Q

uestion: What tasks did you set, when you became president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI)? How much of what was planned did you manage to accomplish?

Answer: Both before being elected president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and at present I, of course, understand that it is an extremely important organization, particularly in time, when the country started developing market economy. After all, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry is the only business structure that represents interests of all entrepreneurs ‘vertically’ as well ‘horizontally’. That is small, medium-sized and large businesses in all industries, agriculture, banking, non-manufacturing business, commerce. At the same time, it is, probably, a main ‘bridge’ between the business community and state power.
Very often there is a much talk about a dialogue between the country’s business circles and authorities. I do not think that this is a proper definition. In my opinion, the term ‘dialogue’ accentuates the difference in interests but the business community is an organic part of the society and, undoubtedly, interests of business do not contradict interests of the State. Their everyday interrelationship is just necessary.
You want to know what has been accomplished? I think that CCI has become a more prominent structure. Its role in the country’s economy has increased and it has happened because of objective reasons. As for subjective reasons, it has been the achievement by not only our team but by the whole system of territorial chambers of commerce and industry, which number 160.

Q: How do you assess today’s level of interrelationship of the business community and bodies of power and, particularly, the Chamber’s contribution to lawmaking activities, its potential to influence the government’s policy?

A: I think that the level of interrelationship of the business community and bodies of power is satisfactory. This is true for power bodies of all levels. As a rule, territorial chambers of commerce and industry have good relations with administrations of the Federation’s subjects and municipalities. As far as Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry is concerned, our events have been attended lately by the President of the Russian Federation, the Prime Minister, Ministers. This underscores the availability of a sufficiently developed system of relations between the business community and power bodies. Under the Law on Chambers of Commerce and Industry we are given the right to examine laws that deal with entrepreneurship. Since we have no right to put forward legislative initiatives ourselves, we participate in lawmaking activities this way. I hope that we also have a certain influence on the Government’s policy by urgently raising a number of problems. I would mention among them, for example, the corporate pricing in basic industries, particularly the recent jump in prices for products of the steel industry, which has had a negative impact on the manufacturing and construction industries. Or here is an example from another sphere: our Chamber is seeking a more serious counteraction to infringing products.

Q: It is obvious that interests of various industries do not always coincide and, sometimes, that they even contradict each other. Taking this factor into account, how do you manage to coordinate work of 30 specialized committees established within CCI?

A: It is a good question. That is exactly what I am saying: setting a monopoly price – and you cannot characterize it otherwise – for steel results in benefits for some at the expense of others. We arranged a round-table discussion with the participation of the Chamber’s several committees. During this discussion a conciliatory commission was formed and results of its work were submitted to the Government.

Q: Lately, Russia’ political leadership has been seeking to consolidate relations with CIS countries. What is the role of your organization in this process?

A: I can tell you that we are satisfied with the development of our relations with chambers of commerce and industry of CIS countries. The Council of heads of these chambers has been formed and holds annual sessions, the exchange of views on urgent questions has been established, joint projects have been started. We have signed agreements on cooperation in exchanging business information, conducting exhibition-and-fair activity, supporting small and medium-size businesses. We have also agreed to establish a unified system of expert evaluation of quantity, quality and completeness of products.

Q: What practical support does CCI provide the Russian business with through its missions abroad?

A: Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry has 14 missions abroad, some of which are regional, i.e. they embrace several countries. The Chamber’s representatives abroad arrange exchanges of information, report terms of tenders, look for reliable partners, organize meetings of Russian businessmen with their foreign colleagues. The Chamber has its own Internet site, which is used by tens of thousands of visitors a month. I think that this is a good sign, which proves that the country’s business community gets needed information as well as answers to questions, which are of interest to it and which are provided, among others, by the Chamber’s representatives abroad.

Q: Who initiated meetings of major companies’ heads with the President of the Russian Federation? In your opinion, how important is it to have such an interaction?

A: It seems to me that the period, when President Vladimir Putin held separate meetings only with the group of major companies’ heads, is gone. Recent meetings of the President have been arranged in such a way that he has met with representatives of big, middle-size and small businesses.

Q: What about the Chamber’s relations with other organizations of businessmen and, in particular, with the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RUIE)? Are there any joint work plans? Is there a division of spheres of influence, functions, etc.?

A: We have the working and, I would say, friendly relations with the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, including the personal ones. After all, there is a kind of interconnection: many businessmen are members of the boards at the Chamber and the Union simultaneously. As for differences in functions, yes, they undoubtedly exist. RUIE concentrates its efforts mainly on protecting interests of big business. As I have already said, our functions have a somewhat wider scope. The system of chambers of commerce and industry has a number of functions that no other business structures have: participation in the Court of Arbitration and the International Arbitration, expert examination of origin and quality of products, exhibition activity, patent activity, accreditation of foreign companies, etc.

Q: Having in mind your present position, how do you assess now those events that took place, when you headed the Government? Also, it would be interesting to know your opinion on performance of the subsequent Cabinets: which steps in the industrial policy you support and which ones make you skeptical?

A: Unafraid of being misinterpreted, I can tell you that I still have a feeling of satisfaction with the work that was done, when I headed the Government. Our Cabinet experienced very hard times. The crisis of 1998 was a peak of the negative policy that was conducted by the "pseudo-liberals" or "young liberals" as they are called. I think that the principal merit of our Government was that we stabilized both the political and economic situation, paid a special attention to developing the economy’s real sector (while not overlooking the macroeconomic sphere). Anyway, we did all that we could for starting an economic upturn. Claims that everything was based on the jump in prices for oil have nothing to do with the reality. It is true that in March 1990 oil prices started climbing, i.e. just two months before I stopped heading the Government.
It is difficult to answer your question about the performance of the subsequent Cabinets. Stepashin headed the Government for less than three months: it is too short a time for judging his Cabinet’s performance. But it should be noted that he kept the general direction and that was his achievement. As for the longer performance of Kasyanov’s Cabinet, in my opinion, it had many pluses, although there were serious minuses as well.
You want to know what steps in the industrial policy I support. It seems to me that precisely the key minus for the performance of Kasyanov’s Cabinet, which stayed in power for four years, was the absence of the industrial policy and – what is more – the deliberate disregard of its necessity.

Q: You are known as a supporter of increasing state regulation of the economy. In your opinion, which industries and spheres should be directly managed by the State?

A: It is a controversial issue. Not always a direct management is more beneficial than state control and regulation. But in any case a state control should embrace those industries, which ensure the defense potential of the country and the well-being of its population.


Profile:
Evgeny Primakov, the president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.
One of a few representatives of the old political elite, who retained the authority and continued his career in today’s Russia. The scope of his activity is rather wide: a journalist, scientist, diplomat, prominent state official. Here are just main milestones in his biography:
In 1953 graduated from the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies and after that completed the post-graduate course at the Moscow University.
In 1956 worked at the Foreign Broadcasting Service of Moscow Radio.
In 1963 was a political observer at the newspaper Pravda and correspondent of this main Soviet newspaper in the Middle East.
In 1970 was a deputy director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations later becoming its director.
In 1991 was the director of the Foreign Intelligence Service.
In 1996 was the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In 1998, as the most acute economic and political crisis broke out in Russia, 69 year-old Primakov became head of the country’s Government. He happened to be the only acceptable person, who received the absolute support in the Parliament both from the left-wing and right-wing parties. President Yeltsin had to accept this decision as well.
Primakov is often criticized from the opposite sides: for "anti-reform" views by the one side and by another for "loyalty to authorities" that implement these reforms. But it is not ruled out that, as time goes by, Primakov will be given his due as a politician, who, despite controversies in the Russian society, managed to act for the country’s benefit using available opportunities and his own abilities.