One of the characteristic features of a market economy is the diversity of forms of ownership. It is no coincidence that when transferring the Russian economy to a market economy, one of the main tasks was the denationalization and privatization of property.
Under denationalization understand the abbreviation specific gravity state property in its total volume. During the functioning of the command-administrative system of the economy in our country, state property occupied a monopoly position in the structure of ownership of the means of production and resources (up to 95% of the volume of ownership). Today the situation has changed radically. The main direction of denationalization was the privatization of state and municipal property.
Property - the process of turning state property into private property of individuals and legal entities. The process of broad privatization in Russia was laid down by the Law of the Russian Federation of July 3, 1991 No. 1531-1 “On the privatization of state and municipal enterprises in Russian Federation” (now no longer valid) and the first State program for the privatization of state and municipal enterprises in the Russian Federation for 1992 (approved by a resolution Supreme Court RF dated June 11, 1992 No. 2980-1) (now no longer valid).
In these and others government documents the following privatization goals:
In addition, this Law and subsequent normative documents have been established methods of privatization:
The solution of the goals and objectives of privatization in Russia was carried out in two stages.
First stage took place from the beginning of 1992 to the end of 1994. The features of this stage were:
This system provided free distribution of half of the state property to private individuals. A clear disadvantage of this method of privatization was its low profitability.
Second phase privatization began in 1995 and continues to this day. Its main tasks were defined in the Program of the Government of the Russian Federation "Reforms and Development of the Russian Economy in 1995-1997" (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 28, 1995 No. 439) and Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 22, 1994 No. 1535 "On the Main provisions of the State Program for the Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian Federation after July 1, 1994”. Finally, the most significant adjustments to the privatization process were made by the provisions of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 No. 123-FE “On the privatization of state property and on the basics of privatization of municipal property in the Russian Federation” (now no longer in force). This Law fixed a qualitatively new character of privatization. In particular, it focuses on the transition from the predominantly gratuitous transfer of state property to its sale at prices determined by the market; indicated that privatization should contribute to improving the efficiency of the functioning of domestic enterprises; determined that the alienation of state property should take into account the social aspects of the problem.
In general, as shown domestic experience denationalization and privatization of property, the process of transformation of property relations is complex and controversial, and the state should play an active role in it. It is precisely this, along with the solution of the main tasks of privatization, that should ensure a balance of interests of individuals and the whole society.
In the XX century. privatization of state property has become widespread, covering almost all major countries. The first mention of privatization dates back to the 13th century. in England.
Privatization means the transfer of property rights from the state to private individuals on the terms of the complete sale of state-owned firms to private individuals or the sale of part of the assets and the delegation of rights to dispose of state property.
In accordance with federal law "On the privatization of state and municipal property» privatization of state and municipal property means the paid alienation of property owned by the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipalities property in the ownership of individuals and legal entities. From these definitions it follows that the main feature of privatization is its compensatory character. Some authors distinguish between the definitions of "privatization" and "denationalization", the latter is understood as the transfer from the state to individuals and legal entities partially or completely (including through privatization) of functions direct control business entities. Privatization is of a reimbursable nature, and denationalization can take different forms.
- This is the process of denationalization of ownership of the means of production, property, housing, land, etc. This phenomenon is carried out through the gratuitous transfer or sale of state-owned objects into the ownership of interested persons with the formation on this basis of private, joint-stock or corporate property.
Privatization in Russia- a more extensive and backbone phenomenon in contrast to the usual sale of state-owned firms. Russia is characterized by two complementary parallel processes: the gradual liberation of the state from certain functions of the regulator of property relations that are not performed by it within the framework of a market economy (here we are talking about the process of reducing the possibilities of the state as a legal object of property relations) and the formation of new legal and economic structures and mechanisms, without which it is difficult to fully implement the system of private property. It should be taken into account that the last process is an addition to the first and takes place after the self-elimination of the state. The state, while reducing its own, must remain in control and regulate the transferred property and.
The essence of privatization can be expressed in a broad and narrow sense. In a broad sense, privatization is understood as a reduction or slowdown in the expansion of the state sector of the economy, accompanied by an increase in the share of the private sector. In a narrower sense, privatization is the full or partial transfer of ownership of state-owned means of production, property values, capital to joint-stock companies or private individuals. Privatization should mainly contribute to strengthening the competition of the country's economy as a whole and increase the efficiency of the use of economic facilities.
Thus, the main content of privatization can include the transformation of producers and enterprises that are based on one or another technical and production complex of a centrally planned economy, to entities that are based on capital. Capital, on the other hand, carries an added value and increases the changes in important functions, life cycles, distribution of finance, structural changes of the former state-owned enterprises.
Through the privatization of state property, many tasks are solved:
Therefore, the main essence of the concept of privatization is the efficiency of production, which confirms that some businesses are more successfully run by the private sector. Privatization should help strengthen the country's economy as a whole.
When considering the results of privatization, it is necessary to take into account the economic and social sphere. Russian privatization was massive not only in its content, but in its structure and scope. It was intended to provide not only the problem of increasing the efficiency of individual enterprises, but a radical change in property relations, that is, to solve the problem of changing the economic basis of society.
From the very beginning Russian reforms the rapid and comprehensive privatization necessary to create the foundations of democracy and the market was put at the forefront. For many reasons, it was not possible to give it a civilized character. The country was overwhelmed by uncontrolled privatization, when state property was simply transferred to private individuals practically without breaking the law.
As a result of privatization in Russia, a non-state sector of the economy was formed in short time, market institutions and the new corporate sector of the economy (market valuable papers, joint-stock companies, banks, the system of institutional investors, insurance companies), there was a distribution legal rights ownership of privatized property, while social conflicts were minimized.
A number of strategic goals of privatization were not achieved, despite the fact that by the end of the 90s. 20th century the problem of changing the forms of ownership in general has already been solved:
In practice, the privatization of state property in Russia was such that there were, in fact, private systems of central planning, private monopolies, which replaced the central planning of the state.
Russia during the privatization has sharply decreased. This circumstance was caused by an underestimation of the value of the assets of privatized enterprises, which led to an incorrect determination of the price of the privatization transaction and a shortfall in the federal budget from receiving funds for the sold property (figure).
A valuation technique was used during privatization that did not allow a realistic assessment of the value of the alienated state assets. In some cases, no evaluation was actually carried out at all. The efficiency of enterprises as a result of privatization has been reduced.
To achieve the intended goals that were defined in state program privatization, formal denationalization and the transfer of analysis and control over property to private hands did not lead. Some of the goals were to form an "effective owner", the creation of a social and stable market economy of the country.
Privatization revealed a lot of loopholes for illegal actions, corruption which had a negative impact on the economy later. Violations led to the creation of a narrow layer of wealthy owners, which increased the contradictions between the population.
Social and economic efficiency privatization in Russia was low. The interests and rights of most segments of the population and the principle of equality of citizens in the implementation of mass privatization were not observed. Privatization dramatically increased the stratification of society (table).
As can be seen from the table, in real cash income Only in 2007 did the number of citizens of Russia exceed the level of 1990. The number of people living below the poverty line remains stably high and amounts to about 1/5 of the country's population. However, there are positive prospects that are gradually increasing the country's middle class.
Providing employees of organizations with benefits during the privatization of state-owned enterprises, especially highly profitable ones related to the exploitation of the national wealth of Russia (petrochemistry, oil and gas industry, forestry, mining, pulp and paper industry, non-ferrous metallurgy), led to unreasonable enrichment of the management and management of such enterprises and a sharp drop in the standard of living of other segments of the population not connected with these industries (education, social sphere, health care, science, culture).
As part of the privatization of enterprises, political, economic and social aspects are closely intertwined.
According to " decile» coefficient, which shows the ratio of incomes of 10% of the richest and poorest population of the country, in USSR in 1990. from was 4.4, i.e. the income of the rich stratum exceeded the income of the poor by 4.4 times. The corresponding indicator in Russia for 1998 was 22.7. As a result, there has been a large increase in social inequality compared to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Most of the population did not have the capital to purchase at their market prices. If the enterprises were sold much lower than their real value, then this acquisition did not have a high value for the owner. The profits were confiscated by the owners and exported abroad, which did not allow updating the outdated funds of the enterprise.
As a result of privatization in Russia, employees of privatized enterprises did not receive social protection, the development of social infrastructure facilities decreased, and in some cases their destruction was accelerated. Organizations and local authorities in most cases refused current financing of "non-core assets". Employees of organizations that depended on budget funding were in a very difficult condition - these are: teachers, scientists, doctors, police, military, etc. The main source of funding public sector economy are budgetary funds, which were directed mainly to priority current expenses and wages of employees of enterprises.
As a result of privatization, the commodity deficit was overcome and the internal conversion of the ruble was ensured.
When moving to market economy privatization should be carried out in cooperation with all state structures and general economic reforms. Privatization should contribute to increased competition in the country's economy as a whole.
Privatization, which takes place in the absence of a market, during the transition from a planned to a market economy, plays an important role in shaping competitive market. But in any case, it is necessary to take into account the world experience of privatization. Mandatory during privatization is effective management, attraction of investments and the formation or preservation of the middle strata. Should be taken into account National security and impact on future countries.
Specialization: economics, finance. Two higher education: engineer and financier. Economist for a furniture company from Italy. Date: October 29, 2019. Reading time 9 min.
Ksenia Konovalova
2019 marked the 27th anniversary of privatization in the Russian Federation. This is the most grandiose robbery of the people and the state in the history of mankind. Since 1992, more than 150,000 enterprises have been privatized. Instead, 33,000 inefficient organizations have been created with owners who earn on speculation, and not on the development of production. The losses of the state are estimated in trillions of dollars. In addition, there are other consequences, such as the huge social differentiation of society and the global decline in production.
The denationalization of property was carried out in three stages. AT modern world this process is considered part of the institutional changes that accompany democratic reforms. In the Russian Federation, at the moment of transition to the market, it was assigned the main role, and the result should have been the transformation of the private sector into the predominant area of the economy. It is believed that Anatoly Chubais invented privatization in Russia, but he was only the leader of a whole group of economists.
The first stage of privatization is voucher, the second is monetary. Each of them has its own "authors", but in general, the very idea of denationalization of property began to be prepared by Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov. It was he who, being the Chairman of the KGB of the USSR, saw in a group of young St. Petersburg students, and then university teachers, distinguished by dissident ideas of reforming the country's economy, the future creators of the scheme to rob the entire state.
As he writes in his book “My XX century. Memories" Dr. economic sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vladimir Alekseevich Vinogradov, Andropov himself really wanted to reform the country. But his goal was a gradual entry into Europe and market relations with the maximum benefit for us. As always, after the death of the leader, his ideas were modified, which resulted in the collapse of the state and its plunder.
But be that as it may, in 1982, as soon as Andropov was appointed General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, a special commission of the Politburo was created, the purpose of which was to prepare the reform of the Soviet economy. They invited a group of young St. Petersburg economists headed by Chubais, as well as Yegor Gaidar, who at that time worked at a reformer training center organized back in 1976 by Kosygin.
So it was this group that came up with vouchers. In addition to the two main ideologists, the commission included:
The second stage is monetary (1995). With the help of vouchers, mostly not very large organizations were privatized. For a fee, industrial giants and oil and gas enterprises were offered. Here the ideologist was Vladimir Potanin. The scam is simple:
The buyers were known in advance. And the prices were set simply ridiculous for enterprises of this magnitude.
The third stage was called the pinpoint stage and began in 1997. From that moment to the present day, the state periodically puts up shares of its enterprises for sale.
The declared goals of privatization had very little to do with reality. The Act talked about creating a layer of efficient company owners and that private property is more useful than state property.
The actual goals were completely different. It was a large-scale scam to redistribute property in favor of a new privileged layer. As Anatoly Chubais himself admitted at a seminar at Moscow State University, the main task was to reach the point of no return, i.e. break up the old system and create a situation in which a layer of people will arise who will cling to their new property with a stranglehold and will not allow the old order to return. He also said: “Each sold plant is a nail in the coffin of communism. Expensive take - good, cheap take - also good. We are ready to pay extra, if only the communists do not return to power.”
Reference! By the time of the 1996 elections, Zyuganov's approval rating was over 35%, which would have given him an easy victory.
First of all, it was important to remove the people from privatization. Especially before the start of the process, a monetary reform was carried out and all the savings of citizens were reset to zero. Then the vouchers were distributed. It seems that people were given something and they can participate, but in practice the property passed exclusively into the hands of “their own”.
According to Mikhail Davydovich Abramov, President of the Analytical Center for Modernization and Technological Development of the Economy, vouchers are just a cover for the purpose of legalizing the privatization that has already taken place, i.e. the assets were dismantled, but it had to be legalized somehow. In fact, no one tried to create a class of competent managers.
Vasily Simchera, Vice President Russian Academy in economics, believes that it was necessary to obtain the assets of the Soviet Union in some cheapest way. It was impossible to do this in a simple way, so they acted according to the recipe of the great Russian writer Saltykov-Shchedrin, who said: "If you want to win a case, confuse it."
Do you consider privatization a huge fraud or a fair division of state property?
A fair division
In 1991, Russia was the second largest economy on the planet - 20% of world GDP was produced in our country. In many positions we went to 1st place. According to the forecasts of the analytical center Abramov M.A., if there had been no privatization, then the economic growth would have been at least 300%.
Photo: Boris Yeltsin and Anatoly Chubais in the sanatorium Volzhsky cliff, Samara region. Source: Mikhail Klementiev / RIA Novosti
According to Andrey Ivanovich Kolganov, head of the laboratory for comparative studies at the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, even in 2018, Russia has not yet reached the level of 1990-1991. for production. What they say today that we have increased the volumes by 2-3 times is a formal calculation, in relation to the numbers, after the collapse. In fact, the volume of production in the real sector of the economy (not raw materials) in 2018 is only 4% of the scale in 1991. For example:
It's practically nothing. The losses are huge. They are valued at $3 trillion.
If we talk about the monetary stage, when the enterprises of the raw material complex were privatized, then the situation here is no better. Potanin organized loans-for-shares auctions. According to A.B. Chubais, they were needed to raise the rating of President Yeltsin, which was only 2%. It was decided that if privatization was not urgently done, then the communists would win the elections.
In 1995, 12 large industries were privatized through auctions.
Table 1. Main lots
In the first years after the collapse of the USSR Russian economy made initial attempts to transition to a market mechanism. The redistribution of state property with the help of privatization checks was supposed to create a class of private owners and increase efficiency national companies. Meanwhile, the state was experiencing an acute shortage of finance, and foreign investors and ordinary citizens were still unable to purchase large volumes of shares. Russian enterprises. So, on July 1, 1994, there was a transition from voucher to monetary privatization.
In general, according to experts interviewed by RT, privatization in Russia took place in several stages and pursued two key goals: to change the structure of the economy and replenish the state budget during the crisis.
The first stage of privatization started in 1992. According to the decree of Boris Yeltsin, it was decided to transfer a significant part of state property free of charge Russian citizens. The main method was the distribution of state property through securities. Each citizen received the right to a privatization check (voucher) with a face value of 10,000 rubles. It could be sold at the market price or exchanged for company shares.
As Valery Chernooky, professor at the NES Department of Economics, explained in an interview with RT, by involving the population in the process, the country's leadership intended to sharply increase the share of private owners in a short time and reduce the impact of the public sector on the economy. Thus, it was planned to consolidate the transition to a market economy and make it impossible to return to the inefficient planned economic system of the USSR.
“Most of the state-owned enterprises inherited from the Soviet planned economy were unprofitable. Privatization, according to the reformers, was supposed to attract private owners interested in restructuring enterprises and improving the efficiency of production and management,” Chernooky added.
In the course of primary (small) privatization, auctions were held for the sale of small consumer services enterprises - shops, restaurants, cafes. In turn, large and medium-sized enterprises were not sold, but were turned into open joint-stock companies. Securities were partly transferred to labor collectives, and partly could be redeemed for privatization checks.
It is noteworthy that the defense and most profitable enterprises remained in state ownership.
In total, by the end of 1994, 112,000 former state-owned enterprises had been privatized.
It should be noted that, in addition to the partial transfer of state property, privatization also implied the attraction foreign investment to the country. According to experts, with the arrival of foreign investors, it was planned to create a competitive environment in the Russian market.
Meanwhile, as Valery Chernooky notes, the pre-emptive right to purchase shares (for vouchers or at a reduced price) was mainly reserved for employees and managers of privatized enterprises. As a result, by 1994 most large companies came under the direct or indirect control of managers appointed back in Soviet times, the so-called red directors.
“Both employees and managers strongly opposed the arrival of external shareholders: the former feared layoffs, while the latter feared the loss of control over the enterprise. All this hindered further restructuring and increased efficiency of the former state-owned enterprises that the government was counting on, ”the economist explained.
To facilitate the emergence of new investors in the share capital of companies, from July 1, 1994, a transition was made from voucher to cash privatization. Boris Yeltsin signed the corresponding decree a little later, on July 22. Almost six months later, the State Duma officially recognized the results of the voucher stage of privatization as unsatisfactory. In its resolution of December 9, 1994, the lower house of parliament declared that the results achieved were inconsistent with the main goals of socio-economic reforms.
The new privatization model was supposed to attract investments to restructure the operation of enterprises. During the period of voucher privatization, large companies experienced an acute shortage of money for further development. According to the Accounts Chamber, in 1990 the share of deductions for the modernization of production was 12.1% of the total costs for industrial products. In 1992, the figure fell to 2.6%, and in 1993 it was only 0.9%.
At the same time, the main goal of monetary privatization was to be the replenishment of the federal budget. The money received by the state treasury was planned to be spent on financing social programs and directions for restructuring the economy. The head of the department spoke about this in an interview with RT stock markets and financial engineering RANEPA Konstantin Korishchenko.
The need to collect as much money as possible to fulfill social obligations by the state has become one of the reasons for the emergence of loans-for-shares auctions. The 1995 budget law prohibited the sale of shares in high-yield enterprises. Meanwhile, under the new scheme, private banks provided loans to the state secured by shares in large companies. If the loan was not repaid, the pledged securities became the property of the creditors.
From November to December 1995 shares of 12 commodity and infrastructure companies were put up for loans-for-shares auctions. In total, the amount of revenues to the budget amounted to $886.1 million, but in the end, all 12 loans were not repaid to banks, and the enterprises became the property of creditors.
At the same time, as noted in the Accounts Chamber, the replenishment of the budget through loans-for-shares auctions was not efficient enough. So, according to the department, the value of the shares offered as collateral was either underestimated or deliberately underestimated. Moreover, the final amount of loans received was only slightly higher than the starting price. Thus, the auctions were not held on a competitive basis of banks, as was originally intended.
Later, in his book The Presidential Marathon, Boris Yeltsin recalled: “They say that our property was undervalued when it was sold. Like, they sold it for next to nothing. Yes, absolutely correct. They sold it for nothing, relative, of course, for hundreds of millions of dollars. But no one else gave. Exactly as much as Russian businessmen were able to pay, this enterprise cost that much at that time. No more and no less."
Experts are ambiguous about the results of privatization in Russia. Thus, the goals set were largely achieved, and the country moved to a market economy system. At the same time, according to economists, the reform did not lead to the expected increase in the efficiency of the former state-owned enterprises and at the same time provoked an increase in criminal activities among the new owners.
“The positives are obvious. Large-scale and massive private property was created, which practically did not exist in the USSR. In addition, the reform served as the initial impetus for the formation, and also provided certain budget revenues. But any business requires training, and the creation of private property in the absence of the skills to handle it has led to a significant bias in relations towards criminalization,” notes Konstantin Korishchenko.
In addition, according to experts, ordinary citizens did not have the initial savings to buy large blocks of shares in companies, and the vouchers issued to Russians did not give them the opportunity to participate in the management of enterprises.
“Initially, voucher privatization had high support among the population. However, the majority never succeeded in becoming capitalists, and gradually the approval of privatization and private property declined. Someone sold their voucher for nothing, someone lost their investments in check investment funds, someone invested in a bankrupt enterprise, and someone simply kept the voucher as a keepsake,” concluded Valery Chernooky.
Privatization in Russia
Privatization in Russia- the process of transferring state property of the Russian Federation (formerly the RSFSR) to private ownership, which has been carried out in Russia since the early 1990s (after the collapse of the USSR). Privatization is usually associated with the names of E. T. Gaidar and A. B. Chubais, who at that time held key positions in the government. As a result of privatization, a significant part of the state property of Russia passed into private ownership.
Privatization in Russia is often sharply criticized. It is argued that the new owners of property received it not on merit, but due to personal ties and informal relations with the first persons of the state and their relatives. Privatization is associated with the appearance of oligarchs in Russia, too strong and unfair economic stratification of the Russian population. A significant part of the Russian population perceives the privatization of the 1990s as immoral and criminal. The people even began to call it "grabbing".
On the other hand, according to Vladimir Mau, privatization was carried out in an extremely difficult economic, financial and political environment: the confrontation of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation with the President and the Government made it difficult to create a legal framework and carry out institutional reforms; The government was under strong lobbying pressure from the Supreme Council; at the time of the start of privatization, the state was not able to effectively control its property, spontaneous privatization became a mass phenomenon - the seizure of control over enterprises by their directors, who were not set up to develop enterprises, but to quick receipt profits.
According to Vladimir Mau, the main economic task privatization was to increase the efficiency of the economy by creating the institution of private ownership of the means of production. While in certain areas of the economy (service, trade) this task was quickly solved, in industry and agriculture the desired effect was achieved much more slowly, largely due to the fact that, according to Mau, privatized enterprises became the property of labor collectives, that is, under the control - and in the long term also in the property - of their directors. However, Anatoly Chubais himself later said that the privatization was carried out for the sole purpose of preventing the communists from coming to power.
Privatization in Russia began after the adoption of the USSR Law "On State Enterprise (Association)" in 1988. At this stage, it was carried out in the absence of the necessary regulatory framework. At the same time, its real scale remained unknown. According to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), by the summer of 1992 (the beginning of the privatization program), more than 2,000 enterprises were privatized "spontaneously". Only in 1991, the development of legislation on privatization began with the Law of the Russian Federation of 3/7/1991 "On the privatization of state and municipal enterprises in the Russian Federation" (as amended on 5/7/1992).
Voucher privatization was controversial. The privatization format was largely the result of compromises between the Government and the Supreme Council, taking into account the regulations adopted at different times and the interests of various lobby groups. So, E. Gaidar and A. Chubais were not initially supporters of voucher privatization, offering to abandon it in favor of gradual privatization for money. However, the law of the RSFSR "On the privatization of state and municipal enterprises" dated June 3, 1991 provided for privatization using personalized privatization accounts. The disadvantage of this solution was its vulnerability to corruption: given the pre-emptive right of employees of enterprises to buy back their shares, directors, using pressure on employees, would have received wide opportunities to seize control over enterprises. As a compromise between the position of the Supreme Council and the Government, checks were anonymized (which brought privatization closer to market scheme), the right of labor collectives to preferential buyout of shares is retained.
The bulk of the population did not know what to do with vouchers, so they began to sell them to buyers. The price of vouchers was rapidly falling, falling to 3-4 thousand rubles by May 1993. In order to help the implementation of vouchers, check investment funds were created that exchanged vouchers for shares of various companies.
The scheme of operation of voucher investment funds was approximately the same: the funds collected vouchers from the population, participated in a voucher auction, and bought shares of profitable enterprises for vouchers. Then, shares were sold from the balance sheet of check investment funds to the balance sheet of structures controlled by powerful groups in the region (often organized crime) at a low book value, leaving nominal assets in the fund for subsequent actual liquidation.
In many ways, privatization in Russia repeated the history of the privatization of church lands in France during the French Revolution. At that time, the lands of the church were confiscated, and on the basis of these lands (later the former estates of immigrants and lands belonging to the crown were added to the list of lands), banknotes were issued, which subsequently began to be used as money. The lands were subsequently sold at auctions in which wealthy peasants and bourgeois had an advantage over poor peasants, which, as in Russia, led to the stratification of society.
Numerous critics point out that voucher privatization was dishonest, unfair, and led to undeserved sharp enrichment of a narrow group of people. In response to this, A. Chubais notes: “We could not choose between “honest” and “dishonest” privatization, because honest privatization implies clear rules established by a strong state that can enforce laws. In the early 1990s, we had no state, no law and order ... We had to choose between gangster communism and gangster capitalism.
The loans-for-shares auctions were undertaken in 1995 with the aim of replenishing the state treasury with loans secured by state-owned blocks of shares in several large companies (such as Yukos, Norilsk Nickel, Sibneft). The government did not repay the loans, so the blocks of shares became the property of the creditors.
The amount of funds that the government was supposed to receive was about 1.85% of the federal budget revenue.
The idea of auctions to replenish the budget was put forward by Vladimir Potanin, who headed ONEXIM Bank. The initiative was supported by the then First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais and Deputy Prime Minister Oleg Soskovets (it was the latter, according to the then chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, Sergei Dubinin, who first raised the issue of holding auctions at a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers). Alfred Kokh, head of the State Property Committee, oversaw the holding of auctions.
As a result of loans-for-shares auctions, billionaire oligarchs appeared (Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Abramovich and others)
A. Chubais justifies the loans-for-shares auctions as follows: “If we hadn’t carried out the loans-for-shares privatization, the communists would have won the elections in 1996, and these would have been the last free elections in Russia, because these guys don’t give up power so easily.” At the same time, he notes: “At that time, I did not fully understand what price we would have to pay. I underestimated the deep sense of injustice that arose in people.
Privatization in Moscow began in 1992 by decree of the President of the Russian Federation, which granted the capital the right to accelerate the privatization of municipal property according to an independently developed plan and schedule. As a result, a significant part of small enterprises in Moscow was sold before the start of the active phase of voucher privatization (1993). By mid-1994, no more than 20% of all enterprises and organizations in the city were in the public sector. Share of privatized trade enterprises significantly exceeded the average share for Russia as a whole. The number of joint-stock companies in construction was three times more than the same indicator in the country. At the beginning of 1996, privatization in Moscow brought in more than a quarter of all income received from it in Russia. [See: A. Kanina. Moscow is the only free economic zone in the country. "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" 03/19/1996.]
The situation in the capital can give a very strong argument to the supporters of privatization, especially if one recalls the fierce discussions on privatization methods between the leadership of Moscow and the State Property Committee. The city, which is experiencing a state of “boom” with all its features characteristic of Western economies, has become, against all expectations, the absolute financial center of the country. According to some estimates, it accounted for up to 70% of the country’s total banking turnover. rise - in the first six months of 1995, the growth rate capital investments in the city was 111.21% with a general drop in the country by 22%. [See: ibid.] One of the most important reasons for this is to serve the booming economy of the city. The property stratification between the inhabitants of Moscow and the rest of Russia grew intensively.
In the Moscow model of privatization, from the very beginning, not 29% of shares, but 12-15%% were put up for check auctions. Large blocks of shares remained outside the city, which later began to be sold at specialized auctions and investment competitions. According to the Moscow Property Fund, this made it possible not only to obtain additional financial resources, but also managed to attract investment in the modernization and reconstruction of production. [See: M. Portyagin. Investors love Moscow real estate. "Independent newspaper". 30/5/1996.]
An example of the inconsistency of Moscow privatization with the requirements of the State Property Committee was the Kalibr plant. A 49% stake in 1992 prices was 35 million rubles, according to the methods of the State Property Committee, it had to be put up for sale for no more than 700 million rubles, but following the results of an investment competition, the plant was bought for 11 billion rubles, and in the conditions of the winner of the competition included investment obligations for 7 billion rubles. and repayment of the company's debts in the amount of 9 billion rubles. That is, the total price of the transaction exceeded 27 billion rubles, which is 40 times higher than calculated using the GKI methodology. [See: "Moscow property: finding the owner and the city. M. 1996. S. 11-24.]
At the same time, it should be noted that the Kalibr plant was unique: firstly, it is located in the city center in a very expensive and prestigious area, and secondly, it counted on receiving a large state defense order. The model of investment competitions used in Moscow gave a much greater effect than in the whole country. The sale of blocks of shares worth 7.6 billion rubles, for example, made it possible to attract investments of more than 2.4 trillion rubles. At the same time, “small” privatization also developed. In 1995, state and municipal property was sold for 1.368 trillion rubles. [See: M. Portyagin Investors love…]
Nevertheless, attempts at serious analysis cast doubt on the conclusion about the radical advantage of the Moscow method of privatization over the methods of the State Property Committee. First of all, the geographical character of the city is unique. Moscow has become a springboard for the West in the development of Russia. Concentration in the capital of persons accepting state, investment, trade and other economic decisions, as well as a relatively developed infrastructure, forced many Western companies to settle in the capital, and its underdevelopment in the country often forced Moscow to limit its activities. The mere fact of the presence in it of a huge demand from foreigners and new Russian business people for real estate was a factor in the development of the city's economy that could hardly be overestimated.
Moscow's economic management system was unique. It was characterized by an amazing interweaving of the functions of public and private organizations. Despite the fact that there were practically no sectors of the economy in which the mayor's office of the city would not directly or indirectly participate, the private sector sometimes even performed the functions of municipal and government agencies. For example, joint-stock company Mosprivatization officially registered all housing transactions in the capital. Naturally, such transcendental economic liberalization created opportunities for unheard of rapid enrichment. Not only the problem of property stratification between Moscow and other regions, but also within the city itself, became particularly acute. In Russia, the income share of the richest 20% of the population in 1994 was 46.3% in 1994 and 47.1% in the first half of 1995, and in Moscow - 62.3% and 72.5%, respectively. [See: A. Kanina. Moscow…]
However, the most significant negative indicator was structural changes in Moscow's business activity. The share of industry, primarily providing for the needs of the domestic market (food, building materials, etc.), increased, and the share of industries working for the country as a whole (machine building, automotive, metalworking, military-industrial complex) decreased. Moscow, thus, lost its status as one of the largest industrial cities and turned into a commercial and financial center. Obviously, the large industry of the capital could not stand the competition with the rapidly growing commercial and financial capital, including the comprador character, which redistributed financial and other assets in its favor. industrial enterprises. So, we can assume that the correlation between relative success economic development Moscow and the high speed of privatization is largely random, associated with the status of the capital and its geographical location.
One of the results of privatization in Russia was the illegal inclusion of the housing stock of Soviet enterprises and construction trusts in the authorized capital of newly formed private companies. By law, this housing stock (dormitories and apartment-type dormitories) was supposed to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the city, however, in most cases, the new owners took advantage of the weakness of the legislation to buy these dormitories along with the people living there. As a result, for many years the tenants face constant threats of eviction. Term limitation period in cases of illegal privatization in most cases has already expired, so the courts and prosecutors simply ignore the problem.
Privatization was accompanied by massive corruption. Responsibility for the use of inside information for personal gain rests not only with Russian officials, but also with American advisers, the Harvard team, or the so-called "Harvard boys" who have been exposed to corruption. Harvard University professors Andrey Shleifer and Jonathan Hay, who helped Anatoly Chubais in the privatization of industry, were sued by the US Department of Justice and in 2005 the court awarded them a fine of $28.5 million. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz believes that the role of both individuals and the United States as a whole in the process of enriching Russian oligarchs during privatization has remained unexplored.
Most of the Russian population has a negative attitude towards the results of privatization. As the data of several opinion polls show, about 80% of Russians consider it illegitimate and are in favor of a complete or partial revision of its results. About 90% of Russians are of the opinion that privatization was carried out dishonestly and large fortunes were acquired dishonestly (72% of entrepreneurs also agree with this point of view). According to the researchers, in Russian society there was a stable, "almost consensus" rejection of privatization and large private property formed on its basis.
“The goal of privatization is to build capitalism in Russia, moreover, in a few shock years, having fulfilled the production rate that the rest of the world took centuries to reach”
Privatization was not a matter of ideology or some abstract values, it was a matter of real daily political struggle. The communist leaders had enormous power - political, administrative, financial. They were invariably associated with the Communist Party. We needed to get rid of them, but we didn't have time for that. The bill went not for months, but for days.
We could not choose between "fair" and "dishonest" privatization, because fair privatization requires clear rules set by a strong state that can enforce laws. In the early 1990s, we had neither the state nor the rule of law. The security services and the police were on the other side of the barricades. They studied under the Soviet Criminal Code, and this is from three to five years in prison for private business. We had to choose between gangster communism and gangster capitalism.
If we hadn't carried out a mortgage-backed privatization, the communists would have won the elections in 1996, and it would have been the last free elections in Russia, because these guys don't give up power so easily.
“For us, privatization was manna from heaven. It meant that we could move forward and buy what we wanted from the state on favorable terms ... And we acquired a fat piece from the industrial capacities of Russia ... The most profitable investment capital in today's Russia is the purchase of factories at a reduced cost"
The process of transferring municipal square meters to the ownership of residents is called privatization. At first glance, the state offers a very good deal. However, privatization in Russia is not proceeding at the pace that the authorities initially expected. What is the reason for such inertia of the population, and until what year will privatization be in effect?
In 1991, after a sharp change in the course of the USSR government, the state faced serious economic problems. In that situation, it became impossible to independently maintain the entire housing stock of the country at the expense of budget funds. In the summer, the first version of the law on privatization was adopted. The bill has since been amended several times.
At present, privatization in Russia is legally open-ended.
It is planned that over time, the free transfer of housing ownership to citizens will be replaced by a ransom. However, today there is no clear understanding of the mechanism of the process. Legislators are working in this direction.
In what year did the privatization of apartments in Russia really begin? The first homeowners appeared in 1992. All residents, including young children, had to participate in the paperwork. Their interests were represented by parents or guardians.
Housing passed into possession in equal shares. The law provided for the possibility to renounce their rights, but only able-bodied citizens could do this. In the future, they were granted the right to use the premises for life.
One of the reasons for the permanent extension of the terms was the inertia of the population. When privatization began in Russia, the government believed that citizens would very quickly register the meters they were entitled to own. In fact, even today, 27 years later, only about 80% of housing has been completed. On a national scale, the remaining 20% is a significant figure for the budget.
Why are people not in a hurry to make such a good deal? Here, family relations, the life situation, the social position of the responsible tenant play a role. It is required to deal with paperwork in person. Not all citizens are ready and want to do this.
In 2014, with the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, the government extended the deadlines for residents of these territories to exercise their legal right. Citizens of Russia have equal rights, and the right to housing remains one of the main ones.
The last changes were made in February 2017. Legislators canceled the terms of free privatization completely.
Private property allows a person to feel free.
Having an apartment at your disposal is beneficial for the following reasons:
The law allows private property to be rented out. In large cities of Russia, this has become a good article additional income citizens.
The article will be one-sided, if we do not consider the negative aspects of privatization in Russia for the new owners. By giving away the housing stock, the state transfers not only tangible assets, but also the associated responsibility for its content.
Risks and encumbrances that accrue to tenants with a new property:
The state has provided an opportunity to return privatized housing back. This can be done if, after paperwork, the owner has not changed and additional tenants have not been registered in the apartment. However, this right is rarely exercised by citizens.
If put aside large enterprises, the Russians are most interested in the privatization of the housing stock. In Soviet times, most citizens had the opportunity to “get” an apartment for several years of work at enterprises. Sometimes for this it was necessary to go to the most uncomfortable conditions of the North. Apartments were allocated on the basis of social rent. The right of ownership was retained by the state or municipality. With rare exceptions, this situation persisted until the 1990s, when the privatization of apartments in Russia began.
Privatization-sledk, as a result of which state or municipal property passes into the hands of private owners.
The beginning of the last decade of the 20th century was marked by a change not only in the political course, but also in the economic one. However, this does not mean that until that time it was impossible to learn an apartment in the property. Building cooperatives were already then. In addition, on 02. 12. 1988, the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a Resolution “On the sale to citizens of apartments in the houses of state and public housing stock”. That is, it was already possible to buy an apartment, although it cannot be called privatization in its current sense. For a couple of years, similar acts were adopted at the level of the republics.
However, this action was not successful, because the apartment had to be redeemed at full price. An honest Soviet citizen did not have that kind of money. And if they were, then they would have to explain their origin.
Like most of the regulations of the era of emerging capitalism, the 1991 law was very crude and sketchy. It did not clearly spell out the privatization procedure itself. Certain categories of citizens were poorly protected. Partially patched holes already at the local level. Until now, the practical procedure for privatization on the ground is regulated by regional regulations for the provision of services for the transfer of housing into the ownership of tenants.
The name of regional acts may vary somewhat, but its essence remains the same - it defines practical order registration of privatization. Here the citizen will find the answer to questions about what and where to submit documents.
Of course, the hastily adopted law needed to be improved; there were a number of holes in it. Associated both with the procedural order of the transaction, and the protection of certain categories and citizens.
So, only after 1993 amendments were adopted and clarifications were given by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which took the side of protecting children. Until then, parents massively excluded their children from participation in privatization. The consequences of the miscalculation are still lingering. The statute of limitations in such cases is easily restored.
Now children, who have become completely adults, go to courts to protect their violated rights. Apartments that were once privatized in violation of the law can change owners more than once. As a result, the transactions that followed the illegal privatization are declared invalid, and the last owner suffers large losses. After all, it is almost impossible to return the money for housing.
In order to protect orphans, a 5-year moratorium was established on the privatization of apartments allocated to them by the state. But this also did not happen immediately. As a result, most of the orphans remained on the street, falling into the clutches of scammers.
Another important change recent years touched communal apartments. The 1991 law does not mention them at all, but after the collapse of the USSR, real estate of this type turned out to be quite a lot. The question arose as to whether it is possible in principle to privatize an apartment with common areas. The answer to this question was given by the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces after the 2000s. Indeed, it is possible to privatize such housing. Even the consent of the residents of individual rooms is not required. At the same time, common areas will remain common and will not be transferred to ownership.
In addition to these, there were a number of less noticeable changes and clarifications. Now about 80% of the municipal or state housing stock has been privatized, and the improvement of legislation in this area is likely to continue.
This is perhaps the most burning question of recent years. Citizens sometimes delayed privatization in anticipation of better conditions or the right moment. Someone could not privatize housing due to the lack of consent of all registered persons. This created a fear of “not having time” to privatize housing for free.
In the first edition of the 1991 law, the terms of privatization were not stipulated. However, the new Housing Code of the Russian Federation of 2004 kept silent about privatization. Therefore, 01.03.2005, the date of entry into force of the new Code, was considered to be the deadline for privatization.
As a result, amendments were made, and the end date of the program was postponed until 01.01.2007. The extension was repeated five more times. The latest in a string of renewals was the 2017 Amendment Act.
Initially, it was planned to extend privatization only for certain categories of citizens and regions. After long discussions, the final version of the law resolved this issue. Privatization should not end.
Attention! Now every Russian who has the right to participate in privatization can implement it at any time. Privatization became officially indefinite.
We had the right to live in them, die, and in case of rare luck - to exchange for another, in a better place or a meter or two more. Native Muscovites went crazy because their relatives, who lived near the Garden Ring, could not leave them their amazing apartments with high ceilings, large kitchens and corridors. The exception was situations when the elderly managed to register their nephew or cousin. But, firstly, it was also necessary to be able to do this, and secondly, the old people were afraid that their relatives would survive. Therefore, the apartments left with the owners, and subsequently got to the right people.
When will the privatization of housing in Russia end, what does the official leadership of the Russian Federation say? Privatization of housing in Russia: in what year did it start and who decided to extend it?
In what year did the first privatization of housing begin? Housing began to be privatized by the Regulation on the privatization of the free transfer of housing stock, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated Registration with entry into the register began from the city. And documents on ownership of apartments, houses, garages, land plots issued before the city of
Mortgage without down payment! This is a microdistrict of 10 residential buildings of floors, two schools, two kindergartens, shopping centers, polyclinics. Buildings of different heights: floors. The first floors will house offices of companies, shops, cafes and services for residents. For motorists - parking for more than places with elevators. Closer to the forest there is a walking area, in the forest there is a network of running and cycling trails. The buyer is offered room apartments and studios from 27 to sq.
The apartments have large kitchens, windows on two or three sides. average cost meters - rub. By car, you can get on Mozhayskoe, Rublevo-Uspenskoe, Minskoe highway. More about LCD Odinburg. Not everyone, of course, the privatization of the apartment brought happiness. Someone made an unsuccessful deal, someone became a victim of scammers. The owner of the apartment must make contributions to the fund overhaul at home, pay property tax and personal income tax if he rents out an apartment. The figures are unique - in the modern world there is nowhere such a number of owners.
Privatization of housing with us is indefinite. The authorities planned to complete this process several times, but, in the end, they decided to leave people the opportunity to take ownership of an apartment at any time, which was recorded in the law from Who has not yet privatized housing? These are families in which relatives have not agreed on how they will divide the apartment among themselves, citizens who are waiting for housing from the state, which they are entitled to under social programs.
First of all, we are talking about the inhabitants of emergency, dilapidated housing, barracks, dormitories, orphans, who, after leaving the orphanages, are given apartments. Those who are going to privatize housing should remember the following. The right to privatization is given only once in a lifetime. When registering housing in the property, it is necessary to take into account the rights of minor children.
If the family decided to privatize the apartment, but one of its members refuses, he gets the right to live in this apartment forever. And this will have to be taken into account by the rest of the relatives: after all, they are unlikely to succeed in selling an apartment with a tenant. The procedure itself is free, it takes about 45 days. In retrospect, privatization was a blessing in disguise for the country: it created the real estate market.
And it helped the development of mortgages: after all, Russians did not come to the bank empty-handed - the amount received from the sale of a privatized apartment was used as a down payment. All the most interesting about the world of square meters on our portal: how to buy, sell, take out a mortgage and conclude other real estate transactions; what segments and classes of housing exist, as well as where the best residential complexes Moscow and Moscow region.
Can privatization be reversed? Year of the start of privatization In what year did the privatization of housing begin? July 4 of the year can be considered the start date for the privatization of apartments in Russia.
Benjamin Franklin Nikolai Matveev: Hello! This is a discussion platform “RIGHT! My name is Nikolai Matveev. And here's the topic today: Free privatization of housing in Russia has been declared indefinite. The deadline has been pushed back several times.
The law on the extension of the term in the year was signed by Vladimir Putin.
A lawyer for himself Thus, if any of the persons entitled to privatize housing does not give his consent to it, privatization of housing is impossible. An agreement on the transfer of an apartment into ownership, concluded without the consent of any of the persons entitled to privatization, will be illegal and can be challenged in court. According to the law, the free privatization of housing was supposed to last until At present, the term for privatization of housing has been extended until formally, nothing has changed in relation to the recognition of citizens' property rights to housing, Russian law literally repeated the provisions of the all-Union law. Our short historical digression allows us to draw two conclusions. It is required that the higher authorities order the lower authorities to give the citizens what is due to them. In other words, it is required to remove all existing prohibitions on the free use of private property. Privatization of an apartment in the Russian Federation Citizens who have a dwelling in use, as a rule, an apartment, have the right to receive it in total, indicating the share of each tenant registered in the apartment, or sole ownership. Including a minor, aged 14 to 18, can become the owner of housing, with the permission of all adult residents who have the right to privatize.
Preparatory stage[ edit source] The first project for the transition to a market economy, through mass privatization of state property, was proposed as part of the program of days developed in the year by a group of economists led by Stanislav Shatalin. At the union level, however, the program was rejected. In the same article, article 25, the concept of privatization was legislatively fixed, as the transfer of state or municipal property to private ownership. It was based on Decree No.
The main part of the application indicates the address of the apartment or house to be registered in ownership, as well as the main characteristics. A package of documents approved for the implementation of the right of a citizen to free privatization. An agreement on the transfer of residential premises within the framework of privatization can be executed only after consideration by the authorized subdivision of the local authority of the application submitted by the citizen and familiarization with the attached documents.
However, it followed from the text of the law: the property of citizens is the real freely alienable private property. But this law did not last long. With regard to the recognition of citizens' property rights to housing, nothing has formally changed; Russian law literally repeated the provisions of the all-Union law. Ownership and freedom Our short historical digression allows us to draw two conclusions. It is required that the higher authorities order the lower authorities to give the citizens what is due to them. In other words, it is required to remove all existing prohibitions on the free use of private property. Historically, this was the first attempt to privatize housing. This document did not declare, namely, it allowed local authorities to sell apartments to their tenants.
Mortgage without down payment! This is a neighborhood of 10 residential buildings floors, two schools, two kindergartens, shopping centers, clinics. Buildings of different heights: floors. The first floors will house offices of companies, shops, cafes and services for residents. For motorists - parking for more than places with elevators. Closer to the forest there is a walking area, in the forest there is a network of running and cycling trails. The buyer is offered room apartments and studios from 27 to sq. The apartments have large kitchens, windows on two or three sides. The average cost of a meter - rub.
Privatization in Russia is declarative in nature. That is, it is not mandatory. This Law establishes the basic principles for the implementation of privatization and determines the legal, social and economic fundamentals transformation of property relations. At the moment, any citizen of the Russian Federation has the right to free privatization of their housing. The government extended the terms of this program 5 times, as a result, a year and a half ago, the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, signed The federal law, which again extended the right of citizens to free privatization of real estate. Moreover, this opportunity is being extended for an indefinite period, which is still unlimited by the authorities. However, there are certain criteria according to which a citizen has or does not have the right to privatize property. More about this in the following paragraphs of the article.
Privatization of housing: how to become a millionaire? On this day, only a very few citizens would believe that in twenty years their modest dwelling could be sold on the market for a price of a million rubles or more. There is a direct causal relationship between the free market of urban housing, as we see it today, and the opportunity for every citizen of the country to privatize used housing once free of charge. It was thanks to the establishment of free housing privatization that the market for city apartments quickly became legal and massive. And most importantly: it became monetary. In the form of a direct exchange of living space in the houses of the state housing stock, the urban housing market in the USSR existed even before the start of privatization. True, it was very strictly regulated by the state.
