<<
>>

2.2. Increase of a role of the state in formation of industrial business

About necessity of essential strengthening of a role of the state for regulation and stimulation of enterprise activity for sphere of production of goods was anyhow spoken in each paragraph. And it is not casual, as one of the main reasons of the situation which have developed in Russia with development of industrial business consists in self-removal of the state from fulfilment of regulating functions, in inadequacy of a control system of a national economy as a whole and such difficult economic subsystems, as real economy, to features of a state of the art of economy.

The question on a state role in regulation of social and economic processes was and remains to one of the most disputable from the beginning of reforming of economy. And it too is not casual, as a problem of sharing of the state in economic process - not so much economic, how many political. In the domestic literature sharp discussion about a state role in regulation of social and economic processes is supplemented not less with sharp disputes about originality of Russia, necessity, possibility and degree of copying of experience of state regulation of the economy which have been accumulated by other countries. And it is quite clear, as the question on "influences" (English, French, German etc.) and originality always was one of the major in history of development of Russian social and economic thought. It is enough to recollect struggle of two currents resisting one another which to the middle of XIX century were issued in zapadnichestvo and slavjanofilstvo.

Considering, that in Russia questions on degree and methods of regulating effect of the state on social and economic processes (and, hence, and formation of the external enterprise environment) remain actual to this day, and unequivocal answers to them still are not present, it is represented expedient to express on them the opinion. First of all, it would be desirable to support an item of those scientists, politicians and experts which support strengthening of a role of the state in economy. It is impossible to disagree with opinion of some of them on artificiality of a notorious dilemma "liberal" (minimum interference of the state in economic relations and low taxes), or "dirizhistskaja" (high taxes at significant reglayomentirovanii an economic life) the model of state regulation of capitalist economy is realised in Russia. Actually in Russia up to recent time realisation of the economic model representing symbiosis of both concepts in the worst variant – the highest degree of liberalisation of economy in a combination to the hardest tax press and restriktsionnoj was carried out by a monetary policy. "This homebrew symbiosis becomes the powerful factor) developments" shadow "economy at the expense of an exhaustion legal; total criminalisation of economy and company; liquidations of a domestic manufacturing industry; population demoralisation" [73].

In my opinion, necessity of strengthening of a regulating role of the state is objectively caused as national specificity of Russia (huge territory, multinational structure of the population, diversified character of economy, plurality and narrowness of inter-branch relations and at the same time significant regional specialisation, at last, traditionally strong influence of the Russian state on economy development), and variety of the factors connected with its modern social and economic position.

The following, in particular, concerns them:

- Controllability loss by the economic processes, connected with loss by the state of many regulating functions, including what are necessary in the conditions of the market;

- Transition of public system from one qualitative condition in other, accompanied by political and economic instability, against globalisation of economy and change of civilisations;

- Features of formation of the market economy, caused by that it is formed not natural by, and during reforms conducted by the state;

- Huge negative social costs as transition to market economy, and the market mechanism neutralise, reduce to minimum which the state can only;

- The deepest crisis in all branches and economy spheres, in which conditions as shows world experience, the state role (including its direct effect on economic processes) increases;

- Embedding of economy of Russia in economic (in particular, an accession to WTO) at significant easing of its role and items in the world markets, in all system of global economic cooperations.

As to real economy here strengthening of a role of the state should be considered as one of priority directions of increase of its efficiency. Until recently it remained in essence out of sight of the state [74] though it should be interested in its normal functioning. And this interest in general is justified. First, revival of sphere of production of goods to the greatest degree answers the rate proclaimed the state economy modernisation. Secondly, stabilisation and revival of its development will allow Russia to remove threat of technological safety, to lower growth rates of an external debt and expenses for its service. Thirdly, world experience shows, that the most real way to stable economic growth – constant updating of technological base [75]. Thus the greatest effect is reached at technological jumps when there is not a gradual transition from one technological way [76] to other, and sharp qualitative updating of technical base of production on all technological chain, that is change of the technological ways representing a product of technological evolution [77].

Such way of maintenance of stable rates of economic growth is used by industrially developed countries. And transition to technological way of higher order is accompanied by sharp reduction of a share of technological ways of the lowest usages. So, large-scale modernisation in the USA, Japan, the Great Britain and Germany in 70-80th years was accompanied by mass liquidation of the out-of-date, unpromising enterprises and productions (the special attention was given to curling ecologically harmful, labour-consuming and resursoemkih productions). In the USA, for example, in 1981 in motor industry, ferrous metallurgy and the textile industry have been closed on re-equipment or tens enterprises are liquidated. Only with 1980 for 1985 250 textile enterprises have been closed. In a steel industry with 1978 on 1987 700 factories, shops, plots have been liquidated, to 25 % was reduced stanochnyj park in metalcutting branches. Similar processes occurred in Japan and other countries [78].

For predreformennoj the Russian economy it was characteristic technological mnogoukladnost. To the beginning of reforms in the Russian economy simultaneously there were all five ways. By estimations of experts, the share of the first (new technologies in the textile industry, use of energy of water) and the second (railway transportation development, mechanisation of production on the basis of use of the steam engine) or as them still name, the relic ways generated prior to the beginning of the XX-th century, was very insignificant. A little above there was a share of the third (use in electric power production, development of heavy engineering, the electrotechnical and chemical industry) way which has developed and dominated in the end of XIХ - first thirds of XX-th century. The fourth technological way which has started to be formed in 30th years of the XX-th century was prevailing and based on development of the power based on use of petroleum, petroleum and gas, atomic engineering, the communication facilities, new synthetic materials, electronics. From the middle of 80th years in Russia at support of the state of the beginnings actively to be formed the most progressive fifth way based on development of microelectronics, biotechnology, gene engineering, the computer science, new kinds of energy, on achievements in the field of an outer space exploration, a satellite communication.

Similar mnogoukladnost, on the one hand, generated technological monopolists, and with other - promoted occurrence not only interbranch, but also intrabranch technological disproportions. Not casually, already at that time technologically multistructure character of economy was absolutely fairly put forward by many scientists and experts as one of the serious reasons containing economic growth, and served as a weighty argument in favour of necessity of structural reorganisation of economy, including technological.

In Russia the beginning of reforms did not manage to be combined with speeding up of scientific and technical progress. Curling of investments, reduction of financing of a science, design workings out and applied researches, aggravation of working conditions of branches of a manufacturing industry have led to that reforming of economy instead of expected positive shifts only has aggravated a situation.

While in industrially developed countries rates of formation of the fifth technological way based on achievements in the field of effective and ecologically safe, first of all high, of technologies (nanotehnologija, information technologies, elektronizatsija all lines of business etc.) were increased Also the base to formation of the sixth has started to be mortgaged, in the country there was a curling of modern fifth technological way, the share of the fourth way which has not reached the potential fell. So, for years of reforms production of metal-cutting machine tools was reduced in 8,8 times (and in comparison with 1975 in 16,6 times), from them from the numerical control – 12,6 times; forge-pressovyh cars - in 21,7 times (in 34,1 times), from them from the numerical control – in 315 times; automatic and semi-automatic lines for mechanical engineering and metal working - in 11,4 times [79]. In Russia martin production of a steel in its total amount makes 39,4 % whereas in the USA - 2,5 %, in Japan - are not present, in Germany - comes to naught. Almost 63 % of a steel on domestic metal works spread in ingots, and in the USA, Japan and Germany specific weight of the steel spilt not by cars of continuous moulding, is equal accordingly 9, 4, 2 and 4,6 %. The share of high-quality metal products in hire makes 59,3 % (1995), and sheet metal with covers - 3,3 % (in the named countries accordingly - 39,7, 39,6, 31,2 % and 31,3, 16, 15,2 %) [80]. Advancing rates volumes of issue of progressive kinds of metal products (korrozionno-proof steels, gnutye profiles, etc.) have decreased. Production of some the major marks of steels has appeared abroad (for example, for gas pipes of the maximum diameter, for cases of the ships etc.) . Practically many kinds of the most progressive engineering have absolutely ceased to be made. To no small degree it was promoted by orientation to export of the toplivno-source of raw materials, caused the hypertrophied development of raw, fuel and energy and metallurgical branches of economy to the detriment of to the branches forming technological base. The increase in structure of industrial production of a share of branches with high specific weight resurso - and power-intensive out-of-date technologies has led to its significant weighting.

Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the developed potential allow to draw an unequivocal conclusion - in a present condition it cannot supply in full transition not only to expanded, but also to simple reproduction. Besides, application of ecologically imperfect technologies at development of oil and gas deposits and mining operations, and also equipment facilities wear practically in all leading branches of economy promote repeated increase of the risks caused by possible increase of technogenic failures, and social and economic losses (both direct, and indirect) from their consequences.

It is necessary to underline, the negative tendencies considered above in change of technological base and gravity of their social and economic consequences for the present and the country future became recently abundantly clear to all. Gradual strengthening of regulating functions of the state and updating of a policy conducted by it testify to it towards modernisation of economy, stimulation of innovative and investment activity, adjustment of partner relations with business, increases of a role of a manufacturing industry and creation of favorable conditions for activization of industrial business, in particular.

"By key feature of development of the Russian economy in intermediate term prospect, - it is underlined in the Program of social and economic development of the Russian Federation on intermediate term prospect, - necessity of simultaneous increase of a standard of living and expansion of modernisation of a national economy is. It will occur in the conditions of significant scale derivation of resources on service of an external debt and maintenance of safety of the country. Modernisation of economy will require also increase in national costs at development of science and education, a social infrastructure.

Other feature - strengthening of limiting effect on rates of economic growth from the developed inefficient structure of the industry and insufficient volume of investments into real sector "[81].

To it it is necessary to add one more, not less important feature about which it was in detail spoken above, - a pitiable condition of a material and technical base practically all branches of real economy, its actual deindustrializatsija for years of reforms and crisis. Thus low investment activity in sphere of production of goods is accompanied till now by narrowing vosproizvodstvennoj bases to what stable decrease in an indicator of commissioning of a fixed capital testifies.

Considering the transferred features of economy, specificity of the industrial business which development requires essential state support, and intermediate term character of the Program (the next three years), the reality of its realisation raises the doubts. At the same time the problems delivered in it, it is necessary to decide. Moreover, it was necessary to decide them still yesterday. After all it is known, that already for the first five-years period of reforming of economy irrevocable losses of Russia of a fixed capital of the enterprises at not compensated deterioration and equipment failures have made 100 billion dollars. As a result of curling of industrial production the damage which, by estimations of experts, approximately at 40-50 time has exceeded the Russia granted for this time foreign credits [82] is caused to a national economy.

By search of ways of the decision transferred above problems, in our opinion, it is necessary to consider, at least, two moments. First, experience of the developed countries in which the state investment served as a push to structural reorganisation of economy on the basis of its technological reequipment. So, in the USA, for example, development of park of machine tools from the numerical control has been completely initiated by the state. The state has supplied the order for their working out and production, and also modernisation for their basis of productions. In the Great Britain the grants covering in the beginning to 50 %, and then 25-30 % of expenses of firms were granted manufacturers of robots and the information equipment. At the subsequent stages of the grant were allocated to consumers of new engineering [83]. Secondly, character of mechanisms of investment and innovations which, as is known, work on algorithm of strengthening. PervonaYOchalnoe the increase in costs at development conducts further to scale and efficiency growth proizvodyostva, to increase in an additional product and accumulation resources, so, - to expansion of possibilities of development.

In the light of the above-stated the state role in development of industrial business consists in the decision of following problems: 1) the state financial backing of industrial business, 2) taxation optimisation, 3) legal and a supply with information of industrial business, 4) increase of its social and economic efficiency.

As to the last three problems they will be considered more low. Here it would be desirable to stay in more details on the decision of the first problem. In foreign and domestic practice there was a certain system of the state support of real sector of economy. Kinds of such support used in the EU countries are presented in table 14.

In our country support of the enterprises is carried out as on federal (tab. 15 see), and at level of subjects of federation.

Table 14

The kinds of the state help used in the EU countries,

In % from the general help of the granted industry

In 1992-1994 [84]

The countries Direct transfer of money resources Tax privileges Sharing in an authorised capital Soft loans The governmental warranties
Belgium 37 45 1 9 8
Denmark 94 2 0 3 1
Germany 41 26 1 21 11
Greece 54 20 0 13 13
Spain 86 0 0 12 2
France 46 22 12 5 15
Ireland 79 7 8 3 3
Italy 42 38 14 5 1
Luxembourg 93 0 0 7 0
The Netherlands 78 13 0 2 7
Portugal 72 21 1 1 5
The Great Britain 87 7 0 2 4
EUR 12 % 48 27 5 12 8

Table 15

Structure of kinds of the state support from the federal

The budget in 1998-2000 (on the average for a year) [85]

№ p/p The name In % to a result
1. Grants and subventions to regions 58,3
2. Direct transfer of means from the federal budget 39,3
2.1. Including under federal programs 29,1
3. Other kinds of the state support, including: 2,4
3.1. Granting of budgetary loans and credits 0,7
3.2. Granting of privileges and clearing on tax payment in the federal budget 1,6
3.3. Granting to industrial enterprises of privileges under tariffs for rail transportation

0,1

Total 100

Apparently from the resulted data, the significant part of budgetary funds is necessary on such kind of support as grants and subventions to regions which have no direct relation to real sector as 85 % of these means make transfer deeds, 11,5 % - northern delivery, etc. From means of the second kind of the help gets to real sector only 26 %, 91 which % goes to branches in great need in grants. To industrial enterprises 18,8 % of all costs for the state support are allocated only. What part of these means goes directly on support of industrial business to define it is impossible, as both in the literature, and in practice the problem of the state support is considered in a cut either small business, or the enterprises of branches of sphere of production of goods. The same situation and at level of subjects of federation.

Meanwhile large and average industrial business owing to the specificity is not less, than small, requires the state support, including financial. The means necessary for it, it is necessary to define not in a statics, and in dynamics, with allowance for potential (in foreseeable prospect) and real social and economic effects (including and multiplicate effects), connected with enterprise activity in real economy.

As to sources of these means one of them is covered in redistribution of the State expenditure, the question on which optimisation has ripened for a long time already. First of all it is necessary to cut down expenses for the administrative personnel contents also with allowance for potential (in foreseeable prospect) and real social and economic effects (including and multiplicate effects), connected with its activity. Now the annual contents of one only the officer-manager manages to the state in 200 thousand dollars. By estimations of analysts, in 2001 on their contents 15 % of all costs of the state [86] are spent.

In the conditions of limitation of budgetary funds on support of industrial business it is expedient to expand practice of indirect support. For example, by competitive placing of state orders for innovative workings out or production of highly competitive production in the world market. While this kind of support is used insufficiently flexibly.

<< | >>
A source: OMELCHENKO EVGENIE VITALEVICH. ORGANIZATIONAL-ECONOMIC BASES of INCREASE of EFFICIENCY of the RUSSIAN INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS. 2002

More on topic 2.2. Increase of a role of the state in formation of industrial business:

  1. 1.3. A role of industrial business in a national economy
  2. the Chapter IV. The basic directions of increase of efficiency of industrial business
  3. OMELCHENKO EVGENIE VITALEVICH. ORGANIZATIONAL-ECONOMIC BASES of INCREASE of EFFICIENCY of the RUSSIAN INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS,
  4. the Chapter III. Conceptual bases of socially-market model of increase of efficiency of industrial business
  5. Officially-business writing XVI-XVII of centuries and its role in formation of Russian-English language contacts
  6. § 1.2. The is constructive-functional role of arbitration courts in system of means and measures of maintenance of the state support of small business
  7. 1.3. A state role in formation of innovative social policy
  8. Chapter 1. Value and functional role of arbitration courts in system of means and measures of maintenance of the state support of subjects of small business
  9. §4.3. Formation of concept state ekologicheskojekspertizy and the analysis of its role in preparation and decision-making system
  10. 3.1. New approaches to a problem of increase of efficiency of business
  11. 4.1. Harmonisation of interestsas the factor of increase of efficiency of business
  12. 4.2. Macroeconomic preconditions of increase of efficiency of business
  13. 3.3. Increase of a role social effektivnostipredprinimatelstva
  14. § 1. A role of principles in increase of efficiency of legal proceedings
  15. 1.2. A role of industrial parks in region economy
  16. § 3. A role of the state specialised bodies on assistance to human rights and their protection in education and formation in the field of human rights