December 23, 2015

Just Another Year for Putin!

We all are desperately waiting for another New Year. People stay awake to witness the clock strike 12 midnight and celebrate as they enter the New Year. They regard the New Year with some expectations, ambitions and resolutions but for the great strategist Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, it will be just another year of his autocratic yet dexterous rule. This post hovers around Putin administration and the way one of the most opaque systems work in Moscow! 

Russia is a federal democracy tainted by corruption and massively influenced by the power and personality of one man- Vladimir Putin. Russia, the largest nation to evolve out of the erstwhile USSR, adopted a new constitution in 1993 preceded and followed by a coup and constitutional crisis respectively. Both of these efforts weren't able to challenge or in any way affect the absolute power that the President had been given thanks to the new Constitution.

This trend of autocracy commenced by President Yeltsin and passed on to his handpicked successor Putin, has made the Russian political regime, centered rather than centrist (as the political party United Russia claims it to be). The current political structure in Russia though constitutes of the State Duma and also the Federation Council, the political life in Russia is dominated by a coterie of generals and KGB veterans called as siloviki.

The result- an atmosphere of paranoia and aggression. Officials seen as sympathetic towards the West are sidelined and the ones who wanted to stop Russia from entering another Cold War with the West are discarded from Putin's circle. A lot of critiques say that there is a danger of Russia going backward. Realizable (if you have a look at the negative GDP growth rate of Russia)!  

Why Putin is Irremovable? 

Really interesting is the way the siloviki works or rather the way Putin makes it work. It is very difficult to break into the opacity of its working since its members have not spoken to media for years together. But a political expert created a diagram titled Politburo 2.0 which remarkably gave a believable insight into the siloviki. The members of the siloviki are old friends of Putin. He trusts people who are true and tried. The reason why the Politburo remains united is because of the personal bond its members have formed with Putin.

One of the most significant features of Putin's politburo is that it doesn't have general meetings. The whole siloviki doesn't ever sit together. It instead consists of certain elite groups which can be referred to as security, political, technical, business etc. Putin meets a single elite group at once rather than the whole Politburo at once. Putin, therefore, keeps his circle divided into clans and factions that seldom meet once. This helps any group from creating a coalition against Putin. Putin remains, even if unpopular, irremovable. Very smart on Putin's part, I have to accept. 
However, there are some drawbacks too. As rival factions in the same Politburo compete with each other, they exaggerate the threats that Russia faces. For example, the intelligence service might overstate the threat of foreign spies while the oil and gas tycoons might exaggerate the risk of external competition. Since Putin meets each faction separately, he hears of threats everywhere.. This informal system gives rise to paranoia and creates an unhealthy atmosphere. Rather than solving problems that pertain for the whole nation collectively, the Politburo stresses upon personal interests or the interests of a particular elite group. 

This kind of an informal relationship, has another flaw and that well, is very evident. There is an over dependence on one man. As I said above it is more of a centered system rather than a centrist system. The nation is Putin and Putin is the nation. The working of the siloviki without the already 63 year old, is as of now unimaginable. 

Well Played, Putin! 

Putin is popularly known as the strategist (No wonder). His ambidexterity has not only made him the center of Russian government machinery, but also his visionary strategies have tightened his grip over Russia. Constant efforts of making Putin unpopular, have been reflected to benefit Putin. One of the many such instances is the case of Western sanctions. The members of Putin's circle have their children studying in the West, their bank accounts in the West. They own Western assets. The sanctions imposed by the West on Russia was a method of creating an opposition to Putin's radical policies against the West. But sorry! The West lost here. 

Putin had been urging elites to store 'their fortunes in Russia instead of stashing them in the offshore bank accounts' (as TIME magazine puts it). Many of them were slow to comply before the sanctions put their assets at the risk of being frozen in the West. However, now the fortunes of these elites are much closer to Russia, in other words, the elites are much closer to Putin. So if Western leaders were expecting Putin's allies to mount a palace coup, disappointment. It not only allowed him to tighten his grip on the siloviki, but also intensified the everlasting and unending altercation between the West and Russia. Thanks to Putin's adroitness, the Western sanctions seemed to be gaucherie.     

A New Year for Russia or not?

Putin's term ends in 2018, and he is going to stand again as President in 2018. If he wins a second term, which he surely will (legitimate or illegitimate), Putin is going to be in his early 70s by the time he ends up with his second term. Therefore, there are no signs of the political structure changing in Russia till 2024 (not even a New Decade, forget about a New Year). 

Not only that, as TIME magazine presents it, in a system where 'all institutions are eclipsed by one man, there is no way to know' what happens when he is gone. Of course, Putin isn't immortal (though his persona is). The question is what happens, if say he has a heart attack. An already shambled Russia would be in disarray as the struggle for control would break and some of his friends would be in 'slivers of flesh.' 

Putin is clever, diplomatic and as I fondly call him- strategist. But having said that, I somewhat agree with what one of his chief adviser once said," I don't think that it is out of cleverness that Putin has made everybody afraid of his departure. It's just that he doesn't know how to do it the other way."     

A salute to the Forbes #1 "Most Powerful People" for his dexterity, a happy New Year to all my readers and well, a happy 'just another year' to the Russians! 
Yours truly, Abhimanyu! 

Read more articles and intriguing stuff on FasciNative or click here.   
Do mail me to give your suggestions, opinions, feedback or simply a hello at

December 5, 2015

Is Shock Therapy the Savior of Economic Slowdown?- Case Studies of Poland, Russia, Chile and India

Recently, I have been researching on shock therapy and how the post-Soviet Russian economy could have been better handled! As a research document as present this post in which I have tried and analysed the failures and successes of shock therapy and its comparison to gradualism. This post also tries to answer the big question of determining when and where shock therapy must be adopted and where it mustn't ! In order to accomplish these objectives, this post draws a comparison between different economic recovery models. Hope you like it! 

Shock therapy basically refers to sudden liberalization and end of a state controlled economy. Within a very short period of time, the state's control over the prices and the market is omitted. This is usually done to hasten the process of transition from a socialist economy to a capitalist style of economy with the prices of commodities being dependent on the market forces like demand and supply. Though shock therapy has had diverse effects  from country to country, a certain pattern is identifiable as a result of certain research on the aftermaths of shock therapy in different countries.

According to this pattern, shock therapy has initial thumbs down! As a feature of the immediate impacts of shock therapy, unemployment mounts up and inflation rises. As PSUs are privatized and foreign companies enter the market, efficiency increases and hence, some jobs are initially destroyed. Also, if the country has formerly been a socialist country with a right to employment, the citizens of such a country fail to win a job in the competitive environment. However, over certain time, the graphs take a U-turn according to my research. Employment grows as more companies enter the market and create more jobs. Inflation goes down as a result of competition. Also, the quality of  products improves as privatization shows thumbs up!

However, as mentioned above, there have been certain versions of the pattern in different countries. In the post-Soviet Russia, shock therapy turned out to be a disastrous whereas, post- soviet Poland led a very successful shock therapy model. Chile (Pinochet's Regime) is an epitome of shock therapy worldwide. It is astonishing that all three of these examples are of shock therapy implementation at approximately the same period of time. Pinochet's regime extended from 1973 to 1990, post-soviet Poland during the initial 1990s and Russia from 1992-93. All three cases transited from a socialist economy, all three economies were in doldrums. Poland and Russia in fact where identical cases, both recently freed from the USSR. But the reason why the latter was failure lies below. 

Pinochet's Chile was a military dictatorship where Pinochet was the military dictator unlike Russia where democracy had taken birth and freedoms were being given in the 1990s during Yeltsin years. The difference in the political regime poses a significant impact on the economic conditions. While in Chile, Pinochet was free to take any actions of his choice and was unaccountable, Yeltsin in Russia was repeatedly questioned on his economic policies and criticized upon them. Within merely an year of introduction of the shock therapy, the Russian cabinet ended up in a constitutional crisis reasoned to the conflict between the President and the Cabinet over his policies. Yeltsin also had a constant constrain of the impact of his policies on the people as he was a part of a democratic government. this resisted Yeltsin to successfully lead the shock therapy model and his policies were supplemented by criticism and disfavoring. Yeltsin was not even given a chance to experiment with the economy. 

However, having said that, I would deny that shock therapy cannot be implemented in a democracy. Poland was a democracy like Russia, newly born country like Russia, part of the erstwhile Soviet Union like Russia and with its economy in shambles like Russia. It also experienced the same kind of international pressure and international economic conditions as Russia because both of them led their shock therapy models at approximately the same time. Then why did Poland succeed and Russia didn't? 

The answer lied in Poland's action plan. The sudden impacts of the shock therapy model hold paramount importance especially in a democratic nation. While in Russia, there was an immediate relaxation of influence of state on commodity prices, in Poland, prices of essential commodities like oil and gas were controlled by the government. Though other commodities had price rise, since the prices of essential commodities were kept low, subsistence wasn't endangered and the immediate impacts didn't have an extreme effect on the lives of common people. 

Another very important and significant policy of the Polish government was monetary contraction policy. The Polish government increased the interest rates on domestic loans and stopped printing more money. Since the interest rates on loans increased, people had less money and hence, they spent less. This controlled inflation as due to monetary contraction, the demand dropped.

Another very predominant fact behind the success of shock therapy in Poland was that the Polish population was relatively more experienced and educated. On the other hand, as Russia moved towards privatization, the Russian workforce couldn't earn jobs in the competitive environment where efficiency was held high unlike the former Soviet economy where everyone had the right to employment. Due to both of these reasons the predominant Russian population remained unemployed.

The growth of unemployment and inflation at the same time made shock therapy very unpopular. If the Russian government at that time would have adopted the monetary contraction policy along with the partial price controls and had launched a plan to educate and train its  workforce to earn jobs, the immediate shock of the therapy would have been diminished, if not vanished. 

Though there were some mistakes that Russia committed here and there with the shock therapy it might have worked out and would have brought fruits within 2-5 years with some consistent support from the Russian populace and the government. However, even this couldn't happen. Even as the Yeltsin and his set  of economic advisers along with the IMF and World Bank insisted him to continue with the shock therapy, Yeltsin had a great political pressure. He was becoming very unpopular and there were  attempts of coupe against him alleging him for his 'reckless and baseless' economic policy and 'authoritative' attitude. The scenario was such that the whole cabinet along with the majority of Russian population were against him merely, one year or so after the shock therapy was introduced. This brings me to an altogether different debate though, but the inference is that another drawback of the shock therapy in Russia was the waning control of Yeltsin over Russia and rising dissent against him. 

Therefore, a weak action plan with corruption, oligarchy and the waning control of Yeltsin over Russia along with the possession of a very poor populace and a negative feeling about the investment scenario in Russia and not to forget, frequent coupes brought the GDP growth of Russia in negatives in the years after 1991 disintegration of USSR. The failure of shock therapy in Russia can hence, be reasoned out to a set of things happening in post-Soviet Russia, all at the very wrong time and the success of shock therapy can be reasoned out to a set of things that just worked out at the very right moment. However, from none of the examples can we infer that the concept of shock therapy in itself reflects negatively on economic growth. 
Therefore, in order to understand whether shock therapy as a model is the savior of economic slowdown, lets take an example of India's transition from a State-controlled economy to a mixed economy by a gradual approach. In 1991, India's economy was at an all time low. After having about 40 years of rule by the Gandhi family, India's economy had become a Russia-like economy, with all kinds of state controls imposed, specifically during Indra Gandhi times. The people were starving and national debt was mounting up. Majority of the population was struck by poverty and India's GDP was worth 310.08 US dollars. There was an immediate need of change in economic policy and voila! The prime minister of India (at that time), P.V. Narasimha Rao and his finance minister and soon to be PM, Manmohan Singh, led one of the most successful and idealistic financial reforms in the country. 

The Rao-Singh reforms were also based up on relaxing market barriers and state control over the economy and facilitating foreign investment. The introduction of FDI was considered as the key to economic betterment and well, no doubt, it worked out. However, all the prices were not relived at once which eliminated the 'shock' element of the reforms.

However, even these economic reforms, which Shashi Tharoor  gave full marks to Rao for were criticized in democratic India as while these reforms benefited a majority of the Indian citizens, it arguably hurt the overprotected businessmen and their corrupt friends in bureaucracy. An end to subsidies directed towards state owned industries gave a chance to the political opponents to play politics. 

There is no doubt that the economic reform face serious political obstacles, resources have to be generated , investment privileged over consumption, higher prices are paid for many goods, sacrifices are made in the hope of later rewards but to a middle class Indian, it meant that he or she couldn't afford his/her favorite food item in the market or as Sandeep Waslekar puts it: 
A few million urbanites, white collar workers, large farmers, blackmarketeers could now drink Coke, watch Sony television, operate Hewlett Packard computers, drive Suzuki and use Parisian perfumes, while the rest would live in anguish!
Prime Minister Rao took all this into account, unlike President Yeltsin in Russia and adopted the strategy that he would undertake only those reforms that would be politically accepted to the public at large. This strategy of Rao could be summed up in words of a publication by The Economist which said: 
Rao appears to have reckoned that shock therapy would create losers straightaway, while creating winners only in the medium turn, and decided to leave some reforms to later, when winners had emerged.  
Therefore, the Rao-Singh reforms didn't allow the prices of oil and petroleum to fluctuate as per market forces which continue till even today. Even today, the prices of petroleum and other oil products are decided by the government though they are kept close to the actual market price. These reforms brought down inflation from 17% in 1991 to 7% in 1992 and a further 5.6% in 1993. Indian economy was saved and we continue to see the positive effects of those reforms even today in India. 


Determining whether gradualism or shock therapy is a savior of economic slowdown is subjective and depending on the situation. Shock therapy, if implemented, must supplement a plan to dampen its immediate effects. Howsoever strong the action plan for implementing shock therapy might be, there is always a risk or to some extent certainty of a having a negative impact in the immediate years however, the years that follow would also be equally or sometimes more rewarding. On the other hand, gradualism might not have a 'shock' element, but at the same time, it extends over years to deliver all its merits. 

In 1991 Poland, the GDP growth rate was -1.7% and that in 1991 India was 1.1%. Within four years 
of shock therapy implementation, Poland's GDP growth rate had increased by 14% from what it was before. At the same time India's GDP growth rate from what it was 4 years before 1995 had increased by only 6.5% by 1995. However, at the same time, 22 years from 1991, Poland's annual GDP growth rate stood at 1.7% whereas that of India stood at 5%. 

The inference that we can draw from this study is that over 3 or 4 years, the results of shock therapy are more overwhelming than the results of gradualism, however, over 20-30 years, gradualism would turn out to be a more stable approach than shock therapy (if considered in singularity). Therefore, shock therapy reforms are a short term reform mechanism, more volatile but immediate and gradualism is a long term reform strategy, not immediate but better over time and are less volatile with less risk of failure.

Thanks for reading! Yours truly, Abhimanyu!
Do mail me your feedback, suggestions and opinions on !
Subscribe and follow this blog- Fascinative- or click here !