On the fronts of the first innovative – Newspaper Kommersant No. 208 (7409) dated 11/10/2022
[ad_1]
The inclusion of the White House in providing military supplies for the operation in Ukraine required the restructuring and redirection of public administration – from determining state policy in the sectors of the economy to solving particular problems of the production and supply of specific items of military goods. The future results of this shift in emphasis, announced on Wednesday, November 8, at a meeting of the government coordinating council for the provision of the armed forces, apparently in the future will lead to the transfer of “mobilization” approaches to solving sanctions and production problems of critical and backbone sectors of the economy. The current reason for correcting the management practices of the White House is too attractive, and the shortcomings of the “innovation-mobilization” regulation of the economy may be revealed much later.
On Wednesday, at a meeting of the coordinating council of the government, it was announced that the principles of its work have been formed. According to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, the regulations for interagency cooperation in terms of planning, implementing, monitoring and adjusting targets for the supply of weapons, equipment, and materiel were already ready for approval.
The document should standardize all procedures for making managerial decisions so that departments act uniformly and quickly within the framework of this work.
The regulation, obviously, is the regulatory framework for the previously announced update of administrative procedures and “management” through a broader and deeper coordination of departments of the economic and power bloc (see “Kommersant” from 25 and 26 October).
Recall that the creation of the council itself to include the civilian part of the Cabinet in the solution of “military” tasks was announced on October 19. The formation of such a structure and the declared principles of its activity as a whole develop the scheme of the government’s “coordinating staff” work, which was tested back in the “COVID” year 2020 and was used as part of the government’s response to sanctions – now in an even broader manner. At the same time, the activities of the council may also include elements of “manual control” – in addition to the targets, this structure is engaged, in particular, in setting prices for the goods necessary for the armed forces, selecting suppliers and contractors. However, this is clearly not the main thing – the standard characteristic of “manual control” is the announcement of the problem being solved as unique, dictating unique solutions and refusing to replicate the found effective methods of control at other levels of government.
The latter is critically important: the right to “manual control” is usually assigned to the highest level of power, and attempts to use the same powers “below” are suppressed as a violation of subordination. However, in the current case (unlike, for example, the crisis of 2008–2009), the institutionalization of effective practices is considered (at least for the time being) desirable and is actively spreading in the “lower” levels of power (although it often causes conflicts). The systematization of experience is also now considered normal, and the announcement of each situation as unique and requiring closed discussion from 2021 is no longer common for the White House.
The situation is also influenced by the need to take into account the “feedback” from those in whose favor, in fact, the protocol of the work of a part of the government is being reformed – from the military. On Wednesday, in the closed part of the meeting, representatives of the Ministry of Defense, the FSB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs were supposed to inform the coordinating council about the needs of the armed forces.
According to Mikhail Mishustin, for each item in the nomenclature of “military” products, on which a new management model is being tested, its own schedule is formed, which, if necessary, can cover the entire chain of production, supply of raw materials and components in order to “accurately coordinate the production process.”
Implementing enterprises, Mikhail Mishustin clarified, should be familiarized with such a plan “under a personal signature, so that everyone clearly understands both their task and the measure of responsibility, with a mandatory report by those responsible on the results of the implementation of target tasks.”
Taking into account such approaches, the work of the coordinating council to meet the needs of the Armed Forces can be viewed as the development of a new model for at least part of state administration, which also implies a greater centralization of economic planning. Taking into account the earlier statements by Deputy Prime Minister and Head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov about the need to move from an “absolutely market-oriented industrial policy to a policy of ensuring technological sovereignty”, it cannot be ruled out that such a model can then be extended to other “critical” and backbone industries, where disruptions in supply chains, sanctions and the withdrawal of Western companies from the Russian market had a serious impact. Greater rigidity is likely to be expected in the implementation of a broader policy of import substitution.
What part of the economy will be deemed unsuitable for the “absolutely market” approach is unknown.
In the summer of 2022, the White House, due to the then maximally limited participation of the “civilian sector” of society in the military operation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, already demonstrated that the executive branch as a whole values the “civilian” status of subordinate industries and is not interested in transferring their work “on a war footing”. The integrated nature of the economy currently makes its “partial” mobilization practically impossible: the civil and military sectors are interconnected in it, a significant part of the supply chains for the military-industrial complex are private companies and purely civilian businesses. On the other hand, the short-term effect of the “military-innovative” approach to public administration is indeed higher in the market sector, especially when the authorities are in direct contact with loyal owners. The long-term problems of this approach, primarily the degradation of standard methods of corporate governance, will become visible only after a few years.
At the same time, in the field of import substitution, as the Ministry of Industry and Trade previously admitted, there is already a transition from market policy to the launch of “planned unprofitable projects” and the expansion of “command-mobilization” rhetoric. In total, the portfolio of priority import substitution projects requires more than 6 trillion rubles, comprehensive support for the launch and implementation of projects and guarantees for the purchase of final products (see “Kommersant” dated October 18). Moreover, the possibility of creating a “quasi-planning regime” for such industries as aircraft manufacturing, equipment manufacturing and pharmaceuticals was already discussed earlier, although before that the partial “government planning” of certain decisions was explained by “tactical quick measures that make it possible to stop the negative development of events in the short term. track and gain time to develop systemic, but at the same time market-oriented solutions” (see “Kommersant” dated June 14).
The temptation of non-market tactics with a market strategy in emergency circumstances that give the government new unique opportunities that expand the “covid” ones is very great, especially since no one will free the White House from the main task of organizing military supplies, at least by a market, at least by a non-market way. The main difficulty now seems to be the primacy of non-economic logic in the work of the coordinating council – military-political achievements and economic development very rarely coincide in history.
Russian troops leave Kherson
The units of the Russian Armed Forces deployed in the right-bank part of the Kherson region will be withdrawn to the left bank of the Dnieper. This decision was made by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, after listening to the report of the commander of the Joint Group in the area of the special operation, Sergei Surovikin.
As the commander explained, due to shelling by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Kherson and neighboring settlements “cannot be fully supplied and function,” and “people’s lives are constantly in danger.” More than 115,000 people have already left the right bank of the Dnieper as part of the announced evacuation, but the measures taken may not be enough if the “Kyiv regime” implements its plans “to create a flood zone below the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station,” Mr. Surovikin warned. In this case, there will be a threat of “complete isolation of our group of troops on the right bank of the Dnieper.” In this regard, he proposed to “take up defense along the left bank of the Dnieper River” in order to save the lives of military personnel and “the combat capability of the group of troops.” In addition, this will free up part of the forces and means for active operations in other directions, the commander added.
Sergei Shoigu agreed with his conclusions. “Make sure that all civilians who want to can leave, and proceed with the withdrawal of troops,” he ordered. General Surovikin in response promised to carry out a “maneuver” “in the near future” and take “defensive lines prepared in engineering terms” on the left bank of the Dnieper.
[ad_2]
Source link
