In the first year after the collapse of the USSR, the Russian economy was at the very beginning of a difficult and painful transition to a market mechanism.
One of the first steps in this direction was an attempt by the country's leadership to create a class of private owners and increase the efficiency of national companies.
On August 14, 1992, President Boris Yeltsin signed a decree "On the introduction of a system of privatization checks in the Russian Federation."
The document served as the starting point for the start of voucher privatization in the country.
As planned by the authorities, a significant part of state property was to pass into the hands of Russian citizens free of charge and in compliance with the principle of social justice.
“We need millions of owners, not a bunch of millionaires... A privatization check is a kind of ticket for each of us to a free economy.
The more there will be owners in Russia, business people for whom concrete actions are more important than empty talk, the sooner prosperity will come in Russia, ”Yeltsin said in an address to citizens.
From general to specific
State property was divided into several groups.
The first included factories and small businesses subject to immediate and mandatory privatization, the second included objects privatized by government decision, and the third included institutions whose privatization was prohibited.
As part of the first stage - "small privatization" - auctions were held for the sale of small trade and consumer services enterprises.
According to the State Property Committee, by July 1, 1994, 75.4% of trade facilities, 66.3% of public catering establishments and 76.4% of public service points were transferred to private ownership.
In turn, "big privatization" was accompanied by the transformation of all medium and large enterprises into open joint-stock companies.
Shares were partially transferred to members of labor collectives.
At the same time, employees of institutions could buy out up to 51% of the capital, according to the book of reform ideologists Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais "Forks in Russia's Modern History."
The remaining securities could be obtained for money or redeemed through privatization checks.
At the same time, enterprises of a number of industries did not fall under the privatization program.
In particular, we are talking about forestry, offshore fields, pipelines, oil producing enterprises, as well as highways.
The state decided to leave all these assets on its balance sheet, said Pavel Sigal, First Vice-President of the All-Russian Public Organization of Small and Medium-Sized Business "Opora Rossii" in an interview with RT.
“Nevertheless, a large number of industries, including socially significant ones, fell under check privatization.
At the same time, the real assessment of their cost was difficult and was determined in many cases based on a planned assessment.
As a result, taking into account the economic processes taking place at that time, the price was significantly underestimated in some places, ”the expert emphasized.
According to the State Property Committee, the enterprises of the food, tobacco, furniture, woodworking industries, as well as hotels were in the greatest demand among the population.
The principle of justice
Privatization was supposed to build a market economy in Russia in a short time.
Moreover, the government was faced with the task of patching holes in the budget in order to be able to fulfill social obligations to citizens.
According to experts, the transfer of state property to the population and the formation of a new class of owners were designed to accelerate the transition of the economy to a market economy.
It was assumed that the activities of enterprises would become more efficient, and the state would receive additional funds for the development of social infrastructure - all this was supposed to contribute to the process of stabilizing the economic situation in Russia.
“Before privatization, there was no private business, it was necessary to change the mentality of the population, which was afraid to work for itself, since earlier they were imprisoned for such activities.
It was a private trader who was really interested in the efficiency of his business that was a key element in the operational construction of a flexible economy with working market mechanisms, ”Georgy Ostapkovich, director of the Center for Market Research at the HSE Institute for Statistical Research and Economics of Knowledge, told RT.
The first day of issuing vouchers in one of the branches of Sberbank, October 1, 1992
RIA News
© Vitaly Arutyunov
Moreover, with the help of the reform, the government planned to reduce the acuteness of social tension, which was growing rapidly in the early 1990s, said Nikita Maslennikov, head of the Finance and Economics department at the Institute of Contemporary Development.
“In fact, privatization began even before its official announcement.
Earlier, for example, private corporations began to appear in the oil industry.
But the transfer of assets took place, as a rule, within the company itself, which was privatized mainly by directors of enterprises.
The authorities, on the other hand, wanted to implement a compromise option, give people something to own and observe in some way the principle of social justice, ”the interlocutor of RT emphasized.
Initially, the economic bloc of the government considered three options for privatization.
Under the first scenario, the transition of large enterprises to private ownership took place on a paid basis, that is, the population had to buy the enterprise from the state for money.
The other two involved the issuance of free nominal privatization deposits at Sberbank that could not be sold or transferred, or unnamed vouchers handed out.
“The free voucher model was chosen because all other known forms are designed for long-term development.
The chosen model made it possible to carry out privatization at a very accelerated pace,” explained Pavel Sigal.
On October 1, 1992, all branches of Sberbank began issuing vouchers.
Any Russian, including children and pensioners, could receive one privatization check for 10,000 rubles free of charge.
In total, 140 million vouchers were issued with a total value of 1.4 trillion rubles.
For this amount, the enterprises issued shares, for which vouchers were to be exchanged until the end of 1993.
Each owner of the check had the right to exchange it for shares of the institution where he worked, or use the voucher in a check auction.
Also, a privatization check could be given to check investment funds (ChIFs).
As planned by the authorities, this financial institution was supposed to help those Russians who did not want to sell checks, but could not assess the possible profit from investing in a particular enterprise, profitably invest vouchers.
As a result, several hundred CHIFs were established, which received more than 40 million checks from citizens.
Non-market compromise
Privatization was a necessary tool for increasing the efficiency of enterprises, stabilizing
the exchange rate of the national currency in the monetary market and a decrease in inflation, experts interviewed by RT agree.
The reform made it possible to launch the formation of the institution of private property and turn the course of the country's economic development towards the market, recalled Pavel Sigal.
Nevertheless, the process was accompanied by difficulties, which were largely associated with the low economic literacy of the population.
The Russians were not ready for a quick transition from a planned economy and often could not assess the potential benefits of investments, the expert admits.
“In addition, high inflation and an extreme degree of social instability led to the fact that not everyone who received them could take advantage of the opportunities provided by vouchers.
At the same time, it was the format of vouchers and the conditions for obtaining them that led to significant social stratification and the formation of new classes in society,” said Segal.
Privatization check (voucher)
RIA News
© Igor Mikhalev
At the same time, the appearance of checks largely contributed to the emergence of exchange mechanisms in the country, Georgy Ostapkovich believes.
According to him, the Russians, who did not want to transfer their share of state property into shares, could sell privatization checks.
“Freely circulating, they not only created demand for the shares of privatized enterprises, but also laid the foundation for the formation of the stock market.
Other development institutions also appeared, such as pension funds and insurance companies, which contributed to the development of a market economy,” the expert added.
The partial transfer of state property also led to the fact that already at the end of 1992 the country's gold and foreign exchange reserves began to grow, Nikita Maslennikov emphasized.
According to him, the positive trend was largely due to the fact that Russian companies began to systematically enter Western markets with their products.
“Money gradually began to flow into the budget, which allowed the authorities to fulfill their social obligations.
Privatization generally accelerated the process of structural adjustment that was inevitable in the transition from one form of economic management to another.
Without the reform, it is not known how long it would take to create a new market and what social problems it would entail,” the speaker noted.
Nevertheless, later in his book The Presidential Marathon, Boris Yeltsin recalled: “They say that our property was undervalued when sold.
Like, they sold it for nothing ... Yes, absolutely right.
They sold it for the so-called pittance, relative, of course, for hundreds of millions of dollars... No one else gave it.
Exactly as much as Russian businessmen were able to pay, this enterprise cost that much at that time.
Nothing more and nothing less."
Russian President Boris Yeltsin receives a privatization check, December 30, 1993
RIA News
© Dmitry Donskoy
In turn, as Anatoly Chubais recalled, privatization was more political in nature than economic.
According to him, the main task at that time was to "stop communism."
“We couldn't choose between "fair" and "dishonest" privatization, because fair privatization implies clear rules set by a strong state that can enforce laws.
In the early 1990s, we had neither the state nor the rule of law.
The security services and the police were on the other side of the barricades.
They studied under the Soviet Criminal Code, and this is from three to five years in prison for private business.
We had to choose between gangster communism and gangster capitalism,” Chubais noted.
Thus, according to him, the choice was between "monstrous" and "unfair" privatization.
In the end, it was decided to go for the second scenario, and the property was given to "those who were closer to it."
“Bandits, secretaries of regional committees, directors of factories.
They received it.
That is what prevented the blood.
Because if we tried not to give them this property, they would still take it.
Only they would have taken it without any legitimate procedures at all.
And so they took it with legitimate procedures.
And this, oddly enough, gave some political stability to the structure, ”he concluded.