Strategic Planning of the Economic Development in the Eurasian Union Member States

Abstract

The presentation describes current features of strategic, long-term planning in a public policy of the three core member-states of the Eurasian Union: Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia.Three countries have three types of planning: long-term strategic vision for mobilization in Kazakhstan, pragmatic economic development for Belarus, struggling for security for Russia

Full text

STRATEGIC PLANNING OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE
EURASIAN UNION MEMBER
STATES
Maksim Vilisov, Associate Professor, Faculty of
Political Science, Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Russia

GROWTH, REFORMS AND
TRANSITION IN CONTEMPORARY
WORLD

”PLANNING” AS A
FORBIDDEN WORD IN A
TRANSITION EPOCH
Planning in socio-economic sphere was closely associated with
“totalitarian” administrative system (administrativno-komandnaya sistema)
Radical reforms in economic sphere, started after the collapse of USSR,
declared the dismantling of the state planning system, which was to be
changed by new, “market” mechanisms
For a long period of time “planning” could not be pronounced in public
policy in Russia (Federal Law ”On state forecasting and programs of socio-
economic development in Russian Federation, 1995”

POLITICAL DISINTEGRATION
VS ECONOMIC
DETERMINATION
Kazakhstan: nationalism vs unionism. Russia as an attractor in pragmatic
policy
Belarus: economy vs politics. Russian market as a goal of development
Formal strategies and plans started to develop outside Russia to bring it in
intergtation

PLANNING IN RUSSIA: FROM
INDICATIVE TO STRATEGIC
The 1998 crisis in Russia clearly showed the need in new course in public
policy: more strategic and more state-oriented
Forecast – Goals – Indicators - Programs: “indicative planning”
Only the forecast was possible, with limited opportunity to reach any
political consensus on goals and system programs
“Concept of long-term socio-economic development”, 2008: long-awaited
baby after 9-year pregnancy. Strategic political consensus, that =nally was
reached
The 2008 crisis and “national security turnover” in strategic planning
Federal Law ”On strategic planning”, 2014: “technocratic utopia” or
“sleeping institution”?

MEANWHILE IN
KAZAKHSTAN…
From “Kazakhstan-2020” in 1997 to “Kazakhstan-2050” in 2012
System of formal long-term planning with the president on top
Eurasian integration designing
New nation building

CONSISTENT PLANNING IN
BELARUS
National Strategy for Sustainable Development: vision for 15-year future
Pragmatic economic program without ambitious goals
Very sustainable political environment

CONCLUSION
Three types of planning for three main Eurasian Union members: long-
term strategic vision for mobilization in Kazakhstan, pragmatic economic
development for Belarus, struggling for security for Russia
Triple challenge for Russia: 1) to take a responsibility 2) for the
development 3) of the whole Union
Security vs Development
National Interests vs Common Interests
Global Challenges vs Regional Goals and Responsibility