This text is translated into Russian by google automatic human level neural machine.
EastRussia is not responsible for any mistakes in the translated text. Sorry for the inconvinience.
Please refer to the text in Russian as a source.
Donate to the "gazelle"
- Alexander Vladislavovich, public-private partnership is a mechanism that is actively used in different countries of the world, but is not yet very popular in Russia. How do you assess the prospects for the development of PPP in our country?
- On the contrary, PPP is very popular with us, but as with any fashionable thing, the meaning is forgotten for the designation. Public-private partnership is an economic concept that assumes that the state attracts private business on terms of risk sharing for more efficient, high-quality and timely execution of its duties. It turns out that where there are duties in the government, PPP may arise. If business has some interest to get state support, it is not PPP anymore - these are ways of subsidizing, subsidizing, etc. Unfortunately, we often confuse such things. Therefore, a lot of pilot projects arise that are not being implemented, a lot of initiatives that are not being implemented. According to press monitoring, which we did several years in a row annually, we had about 1000 initiatives planned to be implemented on PPP terms, and directly the degree of implementation is much less - from the strength of 5%.
- It is expected that in spring the State Duma will finally adopt a law on the fundamentals of PPP, which will allow more active involvement of private investors in the construction of infrastructure facilities. Why is the law so long and difficult for parliamentarians to accept?
- Objectively, the legal interpretation of PPP has a complex nature at the junction of legislation on the budget, land, public procurement, concessions, privatization and competition. In the absence of a common economic ideology, the regulators and the deputies representing their interests have limited opportunities for a common denominator. The fundamental difficulty is the use by separate departments of a parliamentary procedure to change the coordinated position of the government that was submitted to the Duma.
At the same time, it is necessary to understand that the absence of this law is a less tragedy for using this economic concept than a bad law.
- In the President's message to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin mentioned that “if the region invests in the creation of industrial and technoparks, business incubators, then additional federal taxes that will come from enterprises located there within three years should be returned to the subject of the Federation in the form of interbudgetary transfers ... ". That is, the head of state actually gave the green light to PPP?
- I would see here a green light using the so-called. Mechanism TIF - when an additional increase in taxes can be sent to the calculations for public infrastructure built from extrabudgetary sources. This can be both within the framework of PPP, and within the framework of one of the forms of PPP - concession with payment for availability, and in the form of a life-cycle contract within the framework of the Federal Law-44. But this is such a very small traffic light - how to turn on the light and how long and for whom, we do not yet know. For example, for the theme of the development of industrial parks in the Far East within the so-called territories for outpacing socio-economic growth (TOSER), the Ministry of Regional Development is requesting budgetary money for infrastructure and reducing taxes for residents. That is, on the contrary, we continue to divide the melting budget pie!
In the Far East, 50% of the population of the Russian Federation lives on 5% of the territory of our country and 5% of the economy is concentrated, but at the same time 80% of long-term economic opportunities. How much can you redistribute the budget for development - well, even if it is one and a half to two times more than the real political and economic weight of the Macroregion. With a budget approach to development - 80% of growth opportunities - this is a dream that we strive for as quickly as we can from the budget. With the TIF-80 approach,% growth opportunities are a lever for the implementation of all economically sound projects.
- How should the state coordinate the complex development of projects? How to provide guarantees in terms of demand?
- The state has a political vertical, it needs to be used, another question is that it is not as a cudgel, putting all the instruments into one department.
In fact, one dimension is the strengthening of administrative capacity to coordinate the investment programs of natural monopolies, the use of the budget for federal, regional and municipal construction projects, the allocation of land and its advanced provision with infrastructure for promising investors. This path was consistently proposed by V.I. Ishayev. This path was followed by Yu.P. Trutnev. Just the composition of the projects for centralized development is proposed to be prioritized on the so-called. TOSER.
There is another dimension that was developed by the Ministry of Economic Development within the framework of the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation during the stay of G.O. Gref, - the formation and implementation of a so-called PPP project in the framework of a particular model. Integrated development of territories. Literally before leaving the ministry, another minister - A.R. Belousov issued a draft resolution on amending the Rules for Planning and Using Budgetary Appropriations of the Investment Fund of the Russian Federation, which were developed just under the TIF mechanism. Within the framework of the MCT approach, the basis for coordination is the investment agreement of the Russian Federation, the subject of the Russian Federation, municipalities, private investors in industrial facilities on the formation of the MCT project and the conditions for its implementation. The proposed changes are aimed at ensuring that the state's obligations to develop infrastructure for the MCT project are realized through concession arrangements by private investors, and pay off in the form of access fees planned in the context of additional budget revenues.
For this approach to work, you need to spend money on the justification and structuring of such projects. The main problem, in my opinion, is the limited ability of local authorities to attract investments in fulfilling their responsibilities for infrastructure development. This exists for subjective reasons (lack of qualifications and political attitudes, lack of experience of such projects), and on objective - the development of infrastructure is torn between natural monopolies, regional and municipal authorities, it is difficult to coordinate. It is difficult, but when the simpler mechanism of the RF Investment Fund in its current form worked, for three years the subjects of the Russian Federation coped with the launch of such activities and the projects were launched. There are proposals to improve the effectiveness of this form of development by, for example, defining the Far East Development Fund as the only concessionaire that would assume the entire burden of developing and linking the development of infrastructure with industrial investors and budget planning issues and would leave the project after the financial closure - attraction of a strategic infrastructure investor and project financing.
The question of guarantees - who guarantees? It is the role of the state to coordinate and organize economic development. But within the framework of the proposed model, it is not invested in the development of industrial projects, but private investors - they should assess their risks of selling products and developing projects. The state's risk in creating infrastructure for future economic growth can be managed only by the compaction and complexity of the industry, which develops on the basis of this infrastructure - accordingly - territorial planning, economic preferences for trade development, attracting new categories of investors. The state has a vertical, here it should be able to manage these risks. In addition, with 80% of the opportunities for economic growth in the Far East, the risks of this development are supported by the entire economy. The reserve fund, in fact, is also just for such risks of falling budget revenues.
There is such a term - “gazelles” - small and medium-sized businesses that are effectively developing. They have their own innovative competence: managerial, marketing, technological, and other competitive advantages that they develop, thereby promoting a new enterprise and its products or services. In addition to this convolution of the Macro-region into five points, at a minimum, we need to enable these “ghazals”, both from the local and from the European part of qualified entrepreneurs, to capitalize on the development of their production in the Far East, based on the fact that they will export to Asia Pacific markets. Nobody canceled the Bukharin “enrich themselves” - “gazelles” should be able to capitalize cheaply with a hard link for enrichment by growing their business in the Far East and in the Asia-Pacific Region.