Tag: state-owned enterprises

Russia’s Counter Sanctions: Forward to the Past!

Posted on May 12, 2025 | Policy Brief

Since February 2022, Russia has introduced a series of counter sanctions in response to the international sanctions introduced following the country’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. These measures aimed to counteract external economic pressure while shielding the domestic economy from further destabilization. However, their broad implementation has led to mixed effects across various sectors while simultaneously increasing the administrative burden. This policy brief argues that Russia’s countersanctions reinforced state control over key industries, worsened market competition and fiscal sustainability, which contributed to a systematic move towards a planned economy.

Russia’s Counter Sanctions and the Expansion of State Control

Since February 2022, Russia has introduced a series of countersanctions in response to the international sanctions imposed following its invasion of Ukraine. A broad range of economic, financial, and trade restrictions have been implemented, including nationalization of foreign assets, price control, capital flow restrictions, export bans, and state-directed subsidies – all aimed at mitigating external economic pressure while reinforcing state control over key industries (Garant, 2025).

While it is widely accepted that, in times of crisis, governments may intervene in the economy to provide necessary support, such intervention should remain limited in scope and duration. Prolonged state involvement, particularly through subsidies and market controls, can distort price signals, crowd out private investment, and erode the foundations of competitive market dynamics (Friedman, 2020).

In the case of Russia, intensive government economic interventions, specifically after 2022, have led to mounting inefficiencies, increased inflationary pressures, and weakening long-term growth prospects (SITE, 2024; SITE, 2025). This policy brief discusses how the recent surge in presidential decrees, the sharp expansion of targeted subsidies across nearly all sectors, and the tightening of price regulations reflect the Kremlin’s strategic use of counter sanctions as a means of consolidating economic power and reinforcing centralized control.

An Expansion of Presidential Control

Since 2022, presidential decrees account for 25 percent of all anti-sanctions legislative measures, indicating a significant consolidation of executive control over economic policymaking.  The trend of expanding presidential control through issued decrees is illustrated in Figure 1. As shown in the figure, the total number of presidential decrees has nearly doubled since 2019, amounting to 1131 in 2024. The largest share of this decree increase, however, occurred post February 2022.

Figure 1. Number of Presidential Decrees in Russia

Source: ConsultantPlus, 2025.

Beyond the expansion in the number of decrees, what is particularly noteworthy is the breadth of topics they cover. They range from significant interventions on nationalization and economic control to quite detailed low-impact orders.

Among the highly impactful presidential decrees, Decree No. 79 (February 28, 2022) should be mentioned. The decree introduced a mandate that Russian residents engaged in foreign economic activities sell 80 percent of their foreign currency earnings. Further, Decree No. 302 (April 25, 2023), allowed the Russian state to seize foreign assets from “unfriendly states” if necessary for national security or in retaliation for asset confiscations abroad. Global companies from Germany (Uniper), Finland (Fortum), France (Danone), and Denmark (Carlsberg) are among those affected by these expropriations (Garant, 2025). Seized foreign assets were transferred to state-controlled entities, which drastically reduced competition and increased inefficiencies within key Russian industries.

Similarly, Decree No. 416 (June 30, 2022) on the Nationalization of Sakhalin-2, transferred oil and gas projects from foreign operators (Shell, Mitsubishi and Mitsui) to a Russian-controlled legal entity. Moreover, foreign companies from “unfriendly” countries were required to sell their Russian assets at a minimum 50 percent discount when exiting the market. Additionally, they were obliged to pay a “voluntary contribution” to the Russian federal budget at 15 percent of asset value (Garant, 2025).

At the same time, numerous presidential decrees have been adopted to address very specific low-level administrative issues. While their economic impact has been quite limited, they have largely contributed to a growing micromanagement and regulatory complexity (for instance, Decree No. 982 (December 22, 2023) on Temporary State Control Over a Car Dealership, Decree No. 1096 (June 17, 2022) on Transport Credit Holidays etc.).

Apart from the potential negative effects of direct government intervention in the economy, there are several issues with Presidential Decrees. Most importantly, presidential decrees, unlike statutes or other forms of legislation, are not subject to parliamentary approval. Thus, they are bypassing legislative debate and accountability, which makes them less transparent and balanced. Presidential decrees serve as tools to avoid legislative resistance since the Russian judiciary rarely challenges presidential authority, meaning decrees are difficult to contest or reverse through legal means. Further, they often overlap with other legislation, thus duplicating the functions of other legislative (and executive) authorities, leading to regulatory uncertainty. This, in turn, undermines implementation and expands bureaucratic oversight, further increasing inefficiencies and costs (see for instance, Remington, 2014; Pertsev, 2025).

Altogether, the surge in presidential decrees in Russia contributes to increasing institutional instability, an increasing administrative burden and a centralization of power. However, the full impact of these measures on the macro level is yet to unfold.

Targeted Subsidies and Industry Dependence

A key tool in Russia’s counter sanctions strategy is the expansion of state subsidies. Since 2022, substantial subsidies have been directed toward the energy sector; industrial and technological development – including aviation, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and shipbuilding; agriculture and food security; transportation and infrastructure; the banking sector; housing; and consumer lending. The scale of these subsidies indicates growing imbalances and escalating fiscal risks in the Russian economy (Garant, 2025).

However, estimating the total resources going to subsidies is quite challenging. Precise subsidy figures are only explicitly stated in few legislative acts. Most legislative documents mention the form of subsidy without specifying the amount or the source of financing. Nevertheless, some estimates have been made by both Russian and Western experts.

For instance, Russia spent approximately 12 RUB trillion (126 USD billion) on fossil fuel subsidies in 2023 (Gerasimchuk et al., 2024). Subsidies to the agricultural sector were estimated at 1 trillion RUB between 2022 and 2024 (Statista, 2025). Since 2022, Russia has allocated approximately 1.09 trillion RUB (12 billion USD) in subsidies to the aviation sector to maintain operations (Stolyarov, 2023; Garant, 2025). Around 100 billion RUB were allocated to support the tourism industry during 2023–2024 (Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, 2024; Garant, 2025).

To understand the order of magnitude, it’s worth noting that, for instance, budget revenues from oil and gas amounted to 8.8 trillion RUB in 2023 and 11.1 trillion RUB in 2024 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Budget revenues and expenditures

Source: SITE, 2025.

In addition, state subsidies for mortgages nearly doubled since 2022, with the total amount reaching 1.7 trillion RUB between 2022 and 2024 (CBR, 2024). Thus, the Russian mortgage market has become heavily dependent on state support, with subsidized mortgage programs accounting for nearly 70 percent of the growth in mortgage lending in early 2024 (CBR, 2024). Although the so-called standard preferential mortgage program was terminated on July 1, 2024, its discontinuation does not remove the substantial fiscal burden created by earlier subsidy schemes.

Moreover, the Russian government has expanded subsidized lending programs to support both businesses and individuals. For instance, preferential loans and credit holidays have been granted to small, medium and large enterprises (see for instance, Presidential Decree: No. 121, March 2022, Federal Law 08.03.2022 No. 46-FZ, and others (Garant, 2025)), further straining the government’s finances.

In many cases, subsidies allocated to state-owned enterprises double as a mechanism for off-budget military financing. For instance, defense-industrial conglomerates like Rostec not only receive targeted support but play also a pivotal role in facilitating military acquisitions and production activities outside of the formal federal budget framework (Kennedy, 2025). This not only obscures the true scale of budget expenditures but again increases the long-term fiscal burden.

As such, these measures have fostered a heavy reliance on state funding, resulting in the accelerated depletion of financial reserves and contributing to increased fiscal risks.

Price Controls, State Regulation and Planned Procurement

As mentioned earlier, the set of countermeasures recently implemented by Russia also indicates a shift toward a planned economy, with hallmark features such as price controls gradually re-emerging as policy tools. As in Belarus, where state-led economic management has long been the norm, the Russian government’s direct intervention in price-setting mechanisms, particularly for essential goods, erodes market signals.

Since 2022, a series of decrees have introduced price controls on essential goods and services to cushion households against rising costs amid inflation. These measures include caps on fare increases for public transportation, limits on tariffs for heating, water supply, and wastewater services; price limits on essential medicines, and staple agricultural products (Garant, 2025).

By limiting the price growth of necessities, these interventions aim to support households in the short term. However, prolonged price controls may entail distorted market signals, increased subsidies dependency for producers, and higher administrative costs for control enforcement.

The deviation from market mechanisms has been even more amplified in procurement, through Federal Law No. 272-FZ (July 14, 2022), which compels businesses to accept government contracts if they receive state subsidies or operate in strategic sectors. In practice, companies cannot refuse government contracts if their products or services are required for so-called counterterrorism and military operations abroad. Refusal to comply with procurement orders may result in criminal liability, as non-performance can be interpreted as economic sabotage under this law.

In addition, the Russian government provides up to 90 percent of procurement contracts in advance (Government Decree No. 505, March 29, 2022). This arrangement weakens the role of contracts, prices, and competition, while increasing the fiscal risks. In effect, it reinforces a central planning logic and undermines competitive procurement, where outcomes should be driven by performance and value rather than access to state funding.

With Russian companies cut off from foreign investment and other external financing due to sanctions, large-scale government support has become even more critical – intensifying dependence on state subsidies and, by extension, state control. The legal changes outlined above have turned procurement into a key instrument of political control over businesses. The scale of these subsidies is contributing to a damaging shift toward a centrally planned system, restricting competition and undermining long-term growth potential.

Fiscal Sustainability at Risk

The extensive use of subsidies, preferential loans, and government-backed financial interventions has placed an increasing burden on Russia’s fiscal system. While these measures were introduced to mitigate the effects of international sanctions, stabilize key industries and support households, they have led to significant structural imbalances, growing budget deficits, and rising financial risks.

State-subsidized loans have surged across multiple sectors, including construction, IT, housing, energy, infrastructure, and agriculture. The result has been a sharp increase in corporate and consumer debt, with unsecured consumer loans growing at an annual rate of 17 percent as of April 2024. Overdue debt on loans to individuals reached 1.34 trillion RUB by February 2025, signaling mounting financial distress for households despite the support measures (CBR, 2025).

The high concentration of corporate debt has further destabilized the financial system. By early 2024, the debt of the five largest companies accounted for 56 percent of the banking sector’s capital, indicating systemic vulnerabilities (CBR, 2025). In addition, the government has implemented new policies that exacerbate the risks connected to state interventions in banking operations. For instance, in March 2022, it introduced a moratorium on bankruptcy proceedings, effectively delaying the official declaration of businesses as insolvent or financially distressed. At the same time, the Central Bank required commercial banks to restructure loans rather than classify them as defaults – masking financial distress and exacerbating long-term risks to the banking sector (Garant, 2025).

Moreover, a growing share of Russia’s war-related spending now flows through off-budget channels – such as state-owned enterprises and regional programs – rather than the federal budget. According to a recent analysis, as much as one-third of military and strategic expenditures bypass formal budget reporting altogether (Kennedy, 2025).

These hidden expenditures distort the actual fiscal position, reduce transparency, and increase the long-term burden on the public sector by masking the true scale of liabilities – raising further questions about the sustainability and accountability of Russia’s fiscal policy.

Conclusions

Since February 2022, Russia’s counter-sanctions measures have markedly shifted its economic governance toward greater state control and elements reminiscent of Soviet-era central planning. Large-scale subsidies, administrative pricing, and deep state involvement in production and procurement have suppressed market competition and efficiency. These interventions have distorted incentives and curtailed the role of market signals, contributing to growing inefficiency across key sectors.

Looking ahead, the long-term economic outlook for Russia is increasingly negative. While the counter-sanctions measures may have softened the initial blow of international sanctions, they have entrenched structural vulnerabilities, reduced fiscal flexibility, and amplified systemic risks, particularly in the financial and real estate sectors. Moreover, by undermining innovation and productivity, Russia’s counter sanctions are accelerating its trajectory toward deeper economic isolation and a centrally managed model, with severe implications for sustainable growth.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Urban Land Misallocation and Markets in Russian Cities

Posted on June 8, 2015 | Policy Brief

Authors: Paul Castañeda Dower, CEFIR and William Pyle, Middlebury College.

Former socialist countries inherited factory-dominated cityscapes since planners made industrial location decisions in relative ignorance of land’s opportunity costs. Drawing on unique survey evidence and policy variation across territorial units within Russia, this brief discusses the relationship between land tenure reforms and land reallocation. The evidence points to land privatization as an important factor in the reallocation of land in Russian cities.  

Directed Lending: Is It An Efficient Tool to Modernize the Economy?

Posted on March 11, 2013 | Policy Brief

Directed Lending Policy Brief Image

Over the last couple of years, the growth rate of potential Belarus’ GDP declined. The government intends to revive economic growth by the policy of ‘modernization’, in practice pinned down to a drastic increase in the volume of capital investment, including by the means of directed lending. As the pre-crisis macroeconomic imbalances are at least partially cured, the government seems to be eager to apply a familiar policy tool. However, the empirical analysis of the effects of directed lending on total factor productivity and economic growth casts serious doubts on the efficiency of this policy tool.

Over the last couple of years, the growth rate of potential Belarus’ GDP declined. This conclusion is robust as suggested by the application of competing methodologies to assess potential GDP. For instance, the statistical filters, including the HP-filter, the Kalman filter, and the production function approach, produce different levels of potential growth, but generate similar growth rate dynamics, particularly the downward trend. From this perspective, the tendency for high and sustainable GDP growth in Belarus is increasingly compromised.

Economic authorities seem to be aware of that fact. For instance, the Ministry of Economy stresses the need to create a new, ‘highly productive’ sector in the national economy as the new engine of growth. An ambitious plan involves expanding the size of this sector to contribute to about half of the GDP growth rate, aimed at 12 per cent per annum by 2015. The creation of this ‘highly productive sector’ falls into recent policy initiative, called ‘modernization’. Under this banner, the government plans to renovate the capital stocks (primarily machinery, equipment, and transport vehicles) of a large number of state-owned enterprises. In a nutshell, this strategy may be seen as a way to facilitate technical progress embodied in capital.

What is necessary, according to the government, is to make a spurt in capital investments, often on a case-by-case basis. The government has a pool of enterprises to be modernized. The majority of them are unable to modernize themselves – i.e. radically increase capital investments – due to the lack of internal funds and poor access to external finance. Accordingly, directed lending is considered to be a useful policy instrument of modernization. In 2013, the Development Bank plans to considerably increase its credit portfolio (by about USD 0.5 billion) by financing projects at subsidized interest rates under the ‘modernization’ program. Recently, the government compiled a list of 67 agricultural enterprises liable to have an access to cheap loans for modernization purposes from the Development Bank. In addition, state-owned banks will continue the provision of policy loans that can be considered as directed ones.

With directed loans, we mean those loans that are typically granted to selected borrowers at interest rates lower than the market interest rates. In Belarus, directed lending has been an important policy tool over the last decade. Selective credit programs have been applied to prevent underinvestment and to stimulate output growth.

According to the estimations of Fitch Ratings (2010), almost a half of the outstanding loans in the Belarusian economy by the end of 2009, were directed ones. The IMF provided a slightly smaller, but still substantial figure of 46.2 percent (IMF, 2010). According to our own calculations, by 2011, the volume of directed loans amounted to about 40 percent of the total volume of outstanding loans. These loans have been made abundant in agriculture and housing construction sectors and, to a lesser extent, in manufacturing. This massive presence of selective credit in the national economy can be seen as a large factor contributing to the currency crisis of March 2011.

Accordingly, after the crisis, and following the necessity to ‘clear up’ the assets of the national banking system, the share of directed lending was reduced. We estimate that in 2012, the ratio of directed loans in total loans dropped to roughly 30 percent. However, the recent rhetoric of the development of ‘highly productive’ sectors and modernization is indicative of the intention to find new life for this old cloth. Directed lending is expected to revitalize enfeebling growth. In 2012, real GDP growth amounted to 1.5 percent against the background of the initial government plan of 8.5 percent.

Under selective credit programs, banks have been partially deprived of their autonomy to make decisions over the provision of credit. Thus, banks’ intermediation role has been circumscribed by the authorities. In theory, directed loans may spur capital accumulation as beneficiaries of these loans have access to cheap loans and thus invest and – arguably – produce more. In Belarus, there has also been an additional incentive, i.e. the necessity to substitute depreciating and outdated capital stock, inherited from the Soviet past. At the same time, political interference into the process of credit provision suggests that loans may be allocated to lower-yielding projects, and thus dampen growth rates of factor productivity and GDP (Fry, 1995). In addition, non-favored companies – typically from the private sector – face higher interest rates as their state-owned counterparts receive substantial discounts for their use of capital.

So far, these soft budget constraints in the financial system have allowed favored companies to receive loans up to three times cheaper, if judged by the level of real effective interest rates. Although private companies tend to be more efficient than state-owned enterprises in terms of factor returns and profitability, higher interest rates may reduce the volume of outstanding market loans. Furthermore, increases in the volume of cheap residential loans, which do not contribute directly to enhancement of productive capacity of the economy, may dampen the returns on investment further.

Governments have traditionally relied on selective credit programs by stressing positive externalities and spillovers for the economy as a whole (DeLong and Summers, 1991). Commercial banks care about private returns, while governments seek to maximize social returns by financing firms, which are capable of generating positive externalities. Unfettered operations of credit allocation mechanisms minimize allocation inefficiency and induce banks to minimize the costs of financial intermediation, thereby making credit more accessible.

How do these competing forces meet in Belarus and what are the effects of their joint working? In answering those questions, we have conducted an empirical analysis of the effects of directed lending on total factor productivity dynamics. The latter is considered to be a good proxy to observe the impact of selective credit programs on the efficiency of actor use.

The results of our econometric analysis show that over the period concerned, 2000–2012, the expansion of directed lending in Belarus has negatively affected total factor productivity dynamics and, subsequently, negatively contributed to the rates of GDP growth. A positive impact on growth, stemming from additional capital accumulation might nevertheless occur, but with a substantial lag. This likely positive impact is associated with the ability of banks to increase the volume of market loans alongside with the rising volume of directed loans. The option has been made possible only due to massive liquidity injections by the government and mainly the National Bank of Belarus. However, such injections are problematic to maintain over the medium to the long run as they have severe inflationary repercussions for the economy.

The effects of individual components of directed lending are mainly the same. In particular, loans for residential construction, provided to households in need, negatively affect total factor productivity. Moreover, it is through housing loans the adverse effects of directed lending upon factor productivity are mainly realized. The interest rate spread – between preferential interest rate and market interest rate – amplifies these negative relationships. Lower preferential rates result in larger losses in total factor productivity. Loans to agricultural firms have similar impact, although it has to be emphasized that the overall impact on total factor productivity approaches zero (not negative, as in the case of housing loans).

We also find that for Belarus, an increase in the total volume of directed loans leads to an increase in the volume of market loans. Both the National Bank and, to a lesser extent, the government, strive to minimize risks in the national banking system, which provide loans with smaller returns and/or non-performing policy loans. Similar challenges have been observed in China, where the Central Bank has been forced to recapitalize domestic banks to support economic growth after the global financial crisis of 2008. In 2007–2008, Chinese growth of 8–10 percent was driven by new lending averaging 30–40 percent of GDP, of which up to a quarter of the loans might have been non-performing, amounting to losses of 6–10 percent of GDP (Das, 2012).

In Belarus, the recapitalization policy, apart from its inflationary consequences, has other important effects. In particular, it prevents a dangerous trade-off between directed loans and market loans to resurface, whereby the former crowds out the latter as banks are unable to expand their portfolios due to the liquidity constraints.

Therefore, unless the expansion of directed loans would be checked, adverse effects of selective credit programs on productivity and growth would not evaporate, with negative consequences for the whole economy. Regarding policy recommendations, we claim that there is a need to fundamentally revise directed lending policies or to even minimize it to the extremes by allowing standard market mechanism for credit allocation to prevail in the national economy. Furthermore, we argue that directed lending, even after some cosmetic changes in the system design made in 2012, is not an efficient tool for economic growth promotion.

Tentative results of growth accounting made at the level of selected important industries suggest that the downward growth dynamics is associated with weak total factor productivity growth, i.e. disembodied technical progress. Improvement of total factor productivity seems to have the biggest potential for revival of economic growth. Therefore, the use of directed lending, as a policy instrument that hampers total factor productivity dynamics, may undermine prospects for long-term economic growth in Belarus.

▪

References

  • Das, S. (2012). “All Feasts Must Come to an End– China’s Economic Outlook”, Euro Intelligence, 11 March, viewed 12 April 2012.
  • DeLong, J.B. and L.H. Summers, (1991). “Equipment Investment and Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 2, pp. 445–502.
  • Fitch Ratings, (2010). “Directed Lending: On the Up or on the Way Out?”, Belarusian Banking Sector, May.
  • Fry, M.J. (1995). Money, Interest, and Banking in Economic Development (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London).
  • IMF (2010), “Republic of Belarus: Fourth Review under the Stand-By Arrangement”, IMF Country Report 10/89, viewed 15 July 2012.