Posted on 11/10/2015 1:56:27 PM PST by Trumpinator
Are sanctions saving Russia?
Oct 18,2015 - Last updated at Oct 18,2015
The economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the West in March 2014 have undoubtedly been painful. But they have so far failed to achieve the goal of weakening Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position.
In fact, they may have the opposite effect, leaving Russia — and its president — even stronger than before.
European Union countries are estimated to have lost about $100 billion in trade with Russia, hitting the likes of Bavarian dairy farmers and eastern German industrial exporters.
Russian GDP, which grew modestly in 2014, contracted by 4.6 per cent in annual terms in the second quarter of this year.
The ruble lost more than half of its US dollar value in the second half of last year, fuelling inflation, which increased by 15.6 per cent year on year in July.
But inflation now seems to have peaked, and the effects of the drop in oil and gas prices were mitigated by the US dollar’s appreciation, so that the value of Russia’s foreign reserves actually increased, reaching $362 billion in June (13 per cent of which is in gold).
And despite belt-tightening in Russia, Putin is more popular than ever.
The rationale behind economic sanctions is straightforward: free trade and free markets deliver growth (and thus political support for the government), whereas restrictions choke off growth (and thus erode support for the government).
This emphasis on free trade and free markets was a central tenet of 19th-century British classical economics.
It remains a core message of today’s dominant neoclassical school — embodied in the so-called “Washington Consensusâ€, adopted across the world under the International Monetary Fund’s advice — which claims that the key to economic development is to open up, deregulate, liberalise and privatise.
But the theory is fundamentally flawed.
No economic power has ever developed solely on the basis of laissez-faire policies.
The economic rise of the United Kingdom, for example, was heavily dependent on strategic protection, industrial policy, tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers.
The UK’s industrial prowess originated with the textile industry. The country’s leaders realised that the export of raw materials, mainly wool, would be inadequate to spur economic development. For that, England would have to move up the value-added ladder, by importing raw materials and exporting finished goods.
So England’s leaders devised an industrial policy, which entailed bringing in Flemish textile weavers to provide know how to British firms.
Moreover, they erected trade barriers.
By banning the export of raw wool and the import of finished wool products, Indian textiles, which were often superior and cheaper, could not compete with domestic output.
They adopted navigation laws that restricted foreign ships’ access to British ports and even enacted a demand-boosting law requiring the dead to be buried in woolens.
Ultimately, the mechanisation of the textile industry ushered in the Industrial Revolution, and mass production and exports underpinned the development of the world’s largest maritime fleet.
In the mid-19th century, German economist Friedrich List highlighted the role that such policies played in the UK’s development.
In line with his advice, the United States, Germany and Japan employed judicious trade protection and industrial policies, while working actively to support nascent sectors — a strategy that enabled them to develop rapidly and even overtake Britain.
Restrictions also proved effective to spur economic development: In 1812, when the UK declared war and imposed a trade embargo on the US, import substitution caused American manufacturing to flourish.
When the embargo was lifted and trade tariffs were reduced, US manufacturing floundered — until 1828, when new British tariffs boosted US manufacturing again.
Likewise, during World War I, a British trade embargo spurred the development of German high-tech industries due to the demand for substitutes.
Of course, embargoes can have a devastating effect when a country lacks the resources needed for import substitution.
That is why economic sanctions were so damaging for Iran and, earlier, for Iraq’s population.
But, for a country like Russia, with its abundant natural resources, technological expertise, and skilled workforce, sanctions can have the opposite effect.
The Soviet Union struggled to capitalise on these factors, owing to communism’s weak incentive structure. Today, by contrast, Russia has a capitalist system that offers considerable benefits to those who adapt best to the restrictions.
In short, Russia has all it needs to thrive, despite — or because of — the sanctions.
But turning opportunity into reality requires Russia to pursue an economic transformation.
Neoclassical trade theory is based on the concept of comparative advantage: countries should capitalise on their relative strengths, from technological prowess to resource endowments.
But as English leaders knew and as the experience of many African and Latin American countries has shown, simply exporting raw materials is inadequate to propel development.
Historically, the most effective development policy has centred on government intervention to establish higher-value-added domestic industries.
In previous decades, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and China have all taken this path.
For Russia, moving up the value-added ladder should not be difficult; it has all it needs to manufacture the finished products that it previously imported.
In fact, import substitution has already increased productivity in several key sectors: engineering, petrochemicals, light industry, pharmaceuticals and agriculture.
Annual exports of high-value-added goods rose by 6 per cent in the first quarter of this year.
Furthermore, Russia’s leadership has accelerated cooperation with the other BRICS economies (Brazil, India, China and South Africa), and Putin recently announced ambitious plans to boost domestic demand.
The West’s sanctions against Russia may not only fail to change the Ukraine situation; they may well spur the country’s long-awaited structural transformation.
If Russia successfully replicates the credit-guidance regime used by East Asia’s economies, while increasing managerial efficiency, yet another economic miracle is possible.
Richard A. Werner is professor of international banking at the University of Southampton and author of “New Paradigm in Macroeconomicsâ€. Vladimir I. Yakunin is chair in state policy at Lomonosov Moscow State University, founding president of the World Public Forum, and former chairman of Russian Railways.
©Project Syndicate, 2015. www.project-syndicate.org
- See more at: http://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/project-syndicate/are-sanctions-saving-russia#sthash.SsVEIRK5.dpuf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaM5mha5GRg
The farmer looks like a Mennonite? I heard lots of Mennonites went into Siberia over the last few years to farm almost free land offered to them. Justus Walker is the laughing farmer’s name.
If one watches the one hour and 40 minute version of the interview with Charlie Rose and Putin (not the 60 minutes version) They will see that Putin addressed this. He said that sanctions have been hurtful but it has also forced them to develop their own technology industry and move away from being just a natural gas exporter who imports technology with petrodollars.
Low oil prices are the most effective sanction.
The problem that the Putin-Phobes have is that Putin LOVES HIS COUNTRY...much more than can be said for Rubio/Walker/Bush/Carla/Linda, who, essentially HATE THIS COUNTRY (as it is), and show it with their policy positions.
...and the Russians, who are MUCH BETTER EDUCATED than Americans (sorry, but that’s note even debatable), understand that their leader is locked in a battle with people that don’t want his country to succeed. So it’s NO SURPRISE that Putin remains popular.
It has also pushed Putin into trading with China a lot more. The Chinese are also trading with Russia and other countries more seeing what is happening in the Spartleys and Sennikku islands.
It should be known that Putin loves his country, Xi Jinping loves his country, Raul Castro loves his country, Ayatollah Khanemi loves his country, even Kim Jong Un loves his country (or at least what it is), but Obama does not love his country.
Since this article is about Putin, I agree, he does love his country. Sad that we have to look thousands of miles to find a leader that we can say that about, and not have anyone dispute it.
The next group are old timers who still call Russia the USSR and think there is still some Moscow commie plot to take over the world. I have heard these clowns even state that the USSR breaking up was itself a commie trick to fool us. Even after Putin lost the Ukraine to the EU except for the strategic parts they still push that nonsense. Putin does not always win as the Ukraine vs EU battles show (though he snatched a victory by making sure the other side did not win much either).
Lastly, you have the neocon types who love the idea the USA is a world empire - but they don't really say it out loud. Since Russia does not want to be ruled by the USA Putin's stance and resistance is seen as "anti-American".
Lastly, this neocon group fears a form of American nationalism that they think Putin inspires. It's old school Pat Buchanan kind of conservationism and that scares them more than anything. They don't want people saying, I like Putin's way of being for Russia first against globalism. Maybe they think it will inspire isolationism or disengagement from America's overseas adventures? That scares them a lot.
No, some world leaders don't love their country. They love their ideology more or their hold on power. I think the leaders of China love their country more than they do their former Communist ideology for example. I think The Iranian leader loves his religious movement more than his ethnic country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.