Tariff Policy for Subjects of Natural Monopolies and Competitiveness of the Russian Economy
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2017-6-88-102
Abstract
In the article the Russian experience of formation of tariff policy for subjects of natural monopolies (further - NM) during 2013-2016 and its main consequences for economy is considered. Considering the influence the natural monopoly branches in the Russian economy observed within the entire period of its existence, the tariff policy in these branches exerts not only direct impact on the enterprises in these branches, in particular, on their investment and personnel policy, but also significant indirect effect on other industrial branches which are consumers of goods of subjects NM. The author shows in the present article that the tariff of natural monopolies can be used as the tool of industrial policy, however, efficiency of its use depends on creation or development of additional market incentives which would allow to increase competitiveness of the industrial enterprises, but not to use the low prices of goods and services of natural monopolies for subsidizing of own inefficiency.
About the Author
Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Ponomareva
Institute of Applied Economic Researches of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Moscow, Russian Federation) Senior research
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Idrisov G. I., Ponomareva E. A. Regulation of natural monopolies shouldn’t advance development of the markets [Regulirovanie estestvennykh monopolii ne dolzhno operezhat’ razvitie rynkov] // Economic development of Russia, 2015. P. 64–68. (rus)
2. Saakian Yu. Z. Reforming of natural monopolies in Russia [Reformirovanie estestvennykh monopolii v Rossii]. Moscow : IPNM, 2010. (rus)
3. Friedman A. A. Economy of the exhausted natural resources [Ekonomika istoshchaemykh prirodnykh resursov]. Moscow : National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2016. (rus)
4. Aghion P. et al. Industrial policy and competition // American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, Vol. 7, N 4, 2015. P. 1–32.
5. Bhagwati J.N. Directly unproductive, profit-seeking (DUP) activities // The Journal of Political Economy, 1982. P. 988–1002.
6. Bhagwati J.N., Srinivasan T.N. The welfare consequences of directly-unproductive profitseeking (DUP) lobbying activities: Price versus quantity distortions // Journal of International Economics, Vol. 13, N 1, 1982. P. 33–44.
7. Comanor W.S., Leibenstein H. Allocative efficiency, X-efficiency and the measurement of welfare losses // Economica, 1969. P. 304–309.
8. Gollop F.M., Roberts M.J. Environmental regulations and productivity growth: the case of fossil-fueled electric power generation // The Journal of Political Economy, 1983. P. 654–674.
9. Jaffe A.B. et al. Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of US manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us? // Journal of Economic literature, 1995. P. 132–163.
10. Leibenstein H. Allocative efficiency vs “X-efficiency” // The American Economic Review, 1966. P. 392–415.
11. Panagariya A. Cost of protection: Where do we stand? // The American Economic Review, Vol. 92, N 2, 2002. P. 175–179.
12. Warwick K. Beyond Industrial Policy: Emerging Issues and New Trends. OECD Publishing, N 2, 2013.
13. Webster M., Paltsev S., Reilly J. Autonomous efficiency improvement or income elasticity of energy demand: Does it matter? // Energy Economics, Vol. 30, N 6, 2008. P. 2785–2798.
Review
For citations:
Ponomareva E.A. Tariff Policy for Subjects of Natural Monopolies and Competitiveness of the Russian Economy. Administrative Consulting. 2017;(6):88-102. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2017-6-88-102
Views:
428
Email this article 