THE PROBLEM OF BURIDAN’S ASS

In 1997 a fourth of Belarusians preferred planned economy (Table 1), and there were considerably more supporters of market economy – 69%. 13 years have passed. The share of “planners” has visibly decreased (from 25.7% to 15.7%); however, the numbers of market economy advocates have not grown. This became possible at the expense of an increase in the share of those who found it difficult to answer: from 2.3% in 1997 to 12.8% in 2010. Growth in the number of respondents who found it difficult to answer during such a considerable period of time is a unique phenomenon. The farther the Belarusian society moves away from the “hard 90s”, the smaller the percent in the column “DA” when respondents answer economic questions, as well as the ones connected with the assessment of political events, is.

Table 1. Dynamics of answering the question: “What would you prefer for Belarus?”, %

Where is the source of the anomaly? Perhaps, it should be looked for in the public appearances of the head of Belarusian state. Let us refer, as they say – hot on the heels, to the report at the VI congress of Belarus Trade Unions Federation. Here is a typical example of state paternalism: “If we talk about employment, then, frankly speaking, with the modern technological level we might not need so many employees at Minsk Automobile Plant, Belarus Automobile Plant, the tractor plant, “Horizont” and at a number of other plants. However, the question of employment ensuring and social security of our citizens has always been the corner-stone for us; always – whether it was flourishing or recession of economy”. After such a decisive “always”, what is the point in preferring market economy with insignificant state regulation in addition? The need for safety is among the fundamental ones; therefore when the state is “strong” and there is its invariable “fellow traveler” – centralized planning, there is less risk.

However, let us continue quoting: “That is, if you have produced something, paid taxes and other compulsory payments and you have money, then share it and live. If someone experiences difficulties, we will help him, of course. But we will not bear anyone on our shoulders. Well, I would bear as long as there is such a possibility. However, I am bearing them at the expense of other enterprises. Is it fair? No, it isn’t. That is why we will give you the full authority to be in charge of all this. The norms and the order will be established, even for the state enterprises. Work. And be answerable to your work collectives”.

Finishing the quotation, let us cite the words which are able to completely confuse an average citizen: “The task is simple, earthly and clear to everybody. One should not trace out any market reforms, build market relations. Everything is simple: there is something to sell, there are people who want to buy it for big money – we are going to be rich”.

The question about economic preferences is quite complicated for the public opinion, so let us refer to the answers to its down-to-earth analogue (Table 2). In this case, too, the same anomaly is being observed, even if it is not so distinctly expressed: 13 years ago 6.3% of respondents found it difficult to answer, today – 9%. The public opinion, just as Buridan’s ass, is not able to make a final choice. However, in its indecision it is simply copying the authorities, which, just like the cat in the famous proverb, would eat fish – increase economy efficiency, and would not wet her feet – lose control over it. It is necessary to remember that the “Belarusian economic model” is able to exist only on conditions that power and ownership are not divided. If these Siamese twins are divided, the majority of authorities’ representatives including the first person will find themselves on the sidelines. Hence the problem described already in the XIV century by the philosopher J. Buridan follows.

Table 2. Dynamics of answering the question: “Which enterprise would you like to work at?”, %

Let us return to Table 2. In 1996 and 2006 more than a half of respondents preferred to work at state enterprises. In 1997 on the tide of the restoration growth the GDP increased by 11%. The first president kept his word – he launched the plants (the state ones). The year of 2006 was the year of the third presidential elections and simultaneously the year of maximum Russian subsidies, which were generously redistributed among state enterprises, and that could not but tell on their employees’ wages growth rates. The difference between the first and the second line constituted 19% in June, 2006 and in September, 2010 – 9.7%. It is difficult to say how exactly it will look in a year; however, its decrease can be regarded as an indicator warning against the crisis of “the Belarusian economic model” (in November, 2000 the difference was negative).

As it follows from Table 3, women give preference to state enterprises more often than men. Belarusian women are not an exception to this rule, either. One feels in greater safety under the “roof” of the state. It is especially important for those who have to combine work “at the machine sit” with work “at the kitchen range”. The young prefer to work at private enterprises, but the preferences change with age. It is especially marked in the preretirement group (50-59 years old). The mentioned trend comes to an end in the group of those who are over 60 years of age. However, it does not mean that respondents of the older age group prefer private enterprises. The variant “a different answer” is omitted in Tables 2-3. If in September, 2010 it was marked on the whole by 15.5% of respondents, then in the older age group – by 28.5%. To all appearances, “a different answer” means working at dachas and on homestead land.

Table 3. Distribution of answers to the question: “What enterprise would you like to work at?” depending on gender, age, education and trust in the president*, %

* The table is read across

As for education, its level does not considerably influence the choice between a state and a private enterprise, if we exclude those whose education is limited to primary school. These are generally elderly women who live in the countryside. 25% of respondents with primary and 25% with incomplete secondary education when answering the question of Tables 2-3 in September, 2010 chose “a different answer”.

Employees of state enterprises along with pensioners constitute the main electoral body of the head of state. In many respects due to this reason, too, the structure of ownership in Belarus has not changed for many years already. It is not only easier to redistribute the resources through state enterprises, but also to control political preferences of their employees. That is why one should not count upon “the avalanchine privatization” within the next five years.