems to me that partly there is. Although after Crimea there was a surge.

Mikhail Sokolov: After Crimea they thought that “if there is more land, then we’ll live richer, but in reality we have to pay for the land.”

Marina Krasilnikova: There were not economic considerations, there were emotional considerations, there was a healed, healed trauma from the collapse of a great state.

Mikhail Sokolov: The dose of the drug was administered, and now it has been removed.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Now our propaganda has moved onto a different note, in an article, by the way, by the same Medvedev it is written several times: in the West, in fact, everything is bad too, the global crisis continues.

Mikhail Sokolov: Although there has been growth for a long time.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: It is Russia with its negative growth rates that looks funny, I would say shameful, against the backdrop of positive growth rates, albeit small, 2-3%, that exist in the United States and Europe. In this article he emphasizes in every possible way: guys, everyone is bad all over the world, what do you want?

Mikhail Sokolov: The Prime Minister habitually lies.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: He writes, for example: there is no ideal pension system in the world, we haven’t found an ideal pension system, what do you want?

Marina Krasilnikova: If we do everything to turn the pension system into a system of poverty benefits, then so will the attitude towards this pension. One of the reasons why people are happy is because the pension is not seen as something that is earned by each person during his working life. This is the money that the state gives.

Mikhail Sokolov: It seems to me that in general now, in recent years, it has turned out that the level of pensions again, as in Soviet times, does not depend on labor contribution, people’s upper part is cut off, points have been introduced. Nobody understands how much he actually earned.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: The cost of the point is approved by the government every year.

Mikhail Sokolov: So it's a scam. Savings savings were also confiscated.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Funded pensions were virtually destroyed.

Mikhail Sokolov: They promise again in some reasoning for next year in the forecast of the Ministry of Economic Development that from 2017 the pension will be indexed to inflation, by 5.8%. Will they be able to index or not? Or again, maybe they will promise to index, and then again replace it with a one-time payment?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Next year, in 2017, we begin a new election cycle.

Mikhail Sokolov: Maybe it will end in 2017, there are also rumors.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: What, by the way, Natalya Zubarevich said, they actually added money in the first half of this year for social security, for some things, just in case, let the voter be satisfied. For example, I have no doubt that on February 1, 2017, they will be indexed by inflation. This year it will be, judging by official forecasts, 6-7%. Naturally, again they will not give it to working pensioners.

Mikhail Sokolov: By the way, they are not going to give 5 thousand to those pensioners who are abroad. Second class citizens, it turns out.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Do you know what the basis is? And they don’t have such price increases. They have deflation there, so why give it to them, their life has improved, on the contrary.

Mikhail Sokolov: That is, go away, live there, it’s better there.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: And here these 5 thousand are given as compensation such as inflation. This is very funny. You don't understand logic at all anymore.

Mikhail Sokolov: Is there any legal consideration as to whether it is possible to rank different categories of citizens in this way? Maybe in one country there is wild inflation, somewhere in Africa, and in another there is real deflation, somewhere in Japan. It's a very vulnerable moment.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: In 2017, indexation, I think, will be in full. 2018 is hard to say. If the presidential elections do take place in March 2018, then on February 1, 2018, I think they will still give pensioners some kind of gift; they will have nowhere to go.

Mikhail Sokolov: What if earlier?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: If earlier, then a completely different policy awaits us. If suddenly the presidential elections are postponed to next year, naturally, Putin will be re-elected, of which there is no doubt, or someone from Putin, then I think a really tough period will come absolutely. No matter what they say, Medvedev wrote in the article that there can be no talk of any mobilization policy, it will be an absolutely mobilization policy, when people will be cut off, I think taxes will be increased. All these horrors that have been rumored lately are unlikely to happen in 2017, but in 2018 the time will come for this.

Mikhail Sokolov: I noticed that today Vladimir Putin, on the issue of the Krasnodar Territory, gave instructions to introduce a resort fee, that is, this is an additional tax on citizens who go on vacation.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: A tax on the rich, as it were.

Mikhail Sokolov: Those who are rich, it seems, don’t really like to relax in Crimea and Sochi.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: I understand. Now many decisions are made based on a kind of populism. Who is going is clear to an ordinary Russian person from the provinces who has no money. He himself does not go to any resorts, he sits in his own garden.

Marina Krasilnikova: The first thing people began to save on was travel and vacations.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: In Sochi or Crimea, these are the rich ones.

Marina Krasilnikova: By the way, this is not a cheap vacation at all, Crimea and Sochi, as it turned out upon closer examination.

Mikhail Sokolov: Property tax, for example, which will be paid based on cadastral value, is a serious thing. There is little discontent in big cities, would you like to add more?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Long-suffering, as Marina Dmitrievna said, is very great among people. Here, by the way, pensioners come under the biggest blow, because we have such cases in cities when a husband and wife are pensioners and live, for example, in a three-room apartment, they got it back in Soviet times, the children have moved away and so on. From their pension, which is now about 13 thousand rubles on average, it is true that for now there is a benefit that pensioners do not pay property tax, but I think that again in some way this will definitely be abolished. This will be quite a lot of money. What is associated with summer cottages, second real estate. I'm not even talking about young families.

Mikhail Sokolov: How much is big money?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: It's all regional. As far as I understand, there are certain restrictions. Some people already believed that a two-room apartment in a residential area of ​​Moscow, for it, if assessed by cadastral value, people would pay 30-40 thousand a year.

Mikhail Sokolov: They will start suing, of course, but the judicial system, of course, is in general.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: By the way, when I looked into my Personal Area in the Federal tax service, I saw that my apartment was already assessed differently, before it was at BTI value, now it is already assessed as at market value.

Mikhail Sokolov: Will you sue? Are you satisfied with the level of taxation?

Evgeniy Gontmakher: As a pensioner, I no longer cry, but apparently I’m not crying yet. Therefore, I observe a little from the side. I’m just interested in this, that is, the cost of my apartment has increased tenfold.

Mikhail Sokolov: Marina, what do you think, people in the cities who will now begin to face new and new tax payments, they showed in the elections that there is some discontent, some did not go to the polls, in general the level of support for United Russia and in the millions of people who are for they voted for it, and in percentage, if we discard the falsification, in fact, if we exclude Chechnya and other things, it turned out to be 38-40%. That is, in reality it is lower than it was. How can they behave? Is there any potential for protests, some kind of activity, petitions at least?

Marina Krasilnikova: Now this potential is small. After 2011-12, people en masse chose the strategy of leaving the political civil sphere completely. In general, there are really no skills for collective civil resolution of issues that are important to people. I again want to return to this example with pensions and remember 2005, when benefits were monetized.

The decisions that led to the fact that from January 1, people were no longer allowed to travel for free in transport according to their needs, these decisions were made six months before, there were political opposition forces who tried to attract public attention to these decisions, somehow form a civil protest about this. But the population was not interested in this; the population is ready to react only for vital reasons, as one of my colleagues said. Not in those cases when, instead of indexing your pension, they add 5 thousand rubles to you, here everything happens within the framework of the same agreement, they gave money, but they gave a little less, they always give less, but here there was a different story with monetization benefits, there was a violation of the normative value system, there was an agreement that it was free. And then it worked. The amount of property tax payments currently exists; they have been gradually increasing in recent years.

Mikhail Sokolov: What if it increases 10 times at once?

Marina Krasilnikova: If it increases 10 times at once, then mass non-payments will begin sooner than some kind of collective outrage. And if this is a transitional period and gradually, then it is highly likely one way or another.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: Non-payments will still begin. Incomes are declining, people will simply have nothing to pay, the budget will not collect the amount they expect.

Mikhail Sokolov: Or there may be such a reaction: people will be squeezed, and they, as they say, will start to spin around, earn something, rent out a room in this apartment to someone, something else. I was interested in Putin’s speech, who said that self-employed people should be exempt from taxes for two years. Firstly, they do not light up, they are already exempt from taxes, and secondly, as far as I understand, no one is going to repeal the article of the criminal code for illegal business, and without this it turns out that the person has come out of the shadows, and they can charge him with the previous one that he was doing something like that and didn’t pay taxes. Without removing the repressive component, it looks like a hook baited for fools.

Marina Krasilnikova: In general, I would like to say that the attempt to tax all small businesses is probably out of desperation. You can pay attention to international practice, according to which the smallest business is not really taxed or at a zero rate. The same, by the way, applies to property; property in many economies is taxed, but there is very big size non-taxable amount of property, which covers a significant part of the population of these countries. Property begins to be taxed when it goes beyond the average size.

Mikhail Sokolov: But in Russia they want below average.

Marina Krasilnikova: But here they want to be below average, so why tax those who are above average.

Mikhail Sokolov: What will be the economic behavior of people who are involved in small businesses, in the smallest, although small and medium-sized ones have already gone bankrupt, you don’t even have to be interested in them.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: As far as I understand, this proposal of Putin does not apply to individual entrepreneurs, individual entrepreneurs, especially for small businesses where several people work and pay simplified taxes. There is simplification and imputation, two such mechanisms. If he had said, let’s abolish taxes for a couple of years, perhaps it would have been more of a positive measure, although this is not a trend, but still.

Because, indeed, the government is now talking a lot about the need to raise taxes, and then suddenly the president would say that let’s remove it from this sector. No, he really spoke about this tiny business, which even now does not bring practically anything to the treasury in terms of income and will not bring it. This, it seems to me, is another political statement, a nod towards business: guys, you see, we care about you. At the same time, they are seriously discussing the issue of increasing VAT and increasing income taxes, and this primarily affects large and medium-sized businesses. I don't know when this will be accepted, but most likely after presidential elections, there will be something from this series.

Mikhail Sokolov: Could the income tax be increased in this situation?

Marina Krasilnikova: In this sense, the payment of income tax does not pass through the consciousness of an ordinary employee.

Mikhail Sokolov: That is, it will be annoying, you will have to write declarations, and so on?

Marina Krasilnikova: People don't understand why they need this.

Evgeniy Gontmakher: This will not have a fiscal effect, because an additional process of going into the shadows will immediately begin. I think that the treasury, if it receives any additional money, will only receive a few pennies. The negative effect will far exceed the fiscal benefit.

Born in Lvov, Ukrainian SSR. In 1975 he graduated from the Faculty of Geography of Moscow State University. Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor.

Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In 1975-1991 worked at the Central Economic Research Institute (CENII) under the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR (later - the Ministry of Economy of Russia).

In 1992 - Head of the Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Labor.

Head of department in the presidential administration in 1994-1995.

In 1999-2003 - Head of the Department of Social Development of the Government of the Russian Federation.

In 2003-2006 - Vice President Russian Union industrialists and entrepreneurs.

Since March 2008 - member of the board of the Institute of Contemporary Development (chairman of the board - Igor Yurgens).

Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Member of the Presidium of the Russian Jewish Congress.

Married, has a daughter and son.