Tag: state ownership

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.

Risks of Russian Business Ownership in Georgia

Posted on November 27, 2023 | Policy Brief

Image of Tbilisi at night representing risks of Russian business ownership in Georgia

This policy brief addresses risks tied to Russian business ownership in Georgia. The concentration of this ownership in critical sectors such as electricity and communications makes Georgia vulnerable to risks of political influence, corruption, economic manipulation, espionage, sabotage, and sanctions evasion. To minimize these risks, it is recommended to establish a Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) screening mechanism for Russia-originating investments, acknowledge the risks in national security documents, and implement a critical infrastructure reform.

Russia exerts substantial influence over Georgia. First and foremost, Russia has annexed 20 percent of Georgia’s internationally recognized territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Further, it employs a variety of hybrid methods to disrupt the Georgian society including disinformation, support for pro-Russian parties and media, trade restrictions, transportation blockades, sabotage incidents, and countless more. These tactics aim to hinder Georgia’s development, weaken the country’s statehood, and negatively affect pro-Western public sentiments (Seskuria, 2021 and Kavtaradze, 2023).

Factors that may also increase Georgia’s economic dependency on Russia concern trade relationships, remittances, increased economic activity driven by the most recent influx of Russian migrants, and private business ownership by Russian entities or citizens (Babych, 2023 and Transparency International Georgia, 2023). This policy brief assesses and systematizes the risks associated with Russian private business ownership in Georgia.

Sectoral Overview of Russian Business Ovnership

Russian business ownership is significant in Georgia. Recent research from the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) has addressed Russian capital accumulation across eight sectors of the Georgian economy: electricity, oil and gas, communications, banking, mining and mineral waters, construction, tourism, and transportation. Of the eight sectors considered by IDFI, Russian business ownership is most visible in Georgia’s electricity sector, followed by oil and natural gas, communications, and mining and mineral waters industries. In the remaining four sectors considered by IDFI, a low to non-existent level of influence was observed (IDFI, 2023).

Figure 1. Overview of Russian Ownership in the Georgian Economy as of June 2023.

Source: IDFI, 2023.

There are several reasons for concern regarding the concentration and distribution of Russian business ownership in the Georgian economy.

First, it is crucial to keep Russia’s history as a hostile state actor in mind. Foreign business ownership is not a threat in itself; However, it may pose a threat if businesses are under control or influence of a state that is hostile to the country in question (see Larson and Marchik, 2006). Business ownership has been a powerful tool for the Kremlin, allowing Russia to influence various countries and raising concerns that such type of foreign ownership might negatively affect national security of the host country (Conley et al., 2016). Similar concerns have become imperative amidst Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine (as, for instance, reflected in Guidance of the European Commission to member states concerning Russian foreign acquisitions).

Further, Russian business ownership in Georgia is particularly threatening due to the ownership concentration within sectors of critical significance for the overall security and economic resilience of the country. While there is no definition of critical infrastructure or related sectors in Georgia, at least two sectors (energy and communications) correspond to critical sectors, according to international standards (see for instance the list of critical infrastructure sectors for the European Union, Germany, Canada and Australia). Such sectors are inherently susceptible to a range of internal and external threats (a description of threats related to critical infrastructure can be found here). Intentional disruptions to critical infrastructure operations might initiate a chain reaction and paralyze the supply of essential services. This can, in turn, trigger major threats to the social, economic, and ecological security and the defense capacity of a state.

Georgia’s Exposure to Risks

Identifying and assessing the specific dimensions of Georgia’s exposure to risks related to Russian business ownership provides a useful foundation for designing policy responses. This brief identifies six distinct threats in this regard.

Political Influence

Russia’s business and political interests are closely intertwined, making it challenging to differentiate their respective motives. This interconnectedness can act as a channel for exerting political influence in Georgia. Russians that have ownership stakes in Georgian industries (e.g. within electricity, communications, oil and gas, mining and mineral waters) have political ties with the Russian ruling elite facing Western sanctions, or are facing sanctions themselves. For instance, Mikhail Fridman, who owns up to 50 percent of the mineral water company IDS Borjomi, is sanctioned for supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine. Such interlacing raises concerns about indirect Russian influence in Georgia, potentially undermining Georgia’s Western aspirations.

Export of Corrupt Practices

The presence of notable Russian businesses in Georgia poses a significant threat in terms of it nurturing corrupt practices. Concerns include “revolving door” incidents (movement of upper-level public officials into high-level private-sector jobs, or vice versa), tax evasion, and exploitation of the public procurement system.  For instance, Transparency International Georgia (2023) identified a “revolving door” incident concerning the Russian company Inter RAO Georgia LLC, involved in electricity trading, and its regulator, the Georgian state-owned Electricity Market Operator JSC (ESCO). One day after Inter RAO Georgia LLC was registered, the director of ESCO took a managerial position within Inter RAO Georgia LLC. Furthermore, tax evasion inquiries involving Russian-owned companies have been documented in the region, particularly in Armenia, further highlighting corruption risks. We argue that such corrupt practices might harm the business environment and deter future international investments.

Economic Manipulation

A heavy concentration of foreign ownership in critical sectors like energy and telecommunications, also poses a risk of manipulation of economic instruments such as prices. The significant Russian ownership in Armenia’s gas distribution network exemplifies this threat. In fact, Russia utilized a price manipulation strategy for gas prices when Armenia declared its EU aspirations. Prices were then reduced after Armenia joined the Eurasian Economic Union (Terzyan, 2018).

Espionage

Russian-owned businesses within Georgia’s critical sectors also pose espionage risks, including economic and cyber espionage. Owners of such businesses may transfer sensitive information to Russian intelligence agencies, potentially undermining critical infrastructure operations. As an example, in 2022, a Swedish business owner in electronic trading and former Russian resident, was indicted with transferring secret economic information to Russia. Russian cyber-espionage is also known to be used for worldwide disinformation campaigns impacting public opinion and election results, compromising democratic processes.

Sabotage

The presence of Russian-owned businesses in Georgia raises the risk of sabotage and incapacitation of critical assets. Russia has a history of using sabotage to harm other countries, such as when they disrupted Georgia’s energy supply in 2006 and the recent Kakhovka Dam destruction in Ukraine (which had far-reaching consequences, incurring environmental damages, and posing a threat to nuclear plants). These incidents demonstrate the risk of cascading effects, potentially affecting power supply, businesses, and locations strategically important to Georgia’s security.

Sanctions and Sanction Evasion

Russian-owned businesses in Georgia face risks due to Western sanctions as they could be targeted by sanctions or used to evade them. Recent cases, like with IDS Borjomi (as previously outlined) and VTB Bank Georgia – companies affected by Western sanctions given their Russian connections – highlight Georgia’s economic vulnerability in this regard. Industries where these businesses operate play a significant role in Georgia’s economy and job market, and instabilities within such sectors could entail social and political concerns. There’s also a risk that these businesses could help Russia bypass sanctions and gain access to sensitive goods and technologies, going against Georgia’s support for international sanctions against Russia. It is crucial to prevent such sanctions-associated risks for the Georgian economy.

Assessing the Risks

To operationalize the above detailed risks, we conducted interviews with Georgian field experts within security, economics, and energy. The risk assessment highlights political influence through Russian ownership in Georgian businesses as the foremost concern, followed by risks of corruption, risks related to sanctions, espionage, economic manipulation, and sabotage. We asked the experts to assess the severity level for each identified risk and notably, all identified risks carry a high severity level.

Recommendations

Considering the concerns detailed in the previous sections, we argue that Russia poses a threat in the Georgian context. Given the scale and concentration of Russian ownership within critical sectors and infrastructure, a dedicated policy regime might be required to improve regulation and minimize the associated risks. Three recommendations could be efficient in this regard, as outlined below.

Study the Impact of Adopting a Foreign Direct Investment Screening Mechanism

To effectively address ownership-related threats, it’s essential to modify existing investment policies. One approach is to introduce a FDI screening mechanism with specific functionalities. Several jurisdictions implement mechanisms with similar features (see a recent report by UNCTAD for further details). Usually, such mechanisms target FDI’s that have security implications. A dedicated screening authority overviews investment that might be of concern for national security and after assessment, an investment might be approved or suspended. In Georgia, a key consideration for designing such tool includes whether it should selectively target investments from countries like Russia or apply to all incoming FDI. Additionally, there’s a choice between screening all investments or focusing on those concerning critical sectors and infrastructure. Evaluating the investment volume, possibly screening only FDI’s exceeding a predefined monetary value, is also a vital aspect to consider. However, it’s important to acknowledge that FDI screening mechanisms are costly. Therefore, this brief suggests a thorough cost and benefit analysis prior to implementing a FDI screening regime in Georgia.

Consider Russian Ownership-related Threats in the National Security Documents

Several national-level documents address security policy in Georgia, with the National Security Concept – outlining security directions – being a foundational one. Currently, these concepts do not specifically address Russian business ownership-related threats. When designing an FDI screening mechanism, however, acknowledging various risks related to Russian business ownership must be aligned with fundamental national security documents.

Foster the Adoption of a Critical Infrastructural Reform

To successfully implement a FDI screening mechanism unified, nationwide agreement on the legal foundations for identifying and safeguarding critical infrastructure is needed. The current concept for critical infrastructure reform in Georgia envisages a definition of critical infrastructure and an implementation of an FDI screening mechanism. We therefore recommend implementing this reform in the country.

Conclusion

This policy brief has identified six distinct risks related to Russian business ownership in several sectors of the Georgian economy, such as energy, communications, oil and natural gas, and mining and mineral waters. Even though Georgia does not have a unified definition of critical infrastructure, assets concentrated in these sectors are regarded as critical according to international standards. Considering Russia’s track record of hostility and bearing in mind threats related to foreign business ownership by malign states, this brief suggests regulating Russian business ownership in Georgia by introducing a FDI screening instrument. To operationalize this recommendation, it is further recommended to consider Russian business ownership-related threats in Georgia’s fundamental security documents and to foster critical infrastructural reform in the country.

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.

The Role of Belarusian Private Sector

Posted on January 19, 2015 | Policy Brief

The development of a private sector and the expansion of its role in the economy is one of the key goals repeatedly announced by the Belarusian authorities. The reforms carried out in Belarus in 2006-2014 moved the country from 106th to 57th position in the World Bank Doing Business ranking. The official statement is that reforms boosted the rapid development of business initiatives and its impact on economic development. Unfortunately, there is no clear confirmation of this statement. The absence of a transparent and clear methodology in Belarusian statistics on how to evaluate the role of the private sector makes it difficult to evaluate the exact input of the Belarusian business in the economy and compare its role to other countries.

In the last 5 years, the Belarusian authorities have repeatedly highlighted the need to develop the private sector, perceiving it as the main source for sustainable economic growth and competitiveness of Belarus in the future.

However, it may be difficult to assess the real role of the private sector in the Belarusian economy. First, existing data do not allow a clear identification of the boundaries between the private and state-owned sectors in Belarus. Furthermore, there are certain methodological differences in identifying and evaluating the private sector between Belarusian official statistics, the World Bank approach and alternative methodologies. These methodological variations combined with data limitations result in significantly different estimates of the role of the private sector for the Belarusian economy. The problem concerns both the evaluation of the role of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the private sector in general.

Small and Medium Enterprises

One good example of the abovementioned data issue is the statistics for SMEs sector. Unlike the EU, Belarus does not include individual entrepreneurs to the micro organizations in the SME sector. This results in highly different estimates for the number of SMEs per 1000 inhabitants (Figure 1). If we follow the methodology of the National Statistical Committee of the Republic of Belarus (Belstat), the number is 9.7 firms per 1000 people. However, switching to the EU methodology (IFC report, 2013) raises the number significantly up to 35.9. Moreover, the inclusion of unregistered self-employed individuals involved in the shadow economy (which according to estimations of the authorities amount to at least 100,000 inhabitants) increases the number to 46.5 firms per 1000 people, which is above the level of many European countries.

Figure 1. SME density

figure1Source: own estimations from Belstat data, Eurostat.

Private Sector

As for the private sector in general, the problem here is that the official statistics counts enterprises with mixed form of ownership and state presence to the private sector. This makes it difficult, if at all possible, to obtain the exact input of the private sector to the economy and see the dynamics of its change.

More specifically, there are three potential ways to assess the contribution of the private sector. Unfortunately none of them provides reliable estimates of the role of business. The first method is to use official data. The main problem here is that the private sector according to official statistics includes enterprises with state presence as well as large private companies that are under state control and not totally independent. Thus, the contribution of the private sector calculated based on these figures is likely overestimated.

The second method is to look at enterprises that do not report to the Belarusian ministries, following the methodology of the World Bank used in their evaluation of Belarus machinery industry (Cuaresma et al., 2012). Here, non-ministry reporting enterprises work as a proxy for a private firm, as in this case it doesn’t have to report directly to Belarusian ministries and is independent from the state.

The problem is that the majority of large private enterprises, even though there is no state share in them, are not in this list. In Belarus these enterprises often form a part of state concerns on the one hand and are independent on the other. The example here is JSC “Milavitsa”, one of the largest lingerie producers in EE, which is a part of the Bellegprom concern. Therefore, this methodology likely underestimates the role of the private sector.

The third way is to try to exclude state presence from the official data of the private sector. According to official statistics, the private sector includes several groups of enterprises, such as individual entrepreneurs, legal entities with/without state/foreign presence, etc. However, the absence of a clear distinction between these sub-groups allows for only rough estimates, through the extraction of the state presence.

As a result, all obtained numbers are qualitatively different from each other and there is no clear answer if any of them reflects the real picture.

For example, the contribution of the private sector in total employment according to the three different methods (Figure 2) provides the following results. Officially, in 2013 around 53% of the active labor force worked in the private sector. However, the exclusion of state presence in private property changes the results significantly and the share of the active labor force involved in the private sector drops to a level of 31%, while the non-ministry reporting enterprises employ around 18% of the active labor force.

Figure 2. Private sector in employment (%)

figure2Source: own estimations from Belstat data.

The input of the private sector in the total production volume (Figure 3) is also very diverse depending on the method of evaluation. Official data show that the private sector is responsible for 80% of total production volume. However, the exclusion of state presence decreases the value to a level of just 26%, which is similar to the result demonstrated by the non-ministry reporting enterprises (25%).

Figure 3. Private sector in total production volume (%)

figure3Source: own estimations from Belstat data.

At the same time, the absence of a clear definition of the private sector does not allow for obtaining reliable information about its effectiveness. If we take the rate of return on assets (ROA), again, there is a significant gap in the results of the different methods of estimation (Figure 4). ROA of the private sector according to official statistics is significantly lower than similar indicators based on the data obtained by the other two methods (in 2013: 1.17 vs. 2.4 and 1.3 respectively). Thus, the lower the “measured” state presence, the higher is the productivity of the private sector, especially in comparison with the effectiveness of the state sector (0.25).

Figure 4. Return on Assets (BYR/BYR)

figure4Source: own estimations from Belstat data.

Conclusion

The above discussion has illustrated that diffuseness of data and the definition of the private sector is likely to create troubles for understanding the importance of the private sector in Belarus. This, in turn, may undermine the effectiveness of economic and political measures targeted towards this sector.

The implementation of a clear, unified and transparent methodology of how to estimate the role of business and what exactly can be treated as a private sector in statistics would allow for a better understanding of the obstacles and barriers that the private sector is dealing with, as well as to help developing effective measures of business support. Until then, the official statistics should not stick to just one definition of the private sector. Instead, it can use all three abovementioned gradations, as a better reflection of the realities of Belarusian business.

References

  • Cuaresmo, J., Oberhofer, H., Vincelette, G. (2012).‘Firm Growth and Productivity in Belarus: New Empirical Evidence in the Machine Building Industry’, World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 6005.
  • ‘Business Environment in Belarus 2013.Survey of Commercial Enterprises and Individual Entrepreneurs’, IFC, Report.