Gaidar Forum–2018: the Third Day

On the third, final day of  Gaidar Forum-2018, a large number of expert discussions with participation of experts of the Gaidar Institute was held.


Irina Tolmacheva, Head of the Legal Department, Gaidar Institute and Head of the Research Projects and Intellectual Property Studies Department, RANEPA was the moderator of the morning expert discussion: “Endowments: the Lessons of the Decade”.

The Russian special-purpose capital market is 10 years old. During that period, over 100 large institutions carrying out activities in the most socially important sectors, such as education, science, culture, medicine and other formed reserve purpose-capital funds (endowments) relying on sustainable development and financial well-being.

The topics of the discussion were as follows: the past, present and future of the special-purpose capital market in Russia; the conditions for development of Russian endowments: pro and contras; the culture of donations in endowments; secrets of successful fundraising; effective endowment management: the market’s best practices; the future of endowments: reserves for development.

   

Participants in the discussion were the following: Lyudmila Panteleyeva, Member of the Supervisory Board, GMZ Petergof Endowment; Oksana Oracheva, General Director, V. Potanin Charitable Foundation; Roza Voronina, Director of the Department of Operations with Non-Profit Institutions, ZAO Gazprombank Asset Management; Alexei Timofeyev, President of the National Association of Stock Market Participants; Marina Petrova, Executive Director, MGIMO Endowment Fund; Ivan Kopytov, Director of the NITU MISiS Endowment Fund; Maxim Yurevich, Senior Researcher, Russian Institute for Economy, Politics and Law in Research and Development.

Presentations to the Reports:

In the morning, another expert discussion: “Economic Cooperation with Trade Partners as a Source of Russian Economic Growth” was held under moderation of Alexander Knobel, Director of the Center for International Trade Research, RANEPA and Head of the International Trade Department, Gaidar Institute was held.

At present, only highly efficient cooperation with international partners may promote economic growth rates. Promotion of non-primary exports and integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and with far-abroad countries and facilitation of trade amid the global integration turbulence require formation of the structured strategy of promotion of foreign economic activities.

Participants in the discussion tried to answer the following questions: what are the most promising lines of exports promotion; is the current freezing of mega-regional initiatives an integration pause or norm; is it necessary to restart the Eurasian integration project; are there any methods of promoting the export potential of the EEU as an integration community; what trade agreements does the Russian economy need today; what is the effect of sanctions and countersanctions on the Russian economy; what is the business’s interest in the integration policy; what is the role of international standards in the external sector development.

The reports were delivered by the following speakers: Natalia Volchkova, Professor, New Economic School; Sergei Afontsev, Head of the Economic Theory Department, Institute of International Economy and International Relations (IIEIR), RAS; Olf Schneider, General Director, SCHNEIDER GROUP; Andrei Lipin, Deputy Director of the Monetary Policy Department, the RF Central Bank; Anastasia Stepanova, Coordinator of the Challenges and Opportunities of Broader European and Eurasian Space Project,IIASA, Austria; Vladimir Pereboyev, Director of the Center for Integration Research, Eurasian Development Bank; Natalia Volchkova, Professor, New Economic School; Matthias Shepp, Board Chairman, Russian-German Foreign Trade Chamber.

In his report, Olf Schneider compared integration in the EU and the EEU and singled out the aspects of possible networking noting that the EU had advantages in technologies and industry, while the EEU, in natural resources and information technologies.

A larger part of Olf Schneider’s address was dedicated to development of the single economic space fr om Lisbon to Vladivostok. The speaker stressed that at the current stage the abolition of all the customs duties was unlikely, so he suggested focusing on the following three issues: simplification of customs procedures and harmonization of technical norms (primarily standards and procedures for receipt of certificates) and establishment of a visa-free regime.

In his report, Andrei Lipin paid attention to the prospects and risks of internationalization of the rouble, that is, entering of the national currency on the international market. Andrei Lipin noted that the share of the RF in the international trade stood at below 1%. The share of the rouble in the trade with the EEU was 10%, while in the mutual trade with the EEU, over 70% (mainly bilateral trade with the RF). The effect of inclusion of the RF on the currency market of other EEU countries may be more significant because in such a case the rouble performs all the functions of a regional currency through export and import contracts concluded in roubles.

Sergei Afontsev spoke about the results of the research carried out at the IIEIR into the effects of global integration processes and initiatives on global economic growth. According to him, there are two factors which have an effect on the global trade integration:

- dynamics of integration processes are hardly predictable due to a high volatility of the political agenda and its domination on economic interests.

- there is an explicit trend of reduction of the ratio of the international trade growth rates to global economic growth rates.

The expert specified Russia’s potential as regards exports of non-primary goods: both further integration with the EU by 2025 and establishment of a free-trade zone with countries of the Asian-Pacific Region should promote GDP growth rates by 0.2%-0.25% in the long-term prospect.

Natalia Volchkova stressed the importance of development of exports of non-primary goods in terms of promotion of stability of consumption in time and in terms of growth of efficiency on the back of redistribution of resources in favor of more effective industries and enterprises. She noted that Russian exports of non-primary goods had a considerable growth potential based on expansion both of geography and the range of goods of large and mid-sized exporters. For exporters and manufacturers it was important to have access to import components, so the trade policy should take this factor into account.

The integration strategy of the EEU and Russia should be aimed at establishing closer ties with countries with big sales markets, as well as countries with low costs of production of high-tech goods. For Russia, the importance the EEU project consists in indirect effects related to learning the integration process management, rather than direct effects of expansion of the networking with EEU partners.

In his turn, Vladimir Pereboyev noted that the integration in trade alone was not enough for the EEU. Governments should take strategic steps at the level of supranational bodies in respect of business, investments, infrastructure development and foreign trade policy. The prospective lines of cooperation of the EEU with third countries were as follows: 1) promotion of foreign economic ties; 2) industrial cooperation; 3) near-border cooperation.

The foreign economic policy’s priorities should include formation of the network of free trade zones and mage-regional agreements (in near-term prospect with China, the ASEAN and the SCO and later with the EU). In years to come, the set of tools -- measures of support of exports of non-primary goods and measures of support of investors -- of the EEU’s foreign economic cooperation should be expanded.

In this context, the Eurasian Bank for Development could perform as a multilateral financial

institute, a so-called “anchor creditor” for facilitation of joint projects. The issue of promotion of exports of non-primary goods cannot be solved without industrial cooperation of the EEU with third countries. It is necessary to create new production chains, industrial sectors and new joint innovative types of export-oriented products.

Also, it is necessary to form a single trade policy within the framework of the EEU, industrial cooperation and coordination of the research and technological policy. In advanced sectors with sufficient potential, it would be expedient to establish holdings and joint-ventures of transnational companies (the spacecraft industry, the iron and steel industry, the chemical industry, production of fertilizers, the power engineering industry, truck manufacturing, helicopter and aircraft engineering, agriculture and grain-growing industry).

Also, establishment of transnational companies could be instrumental in reviving broken technological chains. It could be facilitated by the near-border cooperation, for instance, international functional regions established along the borders of neighboring states. It is necessary to develop a strategy of joint development of near-border areas in which prospective lines of cooperation are identified and joint projects supported (soft-term financing and establishment of free-trade zones). Such projects should be required to promote trade and industrial ties to increase the export potential and diversify it by product types and geographic coverage.

Anastaia Stepanova’s report was based on the results of the Challenges and Opportunities of Broader European and Eurasian Space project carried out by the International Institute for Applied Economic Analysis. The project’s main result was establishment of a single site for discussion of integration issues both by researchers fr om different countries and representatives of international organizations.

Within the framework of the project, they carried out research into a wide-range of issues and singled out important topics, such as direct foreign investments, non-tariff barriers and transport infrastructure. Also, it was found out that both officials and business representatives took great interest in the prospects of economic integration between the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union. Though the first stage of the project is now over, it is planned to expand further the expert community to implement the project’s second stage.

Presentations to reports:

The moderator of the afternoon discussion: “Russian Economy Macroeconomic Modeling” was Andrei Polbin, Head of the Macrtoeconomic Modeling Department, Gaidar Institute.

The dynamics of Russian macroeconomic indicators were dramatically affected by the developments which took place late in 2014. In particular, nobody expected such a large-scale depreciation of the rouble in 2014, while most analytical agencies forecasted a deeper recession in 2015-2016.

The participants discussed the following issues: the role of the inflation targeting regime in the long-term output dynamics; efficiency of the RF Central Bank’s communications policy as an integral inflation targeting component; existing macroeconomic models for forecasting and analysis of business cycle factors and the economic policy in the Russian Federation and prospective lines of adaptation of the existing models to the current economic realities for building forecasts and providing analytical support to economic policy decisions; the importance of the Phillips curve for the Russian economy; and problems related to identification of trends in the dynamics of macroeconomic indices.

Reports were delivered by the following speakers: Philipp Kartayev, Head of the Economics Department, Moscow State University; Sergei Merzlyakov, Deputy Head of the Laboratory, NRU HSE; Rodion Lomivorotov, Senior Economist, Sberbank CIB; Andrei Polbin, Head of the Macroeconomic Modeling Department, Gaidar Institute; Andrei Schulgin, Senior Lecturer, NRU HSE in Nizhny Novgorod; Andrei Zubarev, Senior Researcher, RANEPA; Marina Turuntseva, Head of the Short-Term Forecasting Department, Gaidar Institute.

Presentations to the Reports:

In the afternoon, Pavel Trunin, Head of the Center for Macroeconomics and Finance held the discussion: “Challenges to the Russian Central Bank’s Monetary Policy amid the Inflation Rate Slowdown”.

In 2017, the Central Bank of Russia kept carrying out a moderate monetary policy aimed at achieving the target inflation rate level of 4%. It is to be noted that in H2 2017 a considerable deviation of the actual inflation rate fr om the target level was observed, so, it was topical to discusses the sources and consequences of the difference between the target and actual rates of inflation and analyze the impacts it might have on the economic dynamics and inflationary expectations of economic agents.

Participants in the discussion were as follows: Igor Dmitriev, Director of the Monetary Policy Department, Central Bank of the Russian Federation; Oleg Solntsev, Head of the Center for Monetary Policy and Banking Sector Analysis, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting; Polina Badasen, Director of the Department of Macroeconomic Analysis and Forecasting, RF Ministry of Economic Development; Natalia Karlova, Head of the Sectoral and Regional Research Department, Russian Central Bank; Kirill Kononov, Senior Analyst of the Economic Forecasting Center, АО Gazprombank; Natalia Orlova, Chief Economist , АО Alfa-Bank; Evsei Gurvich, Head of the Economic Expert Group, Member of the Presidential Economic Council.

Sergei Drobyshevsky, Academic Director of the Gaidar Institute and Alexander Isakov, Chief Economist on Russia and the CIS, VTB Capital, addressed the meeting as experts.

Participants discussed the following issues: the optimal target inflation rate level; sectorial and regional pattern of the inflation rate in the Russian Federation; the levels of the real and nominal interest rates in Russia and their effects on the economic activities as an instrument of management of the rate of inflation and inflationary expectations; external conditions of the Russian Central Bank’s monetary policy and the long-term strategy of the RF Central Bank’s monetary policy; prospects of the RF Central Bank’s exchange rate policy; harmonization between the monetary policy and the fiscal policy; monetary authorities’ inflationary expectations management instruments.

In his address, Igor Dmitriev, spoke about the Russian Central Bank’s information policy aimed at reducing inflationary expectations. According to Igor Dmitriev, the Russian Central Bank carries out a large-scale information policy at the regional level by way of meeting with representatives of the local business, officials and regional mass media journalists. It permits to explain the Russian Central Bank’s monetary policy to regional market participants and ordinary people and helps reduce inflationary expectations. Also, Igor Dmitiev stressed that the Central Bank of Russia was carrying out a regional macroeconomic analysis to identify regions’ contribution to the inflation rate over the inflation rate.

Also, the RF Central Bank is carrying out a Prosperity Project based on social surveys to learn households’ individual behavior, standard of living and extent of satisfaction with life. The project permits to identify indirect factors which have an effect on households’ inflationary expectations.

Oleg Solntsev spoke about the effect of interest raters on business activities and the economy as a whole. The expert warned that Russia might become hostage of a low inflation rate. According to him, the low rate of inflation was driven by reduced consumer demand which factor in its turn made manufacturers reduce prices on their goods. The speaker noted that machinery manufacturing and the building industry were the largest contributors to the reduction of growth rates of the inflation rate general index. Also, Oleg Solntsev stressed that stagnation in industry had been observed since Q3 2017.

Oleg Solntsev pointed out that real interest rates in Russia (about 5%) were the highest by international standards and that made it difficult for enterprises to use credit resources as a source of investment funding. “It is only a small number of industries which can take advantage of loans. It mainly concerns primary sector industries,” said the expert. At the same time, one could see an active redistribution of funds from the industry to the banking sector because it was more profitable for enterprises to keep their funds on rouble deposits than invest in production facilities.

Also, Oleg Solntsev said that starting from H2 2017 the inflation rate ceased to grow and capital investments started to fall, particularly, in the building industry and machinery manufacturing. “These industries are the leaders in terms of bankruptcies and defaults on loans,” Oleg Solntsev said.

In her turn, Natalia Karlova made the audience familiar with the outputs of business surveys carried out by the Central Bank of Russia. She said that enterprises’ inflationary expectations became more moderate amid the falling rate of inflation and stood at the level of 5%.

At the same time, the expert identified a number of factors influencing the flexibility of manufacturers’ pricing policy. Natalia Karlova noted that in their pricing policy 78% of enterprises were guided by adaptive expectations (that is they took into account the inflation rate value of the previous period). The factors behind manufacturers’ inflexible pricing policy were long-term contracts which could not be revised overnight, as well as labor contracts with workers. Also, Natalia Karlova pointed out that most enterprises were planning to reduce their personnel to optimize the labor remuneration funds as manufacturing became more and more automated. Reduction of the personnel was expected to yield higher labor efficiency.

Presentation to the Reports:

Another afternoon expert discussion: “Migration as a Modern Age Challenge” was held under the moderation of Irina Starodubrovskaya, Director of the Center for Political Economy and Regional Development, Gaidar Institute.

The topics discussed were the following: a “clash of civilizations” in the migration and culture relations: is there any; adaptation of migrants: is the process successful; advantages and risks related to migrants’ presence on the labor market; radical ideologies in migrant communities: what are the threats?

Participants in the discussion were as follows: Konstantin Kazenin, Director of the Center for Regional Research and Urban Studies, RANEPA, Senior Researcher of the Gaidar Institute; Yevgeny Varshaver, Senior Researcher of the Center for Regional Research and Urabn Studies, RANEPA; Nikita Mkrtchyan, Leading Research of the Institute for Social Analysis and Forecasting, RANEPA; Nikolai Plotnikov, Director of the Center for Scientific and Analytical Information; Sergei Panarin, Director of the Center for Modern East General Problems Research; Yulia Florinskaya, Leading Researcher of the Institute for Social Analysis and Forecasting, RANEPA.

Presentations to the Reports:

The moderator of the expert discussion: “The Economic Development in Multidisciplinary Terms” was Maria Kazakova, Deputy Head of the International Laboratory for Budget Stability Research, Gaidar Institute and Head of the Economic Growth Research Department, RANEPA.

The discussion was dedicated to various issues and factors of economic development ranging from traditional institutes in terms of the economics, human capital and technological progress to the political design and social modernization. Participants in the discussion outlined major economic development problems and touched in their reports upon such issues as economy, political science, social science and history.

The topics of the discussion were the following: the role of quality institutes such as property rights protection in facilitating the routine development of the economy; social modernization: its role and process; social and political conditions of the emergence and switchover of socialist-period transition economic institutes of Yugoslavia, Hungary and Poland; the Russians’ basic values in the European context; the role of the human capital in development of the economy and society and factors that lim it the human capital’s influence on economic development; the role of exports of complex goods in the economic development, some outputs of the research into Russian exporters’ innovative activities; the transition institutes’ advantages and risks and the prospects of utilization of the transition institute model for transformation of limited access regimes.

Participants in the discussion: Ilya Voskoboinikov, Senior Researcher of the Center for the Inflation Rate and Economic Growth Research, NRU Higher School of Economics; Mikhail Komin, Expert of the Center for Research of Institutes and Society, Center for Strategic Research; Ivan Lyubimov, Senior Researcher of the Center for Economic Growth Research, RANEPA ; Dmitri Travin, Professor of the School of Economics, Head of the Center for Modernization Research, St. Petersburg European University; Anna Fedyunina, Director of the Analytical Center, NRU HSE (St. Petersburg); Vladimir Magun, Head of the Center for Mass Consciousness Comparative Study, Expert Institute of NRU HSE; Maxim Rudnev, Leading Researcher of the Center for Mass Consciousness Comparative Study, Expert Institute of NRU HSE.

Opening the expert round table, Maria Kazakova, moderator of the meeting stressed that economic development was a complex process which was in the focus of researchers for decades. This process involves one way or another all the economic agents, including companies which make investments in equipment and technologies, workers who accumulate knowledge, authorities investing in the infrastructure and thus upgrading the quality of institutes and the society undergoing social modernization and gaining humanitarian views in course of time. All these economic development components are correlated. In particular, without modernization of the institutes it would be difficult to make the economy more complex, while without support the reforms fail to be implemented effectively. The latter may require transition decisions that secure the required support of the reforms.

The development process is complicated due to differences in limitations hindering development in different societies. Certainly, know-how or adequate protection of property rights are general components of the high standard of economic development, however, right now institutes and a lack of expertise may not necessarily be the main factors behind stagnation. As the economic development is a complex process, it requires a customized approach involving transition decisions.

M. Kazakova noted that the round table’s idea was to show the complexity of economic development and importance of economic, sociological, historical and political components of that process. The issues discussed at the meeting were as follows: the importance of making imports more complex, promotion of efficiency, accumulation of human capital and individuals’ worldview values as well as functioning of intermediary institutes for development.

Ilya Voskoboinikov opened the round table discussion with a report dealing with long-term growth factors prior to and after the 2008 financial crisis and potential causes of the global economy slowdown that could explain the Russian economic stagnation of the past few years. Ilya Voskoboinikov noted that factors by which countries differed from one another by the level of incomes and economic growth rates remained largely unclear. An important step towards the explanation of those differences was division of the contribution made by production factors (labor, physical, human and intangible capital and natural resources) and productivity factors. As seen from the research literature, the global stagnation of the past decade was driven by slowing down productivity growth rates. Their dynamics was largely governed by non-economic factors, in particular, a diffusion (exchange) of technologies, as well as distribution of workers by jobs wh ere they would be more efficient. The speaker pointed out that a drop of the total factor productivity which started in the world in the mid-2000s before the 2008 crisis was behind the stagnation of the Russian economy observed from 2008. Comparing Russia’s economic dynamics with that of the global economy and individual countries, Ilya Voskoboinikov said that the slowdown of the total factor productivity was registered almost in all the leading economies from the mid-2000s. It means that at least a portion of factors behind the stagnation of the Russian economy could be of a global nature.

Elaborating on factors contributing to productivity growth, Anna Fedyunina touched upon the importance of making exports more complex for development of the economy and cited as an illustration Russian exporters’ innovative activities. Speaking about the complexity of the economy as a factor of development, Anna Fedyunina stressed that in accordance with the approach developed by R.Hausmann and C. Hidalgo the complexity of the economy depended on the complexity of export goods; it is noteworthy that the economy would be more complex if it exported varied complex goods (with high added value) that only a few countries could export. The statistical data point to a positive correlation between economic complexity and the well-being level: the more complex the economy, the higher the well-being level.

However, Anna Fedyunina said it was very important to understand which economic sectors should become more complex and what factors were behind a company’s willingness to promote its efficiency and competitiveness. The research literature provides a lot of facts of a company’s productivity growth being influenced by that company’s innovative decisions and exporters being more likely to produce high-price and better quality goods than non-exporters. It is established that companies which engage both in exports and innovations are more effective. They are followed only by either innovators or exporters, while companies which take part in neither activity are the last in this list.

According to Anna Fedyunina, there are a number of channels through which exports may facilitate innovations. Firstly, export- related revenues permit to finance innovation activities, while the latter in their turn modify the pattern of exports and make it possible to quit the no-win strategy of price competition alone. Secondly, it is an adoption of new knowledge, technologies and business models through contacts with foreign customers; if necessary the type of innovation activities may change and a switchover to application of up-to-date technologies, including foreign ones may take place. Thirdly, competition-related effects stimulate innovations. In addition, exports to developed countries and exports to mid- and high-tech industries have a great effect on the build-up of a company’s innovative potential.

Speaking about the Russian economy, Anna Fedyunina said that according to the statistical data the extent of complexity of the Russian economy had been shrinking since 2009 and that could be explained by a number of factors, including downgrading of Russia’s position in the Doing Business rating as regards foreign economic conditions, low patent activities of Russian companies, low publication activities potential and weak partnership between universities and companies which was the evidence of Russia’s low competitive edge in the world.

Vladimir Magun, made a presentation of his paper written in co-authorship with Maxim Rudnev on core values of the Russians in term of the European context. Introducing his report, V. Magun stressed that unlike, for example, macroeconomic indicators such factors as values, culture and other could not be measured. Also, these factors were “traditional” and eternal, so, such notions as “cultural matrix”, “code”, “genotype”, “archetype”, “mentality” and other being the restraints of changes and development had indulgence for remaining unreformed. The speaker said that another widespread ideological belief was the supremacy of the Russians over people of the West: spirituality vs. “materialism” and collective values (“collegiality”) vs. individualism. However, these values constitute a full-scale subject for the research and may serve as an effective tool for comparative international research. It is noteworthy that Russia is an ordinary country which has very much in common with other countries having a similar level of economic and political development and being within the pan-European and global trend. Consequently, Russian values as those of other nations may undergo modification.

The analysis presented in the paper written by V. Magun and M. Rudnev was carried out in compliance with the S. Schwartz approach under which values were dealt with in terms of the following two lines: “Preservation – Openness to Changes” and “Self-Affirmation – Responsibility for People and Nature” vs. “Responsibility for People and Nature” category = Altruism. Vladimir Magun pointed out that in the past decade the Russian values had changed towards Openness to Changes and Self-Affirmation with Russia and other countries (including Western Europe, Scandinavia, Mediterranean countries and post-communist Eastern and Central Europe) retaining their relative position on the value-based map. It is to be noted that for the

Russians the importance of the “Preservation and Responsibility for People and Nature” category was diminishing, while that of “Openness to Changes” was growing. In Russia, core values were changing, too. In particular, such notions as security, conformity, amiability and universalism were getting less important, while novelty risks and hedonism were gaining momentum. In the past few years, the importance of traditions increased, while that of self-dependence did not. Analyzing modification of values in Russia and other European countries in the past ten years, V. Magun noted that Russia had retained its relative position and deviated further from developed countries, such as the UK, Germany, France, Sweden and other.

According to V. Magun, an important factor behind the values modification was a generational change: in 2006–2016 the younger generations at the age below 25 years old moved towards Openness to Changes and Individualism (Self-Affirmation), while elder generations (over 60 years old), towards altruism (Responsibility for People and Nature) and Preservation.

Summing up the results, the speaker concluded that the Russians’ preferences shifted stronger than in other European countries towards Preservation (vs. Openness to Changes) and weaker towards Responsibility (vs. Self-Affirmation). The past decade saw a shift towards individualist values (in their two variations) to the detriment of socially oriented values. Vladimir Magun stressed that people’s (the society’s) values shift towards Openness to Changes was in discord with the statesman model imposed by the state, but it was at the same time, most probably, efficient for the economic development.

Dmitri Travin spoke about socialist period transition economic institutes in Yugoslavia, Hungary and Poland. From the experience of the above countries, Dmitri Travin concludes that their efforts to form transition institutes were related to a response to shocks, rather than an orderly restructuring. In particular, Yugoslavia experienced a foreign policy conflict and needed legitimization of the regime based on the anti-Stalinist principles; Hungary was under the occupation and took efforts to legitimize the new regime by means of a social pact, that is, goulash in exchange for freedom; and, finally, Poland was in the midst of domestic policy conflicts and sought to carry out economic reforms by means of round table discussions. Speaking about Russia, Dmitri Travin noted that it had not a single condition for modernization by means of transition institutes due to the following factors: the political regime was stable, legitimacy was ensured through manipulation of the masses, while external shocks (dynamics of global oil prices and sanctions) were not that important. Dmitri Travin believes that the main modernization factor in Russia in future may become a generational change in the government agencies to younger generations which are shifting towards openness as specified in Vladimir Magun’s report.

The expert discussion on transition institutes was completed by the report delivered by Mikhail Komin, Expert of the Center for Research of Institutes and the Society, Center for Strategic Research, in which he touched upon advantages and risks related to utilization of transition institutes for transformation of limited access regimes. Mikhail Komin believes that from the experience of political regime transformation during the latest wave of democratization one can see only a partial efficiency of standard transition institutes’ switchover to open access regimes. In some cases of successful transformation, the so-called second choice institutes representing an intermediary form of transition to a standard institute, but applicable for implementation with the socioeconomic, political and cultural limitations taken into account were used. The main risk related to introduction of such transition institutes consists in coalition of earlier winners who may block completion of the transformation of the intermediary stage into a full-fledged institute. However, formation of the second choice institutes with this and other political risks taken into account may create a potential modernization track. Mikhail Komin noted that the work on establishment of successful transition institutes should be carried out along the following lines: accounting of political, resource, social and cultural limitations, easing of limitations in the mid and long-term prospects; facilitation of the achievement of threshold conditions for a switch-over to the free access regime; generation of new economic rents with a “termed” nature of access provision and stimuli for promotion of profitability and competitiveness on foreign markets; creation of stimuli for domestic political competition between the elite groups , introduction of sanctions in case of seizure of control over the political process by one of the elite groups; and creation of venues for networking and dialogue between various social groups.

Presentations to the Reports:

Mikhail Khromov, Head of the Financial Studies Department, Gaidar Institute took part in the expert discussion: “Financial Literacy as a State Priority and Expertise for Living”.

In a present-day situation wh ere financial services are widely used and new sophisticated financial instruments emerge, promotion of households’ financial literacy is crucially topical and individuals’ financial security is becoming an important factor of the economic security. To enhance financial literacy, the RF Ministry of Finance has been carrying out the “Facilitation of Individuals’ Financial Literacy and Promotion of Financial Education in the Russian Federation” project since 2011. In September 2017, the Government approved the Strategy of Promotion of Financial Literacy in 2017-2023. A key line of the strategy consists in formation of the present-day financial competence with young people.

The expertise of the project of the RF Finance Ministry will be actively used to that effect. The meetings’ moderators were Anna Zelentsova, Strategic Coordinator of the RF Finance Ministry’s Financial Literacy Promotion Project, Co-Chairman of the G20’s Sub-Group on Financial Literacy and Protection of Consumer Rights. Member of the Supervisory Council of the OECD’s International Network on Financial Education and Pavel Chernykh, Director of the Center for Promotion of Skills and Expertise.

Apart from Mikhail Khromov, Head of the Financial Studies Department, Gaidar Institute, other participants in the debates were as follows: Nikolai Berzon, Head of the Methodological Center for Promotion of Financial Literacy in Schools; Rostislav Kokorev, Leading Researcher of the Department of Macroeconomic Policy and Strategic Managemtn, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Yelena Kuzmina, Head of the Regional Financial Literacy Center of the Tomsk Region; Ninel Khan, Director of a Research Center, RANEPA, Lecturer of the Federal Methodological Center for Promotion of Financial Literacy in Russian Regions on the Basis of Foreign Experience; Nikita Trofimov, Expert of the Voluntary Manager Certification System, RANEPA.

Participants discussed the following issues: the priorities and objectives of the state strategy of promotion of households’ financial literacy; educational programs facilitating formation of individuals’ reasonable financial behavior and responsible attitude to personal finances; introduction of practical competencies in the secondary and higher education in the context of the digital economy; establishment of the institutional and procedural basis for promotion of financial literacy at the federal and regional levels.

Presentations to Reports:

Thursday, 18.01.2018