Change font size:   

 
Country risk 2008:

Country risk 2008:

Bi-annual Country risk survey monitoring political and economic stability of 185 countries

No. 6: If you don’t give it to me you’ll only lend it to someone else and look where that got us

January 2000

Russia: turning point in year 2000


Author: David Roche




?
   

As I write, Russian troops are preparing to blast and occupy the Chechnyan capital, Grozny. As a result, G7 governments are putting pressure on the IMF not to release the next tranche of funds promised under the credit facility agreed after the collapse of the rouble in summer 1998. At the same time, Russia's politicians are gearing up for a parliamentary election.

Ironically, all these uncertainties about Russia's future are happening after a year in which much of Russia's past economic disasters have been reversed. Russia is riding high on the wave of the world's cyclical economic recovery. Inflation is coming under control. Tax revenues have almost doubled and the budget is close to balance. The share of net exports has surged from close to zero in early 1998, to nearly 15% of GDP. This has helped lift the country's GDP by 1-2% this year. The rouble devaluation has created a cushion of competitiveness for Russian exporters. And, with oil prices rocketing, export revenues will remain high for the foreseeable future.

Almost overnight, the country now has the resources to implement a sustainable economic strategy for reviving growth in the long term. A strong rouble will restrain inflation and lead to lower interest rates. And the stronger the rouble grows, the more trusted it will become. Ultimately, that will help to discourage capital flight (still running at $15 billion a year, with a cumulative $120 billion since 1993), stimulate domestic savings and attract inward FDI.

A London Club debt-restructuring deal is also likely to be finalized some time early in 2000. This settlement will clear all the outstanding debts left over from the Soviet era and establish Russia's creditworthiness on a firm footing.

Unfortunately, the war in Chechnya has soured sentiment. Will Russia ever enter the body of civilised nations, where there is rule of law, transparency in financial affairs and compromise in foreign policy? That's the question that some are posing?

I think there's a very good chance. First, the West cannot indefinitely adopt a tough policy on refusing to help Russia economically. Currently, Russia owes $16 billion to the IMF. The present regime paid back $3 billion in 1999 and has honoured all its multilateral agency and Eurobond debt obligations. A hard line with Russia risks promoting an aggressive nationalist regime in Moscow that would default on IMF debt. And it would put huge obstacles in the way of foreign diplomacy.

Second, this year Russia is set for some wrenching changes. The parliamentary elections most likely gave a majority to the centrists, led by former premier Yevgeny Primakov and Moscow's mayor Yuri Luzhkov. And this summer (or earlier) Russia will probably replace Yeltsin with a new president of similar ilk. For the first time, those who control the levers of power will share the same interests as those that are governed.

If the new politicians remove the Yeltsin "family clique" from power, and that's what I expect, it will be the first step in re-establishing the rule of law in Russia. Russia needs its current leadership like a hole in the head. It operates only for the benefit of a handful of Kremlin acolytes. They, in turn, act only to preserve their hold on power.

To complete the circle of vested interests, the state created a bond with the industrial and banking sector "oligarchs". Together, they screwed the rest of the nation. While wages, pensions and social benefits were left unpaid for months, billions of dollars were allowed to flee the country -- sunk into the shady offshore bank accounts of the "chosen". Laws were made to serve this small group of people.

The bombardment of Chechnya and repayment of wage arrears, the indexation of pensions and a high-cost election campaign all represent a last bid to hold onto power.

In its campaign for the parliamentary elections, the Kremlin was hoping to maintain a fractured Duma that is incapable of undermining its own candidate for president (standing premier, Vladimir Putin). The primary goal has been to discredit Primakov and Luchkov, using the influential Kremlin-controlled media.

At the same time, the ruling clique aims to boost Putin's popularity as a "caring defender of the weak". And to garner as many votes as possible, any remaining wage, pension and social benefit arrears will be repaid. The war in Chechnya will go on for as long as it takes to support Putin's image as a tough and decisive leader fighting international terrorism.

But the Kremlin is fighting a losing battle. Russians have finally realized that, without the rule of law, there is no chance of a better life. And its resurrection can only happen with a new, credible leadership. It needs to be trustworthy and capable of reaching a sensible consensus among all social groups.

So there's a good chance that the new administration will come into office in the next six months that will finally implement the structural reforms that Russia so badly needs.

For economic success depends on national trust. Russians have been conned too many times both by government and by the banks. That's why only a government of national trust, supported by the President and a majority in parliament, will be able to counter such deeply-embedded cynicism.

Legal reforms will be critical. These include the full implementation of new (and unambiguous) legislation on banking reform, deposit guarantee schemes, bankruptcies, financial reporting procedures, taxation and the protection of shareholder rights. Of course, for a long time to come, it will be impossible to consider investment in Russia anything other than "high risk". But now that risk is increasingly complemented with potential high return.

David Roche is president of Independent Strategy, a research firm based in London. www.instrategy.com







Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are too big to fail by an order of magnitude, in terms of the contingent liability to the federal government.

Thomas Stanton, a Washington attorney who once worked for Fannie Mae. From the archive: Freddie and Fannie arent sovereign, July 1999

Ruromoney Jobs Post a job