Economic commentator of “Haykakan Zhamanak” (Armenian Time) daily Hayk Gevorgyan and political scientist Armen Minasyan were debating in the framework of “Face to face” program of “Aravot” online.
Lusine Budaghyan, “”Thereafter from now on everyone can import goods without any problems. If you come to know about such obstacle, directly call me” clearly stated Prime Minister Karen Karapetyan in the interview given to mass media on October 22. Mr. Gevorgyan, will it be possible to fight against monopolies this time? All the prime ministers raised this question, not long before similar statement was made by former Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan? What was the result? And where should Karen Karapetyan start from?”
Hayk Gevorgyan, “Karen Karapetyan should start from the very beginning. In other words, he has to find the root, the deep base of the current situation and destroy that base, and build a new one. I think there is not such a perception that the monopolies are the main obstacles for the economy in Armenia. Neither Hovik Abrahamyan, before that nor Tigran Sargsyan , and I think, nor Karen Karapetyan has that perception. On one occasion Karen Karapetyan said that the monopolies are not mischief if they appeared in natural conditions, but I can assure, prove that no monopoly has emerged in a natural way. All the monopolies that exist today have had, have and will have in the future state patronage not only legal but also illegal. And it is not a coincidence that in the program Karen Karapetyan passed by the topic of competitiveness and monopolies very superficially and he did not even formally record the necessity of the fight against monopolies. Maybe ten years ago someone would have brought sugar, banana, something would have happened to him, nowadays such things do not happen, everything is done according to the provisions of the law. If you import banana and you are a monopolist and you control 98-99 percent of the market, if you get customs clearance for the goods you import twice cheaper than the other one, who will dare import. There is such a provision in the law, that they may not use, but they use it with great pleasure. And it comes out that the one who imports goods parallel to the monopolist, he will just have extra expenditures. If you create more comfortable conditions for that monopolist, it means that you officially support monopolies, and after it t is not correct to say that the monopolies have been created in a natural way, they are not mischief; no, monopolies are mischief and are of the main obstacles that our economy faces”.
L.B. “Mr. Minasyan, it is frequently noted that there is a need of political will in the fight against monopolies. What do you think whether there is that political will today? And why did not it exist before?”
Read also
Armen Minasyan, “Let’s distinguish between will and objective. I do not think that the issue was not raised by the current or the former prime ministers, and here we come across with the will; do they have the resources, the appropriate tools and opportunities to solve that issue. the experience shows that in reality today in the already established economic relations, when the business, in fact, has accreted with the state, very often the decision maker do not have that opportunities, even if it is a political decision, to ensure the implementation of those decisions on the lower level. In other words, that accreted situation will bring about such situation. In any case today we deal with the current situation, and there are monopolists or people having dominant positions in different spheres, who have already accumulated capital and with completely clean tools; with the economic business tools they have competitive advantage. It refers to both customs clearance and transport expenses and the purchase price depending on the quantity in the country where the goods were produced. All these affect on the realization final price, and definitely the importer has a competitive advantage. The large one becomes more competitive. What the state should do. There are several main tools if we go back and start from the zero. First, indeed, the rule of law should be ensured in the legal-enforcement practice, i.e. if there are certain obstacles that are clearly defined by law and are punishable, should be punished. Here we deal not with the executive power but also with the bodies of justice so that the enterprise could go to court in case of violations of rights, could restore them in the courts. The second one is lawmaking process, which should really formulate the issues, see where the obstacles exist that can hinder the small players, and try to define privileged orders. For instance, in case of certain goods in order to set some kind of threshold to define some privileges of customs clearance or release them from state taxes after some examinations, etc, so that the importer does not have problems with volumes. And, of course, there are other tools too; that is the practice of making decisions in administrative, bureaucratic apparatus. As mentioned, it is the application of methodology- control prices, customs documents- in the customs authorities this procedure also should become transparent so that everybody understands it. Control prices should be open, i.e. if I import banana, I should know what the control price is for it so that I can calculate the risks”.
L.B., “What to do when the decision makers are so called the owners of the monopolies?”
A.M., “We should do what we used to do so far. This is an evolution process. The mass media should implement its function, the society, the mass media should make pressure, speak about that issue constantly. We have success stories when we spoke about a certain issue and after some time it was resolved. Regardless of everything, we have dynamic, the 2000ss are not like the 1990ss, and the 2010ss are not like the 2000ss. It is natural that this pace does not satisfy anyone, but there are some positive tendencies. We just need to work faster, to define those vulnerable places quickly and continuously demand solutions. It is understandable that there is also a political issue, but in any cases, the society should make pressure and get a solution.
L.B., “Mr. Gevorgyan, what do you think would the leverage be given to fight against the shadow economy? Would that carte blanche taking into account who have produced those monopolies and where they are now?”
H.G., “If I say in one word, no. In my opinion they will not give. They will give freedom for certain activities or a certain space of freedom, which will just ensure the minimum changes nothing more. Why? Because if we speak about juxtaposing of monopolies, corruption, business, and power, we should take into account who the beneficiary of it is, who the owner of the corruption is, the owner of shadow economy, owner of the monopolies; that is the authorities has one top. That top has invited a man as a prime minister and said “you must work”, and if that prime minister tries to abolish the obstacles hindering the development of economy, he directly attacks that authority”.
LUSINE BUDAGHYAN
“Aravot”
