Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / On the national idea / Other
"Most had no idea what to do with a voucher"
Material posted: Publication date: 01-10-2017
Exactly 25 years ago October 1, 1992, the savings Bank began issuing vouchers — vouchers. Every Russian citizen could buy a "piece of the Motherland", but to become full owners of the few who did. The authors of the economic policy of those years say that privatization was a necessary measure and was intended to create a class of private owners to ensure the return of the country to communism.

Privatisation actually started not on 1 October 1992, and in the summer of 1991. Was adopted the law "On personal privatization accounts and deposits in the RSFSR."

Every citizen of Russia Sberbank was supposed to open a personal privatization account which was credited the money from the sale of privatized property. The law was not allowed to withdraw funds from privatization contributions to others.

However, the plan with the privatization accounts was not implemented. Instead of opening accounts, the people decided to hand out vouchers. Free.

The nominal value of the voucher was 10 thousand rubles, based on the evaluation of state — enterprises in the country. All assets subject to privatization, estimated at 140 billion rubles.

The head of the state property Committee Anatoly Chubais said then that one voucher would buy two cars "Volga". This phrase, many Russians still consider as an example of blatant deception by the authorities.

In fact, to buy a piece of state property at the best price could only employees of privatized enterprises. Those not engaged in the production sector, it seemed more profitable to sell or to invest "this paper" in a voucher investment Fund. These funds bought for receipts of shares in privatized enterprises.

Holders of shares promised large profits in the future, but later most of the funds just disappeared, and the shares of companies received very ordinary citizens.

Many Russians didn't have any idea what this voucher can do. The price of vouchers fell with each passing month and reached 3-4 thousand rubles by mid-1993.

From voucher privatisation first won the so-called "red Directors" are the managers of plants and factories. They often forced workers to sell their shares, and to stimulate this process has delayed the payment of salaries. In a matter of months some persons have become millionaires and billionaires. Former Soviet officials suddenly became the sole owners of several factories, yachts and ships.

But since "red Director" was not financially literate and do not really want to develop any trust asset, within a few years the real owners of private factories were financial-industrial groups, often with criminal records.
Redistribution of property was accompanied by violent clashes. Crazy privatization money has become the breeding ground for the emergence of a class of oligarchs. In the subsequent privatization of the money ended up in the investment companies and private banks, registered in offshore zones.

Now, 25 years later, many recognize that voucher privatization was both ineffective and unfair. The state ultimately received due to privatization of $60 billion — a ridiculous amount.

Critics of his model of privatization, Chubais replied: to choose between fair and unfair privatization was impossible. If the choice was "between bandit communism and gangster capitalism."

Discussed and alternative models of exit of the state from the economy. For example, was the idea of gradual redemption of ownership over the funds accumulated by the population on "the savings Bank". But the government needs to quickly privatize, to replenish the Treasury and not to allow the country to collapse.

What are the consequences of voucher privatization had for citizens, for business and for the state in the comments of experts who personally participated in the privatization of 1992-1994.

Guarantee of no return to communism

Andrey Nechaev, the Minister of economy of Ukraine (1992-1993)

Remember, I was called by Yuri Luzhkov and complained: how so, Andrew, I have worked for so many years, are the mayor and I'm entitled to one voucher. And my daughter is one also. Where is the justice? I replied: well, Yes, there is none. But actually on this issue we must look differently.

When the Soviet Union was public property, anything in fact did not belong. And if the government gave you the opportunity to get anything in a property is a good start.

The voucher for the population cost nothing. But, if I'm not mistaken, the "savings" taken from citizens of 25 rubles for the purchase of the voucher. And the voucher appeared only because the then management of "Sberbank" reported the government that it can quickly, in a matter of weeks or months to access for all citizens personal accounts, and even serve them.

The Bank hinted that the opening of accounts and running of the model will take several years. The government did not agree. In the end, took as a basis the Czech model — check (voucher), they were distributed to the population.

Nominally a voucher worth 10 thousand rubles. But it could write any number — 5 thousand, 15 thousand. It was the idea of Anatoly Chubais: he said that we have the people, the Soviet people got used to the numbers. We can't let gospodaru without specifying its value. It was a bad idea.

In fact, the value of the voucher was determined by where you put it. If purchased, for example, shares of "Gazprom" that was a win. If carried in any privatization Fund, then eventually went bankrupt, most likely. Management and labor teams of "Gazprom" have made good money in the end.

I put my voucher in the Moscow refinery. Later sold those shares for a certain amount. Well, I knew that a millionaire won't. It is impossible in principle, it has all become a millionaire with the amount of ownership that was offered for privatization.

Chubais, remember, campaigned to drum up interest for the privatization process over the voucher to buy two cars "Volga". Unsuccessfully campaigned.

Despite the numerous claims to the voucher privatization to a large degree gave start to the development of business in Russia. In the country there were private property. And it ensured a return to communism.

Privatization from the point of view of state interests was a necessary measure. After the Soviet collapse, the ensuing economic collapse, after the coup geochemists had no other option to get out of the position.

The costs of privatization were many, of course, but the ideal models of privatization in principle, does not happen. And we have the time really was not. Margaret Thatcher for 10 years, have privatized 600 businesses in the UK, and it is only bowed in the press. Rapidly and we were forced to privatize thousands of factories.

Honest did not get anything

Sergey kalenjyan, doctor of economic Sciences, a fellow student at the Moscow state University of Andrey Nechaeva and Yegor Gaidar

When the government started the big privatization, the consequences for business or citizens thought the least. It was important to keep the government standing on the verge of economic collapse.

By this time, after decades of Soviet power, business in the country, except the underground collectives, tsehovikov.

So the privatization, neither citizens nor business, but rather those workers who were employed in state enterprises were not ready.

And who is to blame? Yes, the citizens did not have financial literacy. The vast majority had no idea what to do with this piece of paper — a voucher.

I remember that some of the money spent on the purchase of shares of "Gazprom", "Regionneftegaz" and on the stock of the shop "birch", traded for hard currency to import goods not available for roubles. It seemed to me that it is a profitable investment, but "birch" went bankrupt along with my mini-lobes. I was fishing the funds, proposing to sell the shares. I eventually did several years later. Rescued some ridiculous amount. How much, can't even remember.

In General, all this privatization was by me actually. As the majority of citizens.

Of course, the Russians were hurt. It so happens that if you work honestly, and lived on a salary, you have nothing worthwhile could not buy any property for these vouchers.

The majority of Russians, former Soviet citizens eventually realized that they worked under socialism, built factories, paved roads, taught children, and when they said go back to capitalism, will receive their property back, they remained not at Affairs.

That is the Foundation of the new building was laid on the bones of the deceived people. If you look at the statistics of suicides in those years, there were many such cases where the head of the family took his own life, not being able to feed the family.

This argument usually argue like this: if not carried out privatization, against the background of the famine would have started a civil war, and the victims would have been incomparably greater. Yeah, I guess I could be. But another question arises: why the situation in the economy was brought to such a state?

It was not a coherent assessment of ownership

Elena Ivankina, member of the Russian division of the International Real Estate Federation (FIABCI)

Privatization in Russia was dissatisfied with almost everything. People don't become owners of their country. I'm sure 90% of the population now can't even remember where they put the vouchers. For example, I don't remember. Probably sold to some Foundation.

I have at the time, like most of the population does not have money for Essentials, and I had to teach at seven different universities, I lectured in English to maintain standard of living. Now even scary to remember this time.

Power, beginning the privatization, in a hurry and did not create conditions for citizens who wish to participate in the business. In socialist countries, Czech Republic, for example, ordinary citizens could become for vouchers owners of cafes, shops, hairdressers. In Russia it was possible to privatise only the large companies of Federal and regional level.

Privatization was organized so poorly. It was not a coherent assessment of the property, which was put up for privatization.

Assessment of small and medium-sized business generally has not been undertaken, and assessment of large plants all the time been a subject of controversy. And in General, evaluation is only possible in a market environment and market in the classic sense in the early 90s simply did not exist.

Really on property assessment, the authorities started thinking only after the start of the voucher privatization in 1993, with the submission of the world Bank.

It is not surprising that almost all of the current oligarchy grew out of the voucher privatization in the 90s. Then privatization was a time of opportunity for young people, educated and with money.

I admire those who understand that you can make money: Potanin, Mordashov, Prokhorov... this ability I do not possess. Tried to go to business established a firm for buying and selling land. Invested own funds. And partner looking for clients. And quickly "thrown money".

Some dividends are still

Andrey Margolin, Vice-rector of Ranepa

Realizing that no two cars "Volga" on your voucher not receive, I will not put. Although family man was hard to live in those days at half rate of an associate Professor, left the voucher as a souvenir.

In my collection voucher took its rightful place next to the coupons for vodka and the sugar. It is evidence of our history and I am sure that such times will never come back.

It is significant that today, when we talk about privatization, more often than vouchers, remember, and in a negative way, loans auctions. It seems to me, there is a certain understanding that in the early 90s no one ever really knew how to carry out privatization.

In fairness I must say that the vouchers received by all, and some citizens who traded it, for example, the shares of "Gazprom", certain dividends so far.

But mortgaging auctions was a deliberate action did not solve neither the problem of formation of effective owner or replenishment of the state budget. And so the results are still "a byword".

With hindsight, it is clear that today, the analogues of the voucher privatization, in fact, impossible, and this topic is more interesting to historians than to those who think about the mechanisms of privatization of the economy currently.

Rustem Falyakhov


Tags: Russia , finances

RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics
Возрастное ограничение