Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

Today's paper. Last Updated: 02/08/2012

Life Is Not Fair

By Anders Åslund


One of the great heroes of our time, Yegor Gaidar, has passed away. In November 1991, after being appointed by President Boris Yeltsin as deputy prime minister, later acting prime minister and head of his reform team, Gaidar was responsible for transforming Soviet Russia into a market economy. He accomplished this Herculean task, and he did it peacefully. He belongs to history as one of Russia’s greatest reformers.

In 1991, Russia was bankrupt. Yeltsin and Gaidar appealed to the West for financial assistance, but the West offered no support (except for humanitarian aid) for the country’s market reform and democracy. This proved to be a moment of great folly in the West’s policy that later alienated Russia. Gaidar and his team of reformers had to fight completely on their own.

Gaidar led the reform charge with intelligence and determination. His three main policies were radical price liberalization, fiscal stabilization and privatization. The price liberalization in January 1992 was preceded by tremendous social tension. People thought that the sky was the limit for deregulated prices because of the huge monetary overhang. The authorities feared a popular explosion. But no public protest occurred, although prices rose instantly by 250 percent. Gradually, shortages diminished, and goods that had not been seen for years reappeared in shops. A market economy slowly but surely was taking shape. In addition, Gaidar daringly cut military procurement by 85 percent, swiftly reducing the military-industrial complex that until then had been seen as a sacred cow in the federal budget.

Gaidar was firm in his principles. He justified his radical early price deregulation: “There were no reserves to ease the hardships that would be caused by setting the economic mechanism in motion. It was impossible to put off liberalization of the economy until low structural reforms were enacted. If we did not act decisively, in two or three months we would have an economic and political catastrophe, total collapse and civil war,” he said in December 1991.

His problem, however, was that the reformers never gained control over the Central Bank, which pursued an extremely loose monetary policy, blocking all financial stabilization. Prices rose by 2,500 percent in 1992. Strangely, Gaidar was accused of strict monetarism, when the Central Bank’s opposition to monetary constraint was the problem.

After less than half a year, a motley crew of communists and nationalists mobilized in resistance. They blocked Gaidar’s reforms, and in early December 1992 they rallied in the Congress of People’s Deputies to have him ousted as acting prime minister. As a result, the reforms that Gaidar had started were put on hold. Russia completed its fiscal stabilization only after the financial crash of 1998, which was caused by loose fiscal policy long after Gaidar’s departure. When Russia’s budget deficit finally was eliminated, an average growth of 7 percent a year followed for almost a decade — from 1999 until 2008.

Life is not fair. Many Russians have blamed Gaidar’s “shock therapy” for economic misery, seemingly unaware that the Soviet Union and its economy had collapsed before he initiated reforms. The same people praise Vladimir Putin for the great economic growth since 1999, forgetting that growth started long before his first presidential term. Cause precedes effect. After major transformations, time — in Russia’s case several years — is needed before the effect is seen.

Gaidar rose to prominence in 1986 as the best and most erudite economist in the country. He set up his own Institute of Economic Policy in Moscow, where he had gathered the best and the brightest of Russia’s young economists. Like Gaidar, they were the children of the pre-eminent Soviet intelligentsia. When I visited his institute in June 1991, it was evident that Gaidar had gathered the best Russian economic team possible to take over the government.

In September 1991, Yeltsin understood that Gaidar was the man that the country needed to lead its economic reforms and appointed many members of Gaidar’s team to his government. Yeltsin later wrote: “It was high time to bring in an economist with his own original concept, possibly with his own team of people. Determined action was long overdue in the economy.”

Gaidar was actually the only Russian economist able to conceptualize a viable economic policy in this total crisis. He was greatly inspired by his good friend Leszek Balcerowicz’s radical market reforms in Poland in 1990. Soviet economics were ruefully backward, and even during the perestroika years it still clung to anachronistic elements of Marxism-Leninism.

No other economist came up with a comprehensive program. Neither ordinary Russians nor the elite had a clue what a market economy was. They preferred cherry-picking and did not understand the need for a consistent system. Without Gaidar, Russia could have easily ended up as Belarus with a Soviet-like economy (minus Soviet ideology).

At the time, Jeffrey Sachs, David Lipton and I had the privilege of assisting Gaidar as his economic advisers. We went to Moscow in September 1991 and met with different groups of economists who were competing to join Yeltsin’s government. Gaidar’s team was head and shoulders above the others. He welcomed all the help he could get. It was a chaotic time when everyone was working around the clock, but Gaidar and his friends did what it took in a desperate situation.

In 1993, Gaidar briefly returned to the government. After forming the liberal political party Democratic Choice of Russia, he was elected to the State Duma for two years. He was elected to the Duma again from 1999 to 2003 as a member of the Union of Right Forces .

In the end, however, he was more of an intellectual and brilliant economist than a politician. His passion was to sit at his dacha and write books. In one of Gaidar’s best books, “Collapse of an Empire,” he analyzed how the Soviet Union had fallen apart. His greatest work, however, is “Dolgoye Vremya,” a book about long-term economic growth that will soon be published in English. But he remained a prominent elder statesman as long as Yeltsin stayed in power. He was always a much-demanded speaker at prominent international conferences.

In Putin’s increasingly authoritarian and corrupt Russia, however, Gaidar felt deeply uncomfortable and frustrated. Even many years after he left the government, he was still attacked as a villain by the official media, leading Communists and nationalists. Labeled as a liberal and a democrat from the “ruinous 1990s,” Gaidar was no longer allowed to appear on government-controlled television to defend himself. He was essentially beaten with his hands bound behind his back.

Yet as a prominent intellectual and member of the establishment, open opposition to the government was alien to him. Gaidar considered crudeness beneath contempt. Always kind, he had many loyal friends and a large family. During Putin’s two presidential terms, the economic establishment paid close attention to Gaidar’s advice, but few of his reforms were ever instituted.

After Gaider left public service in 2003, he quietly wasted away. As a true Russian patriot, he had no thoughts of emigration, but he suffered every day. I last saw him in November. His pessimism about Russia’s future was profound. Although only 53 years old, Gaidar was a marked man.

Anders Aslund is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and author of “Russia’s Capitalist Revolution.”




Tags

reform



Also in Opinion

Realpolitik Without Realism

People have been asking me all week why the Kremlin is so stubbornly supportive of Syrian President Bashar Assad. "Is Russia's support based solely on weapons contracts with Syria," they wonder, "or the Kremlin's desire to maintain its naval base at the Tartus port?"

Russia Gets Bad Rap Over Syria

As the violent standoff between Syria's security forces and armed opposition groups roils the country, the crisis has opened heated divisions at the United Nations Security Council.

Alpha Dog Can't Save Russia

Every failed revolution is followed by a serious repercussion. Considering that the current "White Revolution" is bound to fail, turmoil awaits this country after Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is inaugurated as president in May. And it will be a powerful repercussion, like the one that followed the failed revolution of 1905.

A Propaganda Breakdown

Propaganda is not as powerful as many think. You might convince Russians that people in Egypt, Italy and Ukraine are paid or otherwise persuaded to join street protests, but you certainly cannot convince them that their own dissatisfaction with the government is the result of a foreign conspiracy.

Europe's Debt Problems Cannot Be Ignored

The echoes of Russia's debt default in 1998 — which is now, fortunately, of mere historical interest as seen from Moscow — seem to reverberate worryingly in Europe.

Violent Reaction to Protests Could Bury Putin

Nonviolent revolutions do not always remain nonviolent, as the examples of uprisings in Egypt, Libya and Syria in the Arab Spring have shown. But peaceful movements for regime change often do succeed. For example, they have toppled illegitimate rulers, as with the post-Soviet Color Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and ended apartheid in South Africa.




Discussion
The Moscow Times welcomes your comments and invites you to discuss topics with other readers. Your comment will be posted automatically to enable a live discussion. If you aren't familiar with our comments policy, you can read it here.

If you're a registered user, you can start typing your comment below. If not, take a moment to sign up. and then return to the article.

If your comment doesn't appear, contact us by using our web form.

Comments

Comments via Facebook

print


Comments

This article has no comments.

Be the first to leave a comment



Tags
reform
To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.

Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.



Most Read