20/11/17: Russian economic growth slides. Structural issues loom large

An interesting view of the Russian economy (as usual) from Leonid Bershidsky: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-14/russia-s-economy-is-growing-with-borrowed-money

Credit, is not a sustainable source for growth in Russia, especially as the Russian households’ leverage capacity (underpinned by expected future wages) is not exactly in rude health. A recent study from the Russian government's own Analytical Center found that roughly 17% of the working population, or about 12.1 million Russians, can be classified as the working poor - those earning less than enough to cover the minimum purchases required to sustain a family. The study also found that majority of the working poor in Russia rely on microcredit, short term payday loans and/or traditional bank or credit card borrowing to meet daily necessary expenditure.

Low wages, rising credit

Rosstat data confirms the findings. Roughly 7% of all wage-earners are paid wages below the monthly subsistence minimum. Over 17% of people working in the education sector or various municipal services earn below-subsistence wages.

Moscow has set a target of 2019 for raising wages to the legally required subsistence minimum level, with minimum wages hiked in 2016 and mid-2017. Current minimum wage is set at Rub 7,000 per month (roughly EUR115) which is only about 60% of the average subsistence minimum levels and close to 20% of the average monthly wage, according to BOFIT report. This is about half the level (of 40%) ratio of the minimum wage to the average wage across the OECD countries.

Accumulation of household debt, therefore, is hardly the good news for the economy in the long run, as debt affordability is only sustained today by the falling interest rates (cost of carry), and is not consistent with the wages dynamics, and wages levels, especially at the lower end of earnings.

Meanwhile, the latest data on economic growth came in at a disappointing print. Russian GDP growth fell from 2.5% y/y in 2Q 2017 to 1.8% in 3Q 2016, driven down by slower expansion in both exports and domestic investment. Over the period from January through September, Russian economy grew by roughly 1.6% y/y - well below the official forecasts and analysts consensus expectations. Oil output fell, despite the rise in global oil prices, as Russia continued to implement OPEC-agreed production cuts.

On external trade, exports of oil and related products were up in 3Q 2017 in line with oil prices, rising 26% y/y. Exports of metals and other primary materials were down sharply. In January-September, exports of goods were also up 26% y/y with the share of oil and gas in total goods exports up sharply to 60%.

Notably, the value of exports of goods and services (at USD250 billion) over the first nine months of 2017 has robustly exceeded the value of imports (at USD 170 billion).

Structural Problems

Russian growth slowdown is structural, as I wrote on numerous occasions before. The structural nature of the slowdown is reflected in subdued private investment growth and lack of dynamism in all private enterprise-led sectors, with exception, perhaps of the cyclical agriculture. Even food production sector - which should have benefited from record crops (over 2014-2017) and trade sanctions (import substitution) is lagging. Capital deepening and technological innovation are far behind where these should have been after roughly 19 years of post-default recovery in the economy.

The structural decline in the private sectors activities is contrasted by expansion of the state sector.

According to the Rosstat figures, over recent years some 11-12% of total earnings in the Russian economy was generated by the larger state-owned or part-state-owned enterprises. This figure excludes direct Government spending. In other words, state spending and state-owned companies revenues now account for close to 40% of the Russian GDP. As reported by BOFIT, state-owned enterprises “revenues are highly concentrated. Surveys by the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) show that just 54 large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) account for 8% of revenues [half of that accrues to only two companies: Gazprom and Rosneft]. When 20 indirectly state-owned firms are added the share rises to 12%.” This is in line with the figure of 11% reported by Expert.ru based on their list of 400 biggest companies in Russia.

Outright direct Government (local, regional and federal) expenditure amounts to slightly above 13% of GDP, based on Rosstat figures. This means that, raising the larger enterprises share to account for smaller and medium sized state-owned companies, the total state-owned enterprises and Government share of the economy can be around 38% mark, slightly above the 2010 estimate of 35%, provided by the ENRD. Interestingly, the above imbalances in the structure of the Russian economy do not seem to reflect too poorly on the country rankings in the World Bank Doing Business report. Out last week, the rankings put Russia in 35th place globally, our of 190 countries, placing it just below Japan and well ahead of China (78th).

In summary, Russian economy will not be able to get onto a higher growth path (from the current 1-1.5 percent range) until there is a significant shift in growth drivers toward capital deepening (necessary both to offset adverse demographics and the chronic under-investment in new capital over the recent years), and technological deepening (required to modernise industrial and services sectors). To effectively trigger these processes, Russia needs to hit, simultaneously. three policy targets:

1. Improve overall relationship with Europe, while continuing to build on positive trade and investment momentum with Asia-Pacific region;
2. Increase the share of private enterprise activity in the economy, by reducing the state share of the economy to below 35% of GDP; and
3. Focus on reforming institutional frameworks that currently hold Russian investors from investing in the domestic production, including closing gaps on product/services certification between Russia and Europe, and effectively (not pro-forma) reforming legal frameworks.

20/1/16: "Немного фантастики. Где у России остался потенциал роста”

My latest column for Slon.ru covering the topic of how Russia can jumpstart growth through targeted reform of its Special Development Zones and clustering environment: https://slon.ru/posts/62652.

5/3/15: Russian Economy: External Trade, Inflation and Wages

Quick digest of top news relating to Russian economy:

Customs receipts for Russian Federation in February 2015 reached RUB393.7 billion down 30% y/y. January-February receipts were RUB840 billion or 19.6% down y/y. Full year 2014, customs receipts amounted to RUB7.1 trillion - up 8.5% y/y.

Much of the decline is down to imports collapse: imports were down over 2014 by USD29 billion or 9.5% y/y to USD286 billion in 2014 from USD315 billion in 2013. Only three countries saw increased exports into Russia: U.S., Kazakhstan and Brazil. Largest declines in export to Russia were in Ukraine (31.9%), Japan (19.5%) and Belarus (15.6%). By category of imports: largest declines in Russian imports were in passenger vehicles (21.9%), heavy transport equipment and agricultural equipment and machinery (22.3%), engines and power trains (13.2%), household appliances (20%), milk and dairy products (17.5%), pharmaceuticals (13.1%), and alcoholic beverages (12.3%). Imports categories that posted y/y increases in 2014 were: computer equipment (8.6%), telecommunications equipment (6.9%), household chemicals (4.4%) and heating equipment (3.8%).

Given decline in external trade, largest adverse impact of the Russian crisis is being felt in Armenia and Ukraine.

• Armenia received remittances from Russia to the tune of 10% of its GDP in 2012, which fell to around 6% by the end of 2014. Armenia's net exports into Russia accounted for roughly 3% of GDP, while Russian investors account for roughly 50% of total foreign investment stocks.
• Ukraine received remittances from Russia amounting to 2.1% of GDP in 2012 and Russia accounted for roughly 25% of Ukrainian exports. Russian investors account for around 5% of the stocks of foreign direct investment in Ukraine.

Inflation: January inflation printed at 3.9% m/m, or 15% y/y. February 2015 inflation reached 16.7% y/y. Food prices rose 23.3% y/y in February, against 6.9% y/y inflation in food prices in February 2014. M/m February inflation was 2.2% m/m, suggesting potentially a slowdown in the rate of inflation. Some shorter term data suggest that over the first week of March, weekly CPI stood at 0.2% - the lowest weekly reading since October 2014. Good news, for many, bad news for many more: vodka prices fell 0.4% in February.

Wages: A recent survey by a large recruitment company, the Hay Group, showed that 75% of businesses are planning to raise wages in 2015. RBC has details (in Russian): http://top.rbc.ru/economics/04/03/2015/54f706b39a7947103b521853 E-commerce enterprises are planning largest wage hikes (+11.3% on average), followed by Industry sector (+10%), media (9.7%), chemical sector (+9.4%). None of the wage hikes planned are matching expected inflation: Central Bank of Russia forecasts 2015 year-end inflation at 12-12.4% and average inflation during 2015 at 15.8%.

An interesting report in RBC on the proposals for economic reforms from the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (sort-of Russian IBEC), РСПП (see here: http://top.rbc.ru/economics/04/03/2015/54f724ea9a79472c640c6f5e). According to RSPP, Government response to the crisis should focus on achieving further liberalisation in the economy. First pillar of the proposals focuses on early stage reforms, especially those aiming to stabilise the financial situation in the corporate sector. Second pillar contains 73 specific Government and regulatory decisions that should be suspended to reduce their adverse impact on corporate sector.



Note: those who are interested to learn more about the above topics or the business and economic environment in Russia can contact me to arrange a more in-depth one-on-one briefing.

19/11/2014: Two articles on Russian economy and reforms

Two important articles on Russian economy and policy via Bloomberg:

• Putin Said to Stun Advisers by Backing Corruption Crackdown: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-18/putin-said-to-back-crackdown-on-corruption-as-sanctions-bite.html and
• Russia Braces for 'Catastrophic' Drop in Oil Prices: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-14/putin-says-russia-preparing-for-catastrophic-oil-slump.html

6/8/2012: Russian reforms: Atrophy or Revolution?

Journal of Democracy has 5 articles covering various aspects of the political grass-roots transformations undergoing in Russia (link here):


In "Putinism Under Siege: Implosion, Atrophy, or Revolution?", Lilia Shevtsova argues that the "Putin's regime is clearly now in decline, but it is unclear whether the death knell has sounded for the "Russian System" - a combination of personal rule, the merger of power and assets, and a self-perpetuating stalinist-militarist model. One can conclude, however, that the Russian system cannot be reformed from the top and that real transformation will come only through pressure from citizens."

I am not so sure, this wishful thinking - ranging from rather over-reaching definition of the "Russian System" (which does include the first two of the features outlined in the article, yet hardly resembles a stalinist-militarist model at all) to nostalgia for some sort of a populist, bottom-up transformation (which never happened in the history of Russia before, and given the dire quality of opposition is not about to happen either) - is either a realistic assessment of the near-term (predictable or forecastable) future or a desired path to transformation.

But the article does point to some interesting changes in social dynamics that have led to recent protests and are exposing the dire need for modernization and reforms in the system as well as the fact that since 2006 Russian leadership has had an awfully hard time in attempting to deliver any real change on core political and social changes:


"Discontent with Putin’s regime among educated urbanites has been building for some time as people have witnessed the cynicism, brazen corruption, official high-handedness, and general stasis on display in their government. By the last part of Putin’s second term (between 2006 and 2008), the foundations of his implicit deal with the country were starting to erode. The most active and dynamic sectors of society wanted more than the Kremlin’s offer of stability based on looking to the past and staying within the narrow bounds of old myths about Russia and the world. People began to tire of the notion
that they should be content so long as the authorities let them make a living in return for staying out of politics and recognizing the authorities as having the final say on questions of property ownership, making corruption an essential lubricant when frictions appeared."

"But there inevitably came a moment when Putin’s formula for “social peace” no longer satisfied much of the populace. Too many had come to see that this pact could guarantee them neither opportunity nor prosperity nor even basic security. Moreover, Putin lacked any sense of the kinds of social improvements that might give young people a leg-up in life and a chance to better themselves. The financial and economic crisis of 2008—and the way that Putin and his team reacted to it by guarding their own wealth and that of the oligarchs close to them—cast into especially high relief the flaws in Putin’s model."

So far - plausible, albeit over-rhetoricized account.

The article real failings are in the projections for the Putin 2.0 and gradualist reforms paths, which, the author feels, cannot deliver significant enough change. At this stage, the arguments are purely speculative, based on "why didn't Putin do so before?" reasoning which ignores both the core objectives of pre-2006 path (consolidation of power and stabilization of fragmented institutions) as well as the need for transition to Putin 2.0 regime.

Again, on has to read the entire article in the context of attempting to remove over-extending rhetoric from the fact.

"The authorities’ tactical maneuvers and the myths spread by Kremlin propagandists can no longer stave off a crisis that has already begun. [In my view, this is correct, albeit the word 'crisis' is hardly properly descriptive of current events - the word 'pressure' comes to mind as more apt]. The alleged adaptability of the “Russian system” has been exposed as an illusion—cosmetic changes can no longer hide a more fundamental rigidity. The system guarantees Russians neither personal security, nor
economic well-being, nor a sense of civic dignity. The system works only to satisfy entrenched interest groups at the expense of society at large; the “golden parachutes” that the elites maintain in the form of
assets stored in the West prove that even they do not believe in the sustainability of the current political order. [Well put, in my view... but not warranting subsequent:] The paradox is that propping
up the status quo is speeding up the system’s decline, but attempts to update this status quo without liquidating its basis (personalized power) threaten to cause system breakdown."

In my opinion, the status quo is degenerative. However, change of the status quo requires a long period of building effective, functional democratic opposition. Not a 'personal cult 2 displacing a personal cult 1' system that is currently the only feasible alternative were another equivalent to Putin found somewhere. This process can only be carried out with simultaneous co-existence of the current consolidated regime and constant pressure on this regime to reform. The recent protests have shown this much: there is no alternative to Putin 2.0 transformation for the embryonic democratic forces - which have offered no real policies alternative or leadership options to the current regime, and for the regime itself - which cannot be assured of normal and functional transition of power. In other words, Russia currently has no alternative to the gradualism in transformation. To the author, this means that neither transformation, nor gradualist approach to it are feasible. To me it means that both are inevitable in the long run.

In other words - it is neither Atrophy, nor Revolution that await Russia in the near term future. It is a gradual re-shaping of the Kremlin rule accompanied by the maturing of the democratic alternatives. We better brace ourselves for a much longer term process than the ones we experienced in Russia since 1988. And that is a good news.

I will be blogging on the remaining articles in the issue in time, so stay tuned.