At least half of the cost of the final product, created at Russian enterprises, accounted for by imported components
In the first and second articles on this topic, I talked about that import dominance, which deprived Russia of economic independence. At first, in the domestic market of consumer goods, imports dominate in many product groups. Secondly, products of many enterprises, operating on the territory of Russia, can only conditionally be called domestic: its production is carried out with the help of the same import.
At first, import of parts and components, who come to Russia from abroad.
Secondly, machinery and equipment, where the final product is produced.
Thirdly, mineral resources and products of their first, rough redistribution, which are imported to Russia from other countries.
At least half of the cost of the final product, created at domestic enterprises, accounted for by imported components. FROM 2014 of the year, when the first economic sanctions began to be announced against Russia, the Russian authorities launched more than two dozen import substitution programs, calculated up to 2020 of the year. They all failed. Import dependence on some product groups has become even more critical during this time. Of all factors of production, used in the Russian economy, perhaps, only one factor remains predominantly domestic - the labor force.
I have written and spoken many times, that our country has been in such situations of the highest import dependence, who threatened her with the complete loss of national sovereignty. they say, at the turn 19-20 centuries. industrialization began in the Russian Empire. But she was selective (the creation of mainly production facilities for the extraction of minerals and their primary redistribution - oil, coal industry, coke production, ferrous metallurgy, production of simple metal products, etc.). Such a truncated industrialization only increased Russia's import dependence.. Here is the data on the share of imports in covering the internal needs of the Russian Empire on the eve of the First World War for individual goods on 1913 year (%):
cotton fiber – 46,9
Wool – 21,8
Tea – 99,9
Lead – 97,4
Zinc – 90,3
Aluminum – 100,0
Nickel – 100,0
Coal – 17,7
Coke – 18,0
Cement – 8,5
Paper – 21,0
Superphosphate – 52,1
Tractor – 100
Cars – 100
Machine tools – 85
Machines for industry – 60
Machinery for agriculture – 58
As you can see, for all types of engineering products, import dependence was higher 50 percent, and for some reached 100%. For the first time, the task of withdrawing Russia from semi-colonial dependence on the leading capitalist countries was set in the context of the country's industrialization plan at the XIV Congress of the CPSU (b) December 1925 of the year. In contrast to the truncated industrialization of pre-revolutionary Russia, this was already a comprehensive industrialization.
Today the skeptics say, that more or less complete import substitution is possible, but it will take several decades. breakwater, too deep we are bogged down in the swamp of import dependence in all directions. In October, the Federation Council held parliamentary hearings on the issue of supporting import substitution. There were many interesting facts and figures. Since 2015 by 2021 year in import substitution projects, according to the Federation Council Committee on Economic Policy, over invested 3 trillion rubles, while direct government funding amounted to over 500 bn. so, within a seven-year period, the average annual cost of import substitution amounted to about 430 billion rubles., and the average annual level of budget financing was a little over 70 bn. AT 2015-2021 years, the amount of budgetary support for import substitution was simply ridiculous - less than 0,5 percent of all federal budget expenditures. Not surprising, that with this level of funding, all announced in 2014 import substitution programs failed miserably. At the parliamentary hearings, some indicators of the draft document awaiting approval were announced.Manufacturing Industry Development Strategy», prepared by the Ministry of Industry. Some target indicators of the "Strategy" cannot but depress. Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Economic Policy Alexey Sinitsyn at the hearings drew attention to the "holes" in the "Strategy": “for example, machinery for the mining industry. Few manufacturers, and they are from unfriendly countries: Caterpillar - from America, Liebherr - from Germany, Komatsu, Hitachi - from Japan. They all left our market, but for some reason we do not discuss, how to replace this technique. Bye and technique, and spare parts are supplied under previously concluded contracts, but, if supplies stop, what will our miners do?“
Machine tool building is called one of the priorities of import substitution. And at the same time, the development of domestic production of machine tools on 2023 year, a homeopathic dose is allocated from the budget in 1 bn. TO 2030 year, supposed, domestic machine-tool equipment on the market will be 38%. And the rest 62% where will we get?
But all import substitution can be carried out on time, not exceeding one decade. And this is evidenced by the experience of industrialization in the USSR. I will give some data from the informative book of the pre-war period: Mishustin D. D. Foreign trade and industrialization of the USSR. - M.: “international book”. 1938 g.
The key to the success of industrialization, according to the author of the book, was to meet several key conditions. At first, maximizing the share of capital goods in imports (cars and equipment, raw materials, metals and so on.) with the reduction of all other product groups. Secondly, carrying out industrialization and import substitution according to certain algorithms (heavy industry first, then processing (especially mechanical engineering), then engineering for defense needs). Thirdly, the fastest possible commissioning of imported means of production, build-up on their basis of domestic production, including the production of means of production (group of industries "A"). D. Mishustin identifies three stages in the development of Soviet imports in the pre-war period.
First step can be conditionally called the acceleration period, or run (my names). D. Mishustin calls it a "recovery period". His time frame: 1925-1928 gg.
Second phase can be called a jerk, or jump. D. Mishustin calls it a "sharp rise". It's also about four years old: 1929-1932 gg.
The third stage can be called "shifting the center of gravity to domestic production" and the gradual curtailment of imports. Such folding has been observed with 1933 year and continued until the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.
I'll give you some numbers, illustrating the evolution of Soviet imports. First step. AT 1924 year, all imports of the USSR amounted to 1.138,8 billion rubles., and the next year it grew to 2.274,5 bn. (at constant prices 1913 of the year), ie. doubled. And at about this level was 1928 inclusive. At this stage, there was a sharp increase in the share of capital goods (cars, equipment, raw materials and semi-finished products). In particular, share of machinery and equipment in imports in 1925 year was equal to 16,6%, and to 1928 year it grew to 30,3%. In value terms, imports of machinery and equipment grew at the first stage from 526,0 million rubles. to 1.256,6 million rubles., ie. at 2,5 fold.
Second phase - four years of the first five-year plan (which, as is known, completed ahead of schedule, at four). This is a period of a sharp increase in imports. Here is the data by year (million rubles. in prices 1913 of the year): 1929 g. – 2911,8; 1930 g. – 3956,0; 1931 g. – 5166,6 1932 g. – 4285,4. Based on your calculations, D. Mishustin writes: «…almost half of the goods, imported by the Soviet country for all the years of its existence, was only imported 4 years of the first five-year plan». The record volume of imports for all the pre-war years of the Soviet state fell on 1931 year. At the same time, a steady increase in the share of industrial goods in imports continued.. In particular, on machinery and equipment in imports in 1929 year had 33,6%, 1930 year – 51,2%, 1931 year – 60,1%. The value of such imports was (million rubles.): 1929 g. – 1295,6; 1930 g. – 2374,4; 1931 g. – 2909,2. In value terms, imports of machinery and equipment in 1931 year exceeded 1925 year 5,5 fold. by the way, 1931 the year turned out to be a record one, and according to this indicator, as a share of manufacturing imports in total imports. He equaled 93,2% (consumer imports, conversely, had the lowest share 6,8%). For comparison, I note, what in 1928 share of manufacturing imports (cars and equipment, metals, raw materials for light industry) in total imports was equal to 64%.
Notably, that in the early 1930s the USSR continued to occupy a rather modest position in terms of total imports. On average, over the years of the first five-year plan, the share of Soviet imports in world imports barely exceeded 2%. It was smaller in size than imports not only of the major imperialist powers, but even less than the imports of such countries, like Argentina, Australia, Czechoslovakia. For comparison, we indicate, that the share of the United States in world imports from 1929 by 1932 g. ranged from 12,3% to 8,5%, England - from 17,9 to 15,3%, France - from 9,0% to 6,5%, Germany - from 9,1% to 7,8% and Italy from 3,4% to 2,9%. Soviet imports, even in the years of the highest deployment, were lower than the average annual imports of tsarist Russia in the pre-war period. At the same time, the USSR 1931, 1932 and 1933 gg. the USSR, as noted by D. Mishustin, ranked first in the world as a buyer of machinery and equipment. AT 1931 g. The USSR bought about one third, and 1932 g. - about half of the world's exports of all machines (apart from cars).
The third stage coincided with the beginning of the second five-year plan (1933-1937 gg.). By this time, it was possible to create the foundation of Soviet industry, and not only heavy (mining, metallurgy, energetics), but partly processing, primarily mechanical engineering. The book contains many interesting figures., indicating a sharp reduction in the volume of Soviet imports, including machinery and equipment. I will give only one quote on this subject from the mentioned book.: «Suffice it to say, what in 1937 g. import of cars was in 10 times less than imports of cars 1931 city, when this import reached its highest level». Here is such a "maneuver" carried out by the Soviet Union in the period between the two world wars: sharply increased imports of investment goods in order to, then to refuse import in general.
The same import maneuver is necessary for today's Russia. However, for this it needs an Economic Development Strategy and economic mobilization. If they will, The Russian Federation will be able to emancipate itself from imports by the end of this decade and become a powerful and independent power.
A photo: stolicaonego.ru
Valentin KATASONOV
