Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assertive foreign policy stance of recent years reflects the confidence that comes with a booming economy. In 1999, the year before Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president, Russia’s GDP was a paltry $200 billion. By last year, it had reached $1 trillion. Real growth has averaged 7% for eight years, and real incomes have grown by roughly 10% per year. Russia’s budget surplus has stood at more than 7% of GDP in the last two years, public debt has dwindled to only 8% of GDP, from 100% in 1999, and the current account surplus has averaged at 10% of GDP for the last eight years.
But Russia’s stellar economic performance has little to do with Putin’s policy, and a lot to do with the reforms Yeltsin embraced. By 1998, Russia already had achieved a critical mass of markets and private enterprise, while the financial crash of that year worked like a catharsis, forcing the government to abolish enterprise subsidies that underpinned a devastating budget deficit of some 9% of GDP. Moreover, world oil prices that had fallen to $10 a barrel started rising toward the stratosphere. The whole success story thus was in place in early 1999, one year before Putin entered the stage.
To be sure, Putin should be praised for substantial economic reforms during his first three years. A new tax code was adopted, with lower and fewer taxes, notably a flat income tax of 13%. The civil code was completed, a new customs code was enacted, and substantial judicial reform was implemented.
At the same time, however, Putin has systematically eliminated the rudimentary democracy Yeltsin had build. One television channel after another was taken over by the state under various pretexts, as were major newspapers. Opposition candidates and parties were denied registration for the slightest formal complaint. Falsification of elections became the rule.
Many prominent Russians favored the Pinochet model of authoritarian politics and liberal economics. But growing authoritarianism also hit business. In October 2003, Putin cracked down on Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the CEO and main owner of Yukos oil, Russia’s most valuable company, who was thrown into prison on dubious charges of tax fraud after backing Putin’s political opponents. Moreover, Putin’s associates wanted Yukos’ wealth, which was confiscated by the state oil company Rosneft through lawless taxation, leaving Putin’s tax reform and judicial reform in tatters and severely undermining property rights.
In fact, since 2003, Putin’s main economic policy has been re-nationalization. Well-run private companies have been more or less forced to sell out to state-dominated companies. Gazprom is buying up oil (Sibneft), gas, and power companies at knockdown prices, reinforcing its monopoly. That, in turn, allows Gazprom to boost its profitability through price increases, despite stagnant production. Indeed, with state companies now producing one-third of Russia’s oil, output growth has plummeted, as owners of private enterprises – the source of dynamism in the sector – are now afraid to invest in new capacity. Among foreign investors, both Shell and TNK-BP are being pushed out by Gazprom in their main gas fields in Russia.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Beyond oil and gas, Russia’s arms export agency, Rosoboronexport, has just seized Avtovaz, the giant dysfunctional Soviet car factory, and VSMPO-Avisma, Russia’s big titanium company, while all aircraft production has been concentrated in one state company. The government cheers this re-nationalization, although it has reduced Russia’s industrial growth from 8.3% in 2004 to 4% in the last two years.
Similarly, inefficient state banks – far inferior to private banks even in Kazakhstan or Ukraine – dominate the banking system. The not very profitable state-owned Vneshtorgbank, for example, is on a buying spree, aggravating the quality of Russian banking.
Increasingly, Russia’s oil surpluses drive economic growth through rising investment, which boosts construction and consumption, in turn benefiting retail trade and finance. With personal incomes rising strongly, poverty is declining, while 68% of Russia’s college-age youth now attend universities.
But other social indicators are unimpressive. Life expectancy for men is stuck at 59. The murder rate is even higher under Putin than it was under Yeltsin, as is the traffic death rate. None of the big public systems – education, health care, or the military – has been reformed, and the regime shows little interest in doing so.
Instead, the Kremlin is preoccupied with the profitability and value of the state-dominated companies that it controls. Not surprisingly, all corruption indicators have been rising since Putin took over from Yeltsin, whereas they are falling in most post-communist countries. Although corruption is pervasive, no top official has been prosecuted.
Putin and his KGB friends from St. Petersburg sit safely on all this wealth, thanks to their authoritarian governance and control over all security organs. Such a powerful apparatus cannot retire to a quiet life in a dacha as Yeltsin did – it would have to privatize everything first – which implies that Putin has no choice but to remain in office, regardless of what he says about not seeking a third presidential term. But if he holds on to power contrary to the constitution, his popularity could easily collapse, especially as his economic policy has thrived on luck, not reform.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
While the Democrats have won some recent elections with support from Silicon Valley, minorities, trade unions, and professionals in large cities, this coalition was never sustainable. The party has become culturally disconnected from, and disdainful of, precisely the voters it needs to win.
thinks Kamala Harris lost because her party has ceased to be the political home of American workers.
This year’s many elections, not least the heated US presidential race, have drawn attention away from the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku. But global leaders must continue to focus on combating the climate crisis and accelerating the green transition both in developed and developing economies.
foresees multilateral development banks continuing to play a critical role in financing the green transition.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assertive foreign policy stance of recent years reflects the confidence that comes with a booming economy. In 1999, the year before Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president, Russia’s GDP was a paltry $200 billion. By last year, it had reached $1 trillion. Real growth has averaged 7% for eight years, and real incomes have grown by roughly 10% per year. Russia’s budget surplus has stood at more than 7% of GDP in the last two years, public debt has dwindled to only 8% of GDP, from 100% in 1999, and the current account surplus has averaged at 10% of GDP for the last eight years.
But Russia’s stellar economic performance has little to do with Putin’s policy, and a lot to do with the reforms Yeltsin embraced. By 1998, Russia already had achieved a critical mass of markets and private enterprise, while the financial crash of that year worked like a catharsis, forcing the government to abolish enterprise subsidies that underpinned a devastating budget deficit of some 9% of GDP. Moreover, world oil prices that had fallen to $10 a barrel started rising toward the stratosphere. The whole success story thus was in place in early 1999, one year before Putin entered the stage.
To be sure, Putin should be praised for substantial economic reforms during his first three years. A new tax code was adopted, with lower and fewer taxes, notably a flat income tax of 13%. The civil code was completed, a new customs code was enacted, and substantial judicial reform was implemented.
At the same time, however, Putin has systematically eliminated the rudimentary democracy Yeltsin had build. One television channel after another was taken over by the state under various pretexts, as were major newspapers. Opposition candidates and parties were denied registration for the slightest formal complaint. Falsification of elections became the rule.
Many prominent Russians favored the Pinochet model of authoritarian politics and liberal economics. But growing authoritarianism also hit business. In October 2003, Putin cracked down on Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the CEO and main owner of Yukos oil, Russia’s most valuable company, who was thrown into prison on dubious charges of tax fraud after backing Putin’s political opponents. Moreover, Putin’s associates wanted Yukos’ wealth, which was confiscated by the state oil company Rosneft through lawless taxation, leaving Putin’s tax reform and judicial reform in tatters and severely undermining property rights.
In fact, since 2003, Putin’s main economic policy has been re-nationalization. Well-run private companies have been more or less forced to sell out to state-dominated companies. Gazprom is buying up oil (Sibneft), gas, and power companies at knockdown prices, reinforcing its monopoly. That, in turn, allows Gazprom to boost its profitability through price increases, despite stagnant production. Indeed, with state companies now producing one-third of Russia’s oil, output growth has plummeted, as owners of private enterprises – the source of dynamism in the sector – are now afraid to invest in new capacity. Among foreign investors, both Shell and TNK-BP are being pushed out by Gazprom in their main gas fields in Russia.
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Beyond oil and gas, Russia’s arms export agency, Rosoboronexport, has just seized Avtovaz, the giant dysfunctional Soviet car factory, and VSMPO-Avisma, Russia’s big titanium company, while all aircraft production has been concentrated in one state company. The government cheers this re-nationalization, although it has reduced Russia’s industrial growth from 8.3% in 2004 to 4% in the last two years.
Similarly, inefficient state banks – far inferior to private banks even in Kazakhstan or Ukraine – dominate the banking system. The not very profitable state-owned Vneshtorgbank, for example, is on a buying spree, aggravating the quality of Russian banking.
Increasingly, Russia’s oil surpluses drive economic growth through rising investment, which boosts construction and consumption, in turn benefiting retail trade and finance. With personal incomes rising strongly, poverty is declining, while 68% of Russia’s college-age youth now attend universities.
But other social indicators are unimpressive. Life expectancy for men is stuck at 59. The murder rate is even higher under Putin than it was under Yeltsin, as is the traffic death rate. None of the big public systems – education, health care, or the military – has been reformed, and the regime shows little interest in doing so.
Instead, the Kremlin is preoccupied with the profitability and value of the state-dominated companies that it controls. Not surprisingly, all corruption indicators have been rising since Putin took over from Yeltsin, whereas they are falling in most post-communist countries. Although corruption is pervasive, no top official has been prosecuted.
Putin and his KGB friends from St. Petersburg sit safely on all this wealth, thanks to their authoritarian governance and control over all security organs. Such a powerful apparatus cannot retire to a quiet life in a dacha as Yeltsin did – it would have to privatize everything first – which implies that Putin has no choice but to remain in office, regardless of what he says about not seeking a third presidential term. But if he holds on to power contrary to the constitution, his popularity could easily collapse, especially as his economic policy has thrived on luck, not reform.