|
|
|
2001. vol. 5. No. 3
|
|
|
|
295–299
|
Allow me first to express my deep sense of gratitude for the honor to address you, this second annual conference of the Higher School of Economic, in my new capacity as Chairman of the French Center for Prospective Studies and International Information (CEPII), at the invitation of Professor Yasin, with whom I had the privilege to cooperate closely over a long period of time and who has been, during all these critical years, a permanent example of lucidity, wisdom and courage.
It was of course quite presumptuous to accept to speak here today with, as a topic: «drawing lessons from ten years of cooperation between Russia and IMF». We are too close to the events and I was too much – with my colleagues of the IMF – part of them, to be able, after just 15 months, to draw lessons with an academic objectivity. Remember what Chou en Lai used to say about the French 1789 Revolution «we are possibly still too close to the events to be able to pass a final judgment». Even without pretending, to share this Chinese wisdom, the only thing I can offer at this stage are a few temporary, honest but subjective conclusions, with only the modest ambition of contributing, in my strictly personal capacity, to a useful debate. |
|
|
300–310
|
The article analyzes the current state and problems of development of competition in the market of personal investments in Russia. Special attention is paid to insurance companies and non-state pension funds. The aim is to assess the impact of the height of administrative barriers to entry on the behavior of market participants and its effectiveness. It is shown that relatively low administrative barriers to entry stimulate the entry of such organizations, in whose activities the offer of classical financial products occupies a relatively modest share. In turn, the active entry and subsequent exit of these participants from the market has a negative impact on the supply of savings by households, and thus on the prospects for the qualitative development of the personal investment market. |
|
|
311–327
|
A few years after the demise of communism, it was clear that some post- communist countries were soaring ahead, while others were stagnant at best. The discrepancy was truly astounding, and it has continued for years. The differences in economic performance are closely related to the economic reform policies pursued. The more profound and broad the economic reforms, the better the economic performance. |
|
|
328–348
|
This article is based on the results of research in the framework of the project of the Bureau of economic analysis "Directions and factors of restructuring of industrial enterprises", the main purpose of which was to identify the empirical relationships between the results of the privatized Russian industrial enterprises, their ownership structure, control, market structure, financial constraints and other factors. |
|
|
349–362
|
For the past decade, up to the first half of 1999, arguably the most dramatic indicator of Russia's economic crisis was the decline of aggregate capital investment by a stunning 80 percent (in real terms). For a while afterwards, the most promising indicator of a beginning economic recovery has been the accelerating surge of aggregate capital investment, with its rate of growth reaching almost 18 percent for the year 2000 as a whole, again in real terms. Unfortunately, the most recent data point to a rapid slowdown of investment growth, with the latest (annualized) rate falling to below 8 percent for the first two months of 2001. Although monthly data should clearly not be overinterpreted, indications are that the slowdown is accelerating, with growth rates of investment falling first to 9.2 percent (year-on-year) and then to 6.3 percent in January and February 2001, respectively. Policies that might be conducive to a revival (or at least a continuation) of the previous positive trend seem to presuppose some diagnostic clarity as to why those developments, i.e. the post-crisis recovery of investment and, possibly, its subsequent slowdown have occurred. Clearly, there are some quite plausible explanations. However, as we shall see below, at least one of them seems to have been neglected so far, with potentially serious consequences. It is hardly surprising that not all segments and sectors of the economy participate equally in the movements of aggregate investment. The specific structural patterns of investment deserve attention. As we shall see, by looking at investment from the perspectives of company size, capital-intensity, and sectoral profit shares several pertinent insights and policy lessons can be derived. |
|
|
363–374
|
The article attempts to assess the relationship between the real exchange rate of the ruble and the dynamics of industrial production from 1992 to 2000. With the help of a set of econometric models, estimates of the elasticity of the industrial production index at the real exchange rate of the ruble for the characteristic intervals of the specified period are obtained. |
|
|
375–389
|
In June 2001, Goskomstat published updated estimates of the dynamics of industrial production, made in connection with the transfer of the calculation of the industrial production index to the new base year. In this article, its authors, who participated in this work, analyze the circumstances that led to the need to change the base year in the index calculations. The mechanisms of influence of this change on the resulting index values are considered, as well as some measures that have improved their accuracy. |
|
|
390–415
|
In this issue the journal finishes the publication of the chapters of A. Ponomarenko's work devoted to the reconstruction of macroeconomic statistics of Russia from 1961 to 1990. The previous issues dealt with the problems associated with the calculation of SNA retrospective indicators in current and comparable prices. The Chapter below is the final one. It contains some ideas on the interpretation of the statistical data obtained in the course of the project. |
|
|
416–424
|
Lectures and methodological materials on the prospects for the development of the Russian economy by The first Deputy managing Director of the International monetary Fund, Stanley Fischer, are presented. The publication is based on a shorthand recording of a lecture delivered at the HSE in Moscow on June 19, 2001. It expresses the author's views on Russian economic policy, which do not necessarily coincide with the position of the IMF. |
|
|
|
|
.jpg){kind=logo}
.gif){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
© 
