Raspolagati tuđom mukom nije mala zajebancija

U Novostima piše:

“Sporna potraživanja i konsolidacija Razvojne banke Vojvodine biće okončana do kraja godine. Gubitak od 6,5 milijardi dinara zbog sumnjivih kredita nadoknadiće država

Prema navodima iz pisanih odgovora te banke na pitanja „Novosti“, prvu dokapitalizaciju RVB od dve milijarde dinara je, u decembru 2010, finansirao Fond za razvoj APV. Naredna, vredna 4,2 milijarde koje je, kroz emisiju obveznica, izdvojila AP Vojvodina, bila je u martu ove godine. Najzad, za namirenje šestomesečnog gubitka RBV iz 2012. AP Vojvodina i Republika Srbija će, zajedno, do kraja godine emitovati obveznice vredne 6,5 milijardi dinara!

Gubitak u otprilike istovetnom iznosu je, kako je na svom sajtu saopštila RBV, posledica otpisivanja nenaplativih kredita iz perioda poslovanja „Metals banke“, čiji je ona pravni naslednik od sredine 2010. O kojim kreditima je reč i kojima firmama su oni i kada odobreni, u odgovorima na pitanja našeg lista, međutim, nema ni reči. Kaže se samo „da su u pitanju potraživanja 60 pravnih lica sa ukupno 156 kreditnih linija“.

Prema saznanjima „Novosti“, među njima je, uz ostala, i poljoprivredno dobro „Mladi borac“ iz Sente koje je, svojevremeno, kupio kontroverzni biznismen Mile Jerković da bi ga, kasnije, preprodao narko-bosu Darku Šariću. Tu su i takođe jedno vreme Jerkovićevi kombinat „Bačka“ iz Sivca i mašinska industrija „Poljostroj“ iz Odžaka, „Mitrosrem“ iz Sremske Mitrovice, „Petar Drapšin“ iz Novog Sada… I nisu svi krediti koje oni danas definitivno ne mogu da vrate dobijeni pre nego što je APV preuzela „Metals banku“. Tako je, recimo, kredit „Poljostroja“ pre toga iznosio osamdesetak miliona dinara, da bi, docnije, tom preduzeću dat i još jedan od gotovo pola milijarde.

Sve u svemu, ukupna vrednost nenaplativih kredita koje je RBV ovih dana i otpisala je oko 6,5 milijardi. Da bi za njenu novu dokapitalizaciju i pokrivanje tih gubitaka Republika Srbija mogla da emituje obveznice u vrednosti od 3,6 milijardi dinara (preostalih 2,8 milijardi emitovaće APV), sva sredstva obezbeđenja preduzeća koja kredite ne mogu da vrate, počev od hipoteka, do solo menica, preneta su republičkoj Agenciji za osiguranje depozita.

Nevolja je, međutim, u tome što je većina tih preduzeća, u međuvremenu, ušla u postupak restrukturiranja ili je potpuno propala, pa je i prinudna naplata nemoguća. Uz to, jednom delu je, zbog pokretanja krivičnih postupaka protiv osnivača, imovina privremeno oduzeta.”

Ukupno isplaćene plate u javnom sektoru (342,5 milijardi dinara), ne računajući javna preduzeća, i penzije (422,8) u prošloj godini iznosili su 765,3 milijarde dinara, a u ovoj će premašiti 800 milijardi dinara. Jedan procenat njihovog povećanja zahteva više od 8 milijardi dinara iz novih poreza ili iz novog zaduživanja. Odustajanje od njihovog povećavanja, a uprkos cenovnom šoku koji će pogoditi najsiromašnije, jer najviše poskupljuju osnovne životne namirnica, značilo bi manji rast poreza ili prestanak zaduživanja.

Međutim, kada se pojavi ovakav tekst, i nečija odluka da će pokrivati gubitke RBV-a ili Agrobanke postavlja se pitanje, jesmo li mi banana republika da svako može da radi šta hoće, da pljačka koliko hoće, a u konačnom će sve to država, novcem poreskih obveznika, platiti i sakriti.

Institucije čine ljudi koji su u njima zaposleni (ispod je tekst sa IMF bloga gde se citira jačanje institucija i mr. Gani koga sam, mislim, upoznao na seminaru IMF-a u Beču 2002. godine, kao dobrog čoveka pa ne sumnjam da mu je i institucija u dobrom stanju), a propusti u radu Metals i Agrobanke su na prvom mestu odgovornost rukovodstva tih banaka, zatim firmi koje su ih potkradale i “tunelisale” novac preko privatizovanih firmi do računa u inostranstvu, i institucija: kontrole NBS, Agencije za privatizaciju, tužilaštva i policije. A i ove državne institucije čine sasvim obični ljudi koji su za svoje propuste ili lošu nameru odgovorni.   

Kako mogu kao makroekonomista da kažem da ne treba da se povećaju plate i penzije za 1%, jer je to preko 8 milijardi dinara, a da oćutim kriminalni pakao u kome živimo, a iz kog ispliva tek po neka informacija, krajnje stidljivo.

Ko može da odluči da se gubici banaka pokrivaju, ali da za penzionere i zaposlene u javnom sektoru plata nema?

Mislim da, ukoliko se već pokrivaju gubici ove dve banke, javnost mora da bude informisana o tome:

–        spisak firmi kojima su odobreni krediti i vrednost tih kredita; spisak uhapšenih vlasnika firmi i oduzimanje privatne imovine koju poseduju;

–        spisak uhapšenih direktora i drugih odgovornih u bankama uz oduzimanje sve privatne imovine koju poseduju;

–        spisak odgovornih u državnim institucijama uz ispitivanje porekla imovine koju poseduju i njena zaplena, uz aps, naravno, uz adekvatne zatvorske kazne.

Ali, ovo bi bilo dejstvovanje države koju nemamo, a za koju se treba boriti.

Dok se to ne dogodi, ako se ikada dogodi, najlakše je pokriti rupu iz budžeta.

Growing Institutions? Grow the People!

 

By Sharmini Coorey

 

“When you speak about institutions, in fact, you are speaking about the people.” These words, by Kosovo’s central bank governor Gani Gergüri at a recent conference in Vienna, capture an important truth that is often overlooked when we economists discuss amongst ourselves: without sound institutions, it’s very hard to achieve sustainable economic growth.

 

And the quality of those institutions hinges on the quality of the people running them―their educational background and training, and the prevailing business culture and approach to policymaking.

The work of Douglass North and the school of thought known as the new institutional economics has taught us that differences in deep institutions—defined as the formal and informal rules of economic, political and social interactions—are responsible for sustained differences in economic performance. This is also the central thesis in Acemoglu and Robinson’s fascinating new book, Why Nations Fail.

Inclusive (as opposed to extractive) economic and political institutions are central in nations’ efforts to avoid stagnation and ensure sustained prosperity. This is because sustained prosperity is a dynamic process of constant innovation and a never-ending cycle of Schumpeterian creative destruction, which can only be supported by open, inclusive institutions. Their thesis is certainly consistent with the contrasting experience of different countries in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe under communism and during the past two decades.

The current crisis in the eurozone also highlights the importance of coherent economic and political institutions at all levels of economic development. Weaknesses in national macroeconomic and statistical institutions in supposedly “advanced” countries were at the root of the crisis, especially in Greece. And the lack of supportive fiscal and regulatory institutions at the European level—which require making additional steps in political integration—is behind the markets’ continued anxiety surrounding the common European currency.

 

The IMF takes institutions seriously. The lesson we drew from the experience of transition and the current crisis is that we neglect them at our peril. That’s why the Fund recently created a new Institute for Capacity Development.

 

The idea is to take a holistic look at our capacity development work and to develop, over time, an IMF-wide strategy for capacity development.

 

Taking stock

 

As part of our efforts to rethink how we help our 188 member countries train skilled professionals and build institutions that can be held accountable for their delivery of public goods―including a stable currency, efficient tax collection, and trustworthy data, to name but a few―the IMF co-sponsored a conference in Vienna with the Austrian government.

 

The conference marked the 20th anniversary of the Joint Vienna Institute, a training center financed by the IMF and Austria and which also involves several other international institutions.

 

The JVI has been at the heart of the IMF’s capacity building efforts since it was created in 1992, three years after the fall of the Berlin wall. For the past two decades, close to 30,000 officials at all levels of seniority―from Belarus to Bulgaria, Mongolia to Montenegro, and the Ukraine to Uzbekistan ― have received some form of training in applied economics and finance at the JVI. Many JVI alumni were present at the conference, which convened more than 140 policymakers and academics to discuss lessons learned from the global economic crisis, the challenges ahead for the countries of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, and the implications this might have for training and capacity development.

 

A new approach to people and institutions

 

What areas to prioritize in terms of future training clearly depend on many factors: countries’ levels of economic development, their state of integration in the European Union or other regional structures, and other individual circumstances.

 

This heterogeneity brings to the fore the need for more tailored approaches to training and capacity development, more coordination between technical assistance and training, and closer integration of training in national capacity development strategies.

 

One way to make progress in this direction is to go beyond assessments of training and capacity development activities in terms of improvements in the skills of individuals being trained and examine the impact of training on the capacity of the units and organizations to perform their functions. This will require us to think creatively about ways to make training and technical assistance more demand-driven and to pay attention to how well units and organizations utilize the people who have been trained. We will also need to find more ways to exploit the synergies between technical assistance and training.

 

Clearly, we also need to do much more to harness the potential of e-learning or we will be left behind. Many informed people think that we are on the cusp of a revolution in the delivery of education via the internet.

 

Web-based tools would allow us to reach the many officials who are not able to come to Washington or the regional centers where training is delivered.  It would also allow officials to prepare better for the courses they are able to attend.  It may even allow us to explain the IMF’s purposes and policies to a broader public, including civil society, than we can with our traditional approach to training.

Also important for capacity development is the learning that takes place outside formal courses, in small, informal, high-level meetings that involve peer-to-peer interaction. We want to explore ways in which the JVI―and the IMF’s other training centers around the world―can be part of this network. We want to go beyond the standard two-week courses and consider flexible, customized seminars on special topics of interest to senior policymakers.

 

We also intend to enhance our outreach efforts to civil society, journalists, parliamentarians, students, and the public at large.

 

We also need to do more to incorporate non-traditional thinking in our training. The crisis is forcing a reconsideration of economic doctrine and policies.

Old lessons are being rediscovered. Textbooks on macroeconomic stabilization, growth models, and modes of financial system supervision and regulation are being rewritten. We already invite experts to present alternative views in our training courses.

 

But we need to do this in a more systematic fashion so as to reflect emerging, non-conventional thinking in our training programs.

 

Making a difference

In short, we have a lot of work to do. Apart from the excellent discussion and the many ideas that were offered by our speakers as well as the audience in Vienna, what really struck me personally was the great enthusiasm that many JVI alumni expressed for the training they had received after the fall of communism and during the hard years of transition that followed.

 

Governor Gergüri expressed these feelings most eloquently:  “It was my first time going outside the country. I remember it still, very much. It was exactly ten years ago here in Vienna, in this very melodious city. I came here, had the three-week course in monetary and financial statistics. I was flooded with enthusiasm because I was opening a small window for big opportunities―for my institution, and then this is the way I started in fact to build also my career.”

 

Building people, building institutions: that’s what we at the IMF hope we can continue to achieve—and become even better at in the future—working in partnership both with countries that receive technical assistance and training and with the many donors around the world whose financial support enables us to provide these services.