Efficiency of the state's “manual” management. Challenges of 2020

Most countries spend first months of 2020 in crisis conditions caused by a sharp escalation of the epidemiological situation due to the spread of the coronavirus infection. The pandemic, declared by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020, is not the first such test for humanity1. However, its circumstances are new, complex, and unknown.

The real practice of “closing” state borders is carried out against the background of, seemingly, the only and non-alternative path of historical development – globalization. As experts note, “the measures for fighting the coronavirus pandemic generally boil down to one thing: closure. If we assume that the previous universal paradigm, at least in theory, was a global, liberal, market-based opened society where the ideology of human rights, meaning individual’s rights regardless of citizenship, state, religion, race, or even gender, was dominant, then the coronavirus represents an exact 180% change of humanity’s dominant trend...”2.

Table 1. Dynamics of international tourism indicators, million units

Territory	Number of arrivals						Number of departures
	1995	2000	2010	2015	2018	2018 to 1995, %	1995	2000	2010	2015	2018	2018 to 1995, %
World	532.95	689.65	973.77	1227.87	1441.95	270.6	604.18*	733.38	1073.42	1336.35	1563.56	258.8
UN countries	263.20	331.01	378.07	473.43	555.89	211.2	219.87*	268.00	337.36	369.03	445.07	202.4
East Asia and Oceania	77.68	105.03	195.02	263.42	320.27	412.3	111.03**	135.13	244.83	357.38	415.03	373.8
Latin America and the Caribbean countries	47.44	56.00	73.25	97.00	113.35	238.9	23.69	30.62	44.22	63.17	70.17	296.2
North America	60.64	71.20	76.46	95.96	101.16	166.8	69.48	80.50	89.76	106.48	118.62	169.9
For reference: Russia	10.29	21.17	22.28	33.73	24.55	238.6	21.33	18.37	39.32	34.55	41.96	196.7

Source: database of the World Bank. Available at: * Data for 1997.

** Data for 1998.

Forced self-isolation, as the most efficient current method of preventing the epidemic, is implemented on the background of a long-time global trend of annual increase of international tourism’ flow ( Tab. 1 ). According to UN World Tourism Organization, “in 2019, there were 1.5 billion worldwide tourist arrivals.

“Sharp decline of oil prices and the coronavirus outbreak, which became a full-fledged pandemic, reinforced each other and put the world on the verge of a global recession. Counteraction against the crisis is complicated by the fact that the disintegration of society, necessary for fighting the virus, exacerbates economic difficulties” ³ .

The growth of international tourism continues for the 10th year in a row… in 2019, it was recorded in all regions of the world”4.

In Russia, during the last 23 years in particular (from 1995 to 2018), a number of trips abroad has almost doubled (from 21 to 42 million), a number of arrivals from foreign countries increased by almost 2.5 times (from 10 to 25 million).

The global economy was simultaneously hit by a sharp drop of oil prices due to the reduction of domestic and international traffic against the background of quarantine measures and aggressive economic policy of Saudi Arabia5.

As a result, the world’s largest publications and organizations predict a global economic recession:

• V    The World Trade Organization forecasts a drop of world trade in 2020 by more than 30%⁶;

• V    according to experts of the International Monetary Fund , “the recession in 2020 will be recorded in 157 countries out of 194, including Russia ... on average, the value of global GDP will decrease by 3%”⁷;

• V    according to Bloomberg , “the coronavirus pandemic is set to rob the global economy of more than 5 trillion dollars. Even with unprecedented levels of monetary and fiscal stimulus, gross domestic product is unlikely to return to its pre-crisis trend until at least 2022”⁸;

V according to the World Bank experts, “Global growth is expected to recover to 2.5 percent in 2020 – up slightly from the postcrisis low of 2.4 percent registered last year amid weakening trade and investment. Nevertheless, downside risks predominate, including the possibility of a re-escalation of global trade tensions, sharp downturns in major economies, and financial disruptions… A steep productivity growth slowdown has been underway in emerging and developing economies since the global financial crisis, despite the largest, fastest, and most broad-based accumulation of debt since the 1970s”9.10

“Along with globalism, the model of the world order which became the only alternative after the collapse of the USSR is falling apart. Therefore, there is no reliable model that can be taken as a basic one in these conditions. We know that a closed society is taking the place of an open society, but “what this society is”, “what this society will be”, “what this closeness means”, and “what it will lead to, what it will result in”, no one can answer for sure. This is what makes our situation so critical, disastrous, and, at the same time, fascinating” ¹⁰ .

Therefore, due to the impact of the pandemic, trends of global development of the last centuries (“crisis of classical liberalism”, “strengthening of the role of the national agenda in relation to the global one”, “growing attention to issues of national security”, “socioeconomic consequences of a rapid spread of new (primarily digital) technologies”, etc.¹¹) sharply escalated. International organizations (WHO, UN, EU) are losing control over the situation and the efficiency of their activities is quite often criticized (in particular, WHO was criticized for the delay in the official recognition and declaration of the coronavirus pandemic, and it largely caused the lack of efficiency of quarantine measures¹²;

the EU – for self-exclusion from problems faced by its participants at the national level13). Some states make their own decisions concerning methods of fighting the epidemic and keep the economy, the level and quality of life of population “afloat”. It contradicts basic principles of a globalized world order that prevailed throughout the post-war period.

At the national level , current relations between society and authorities, the ability of the state to efficiently organize epidemiologic measures for the coronavirus counteractions, to implement comprehensive and operative actions to support systems of healthcare, economy, business, population are all seriously challenged.

At the individual level , people’s civic responsibility is tested first of all: their readiness to change their habitual way of living for a common cause – to prevent the spread of the infection and reduce workload on healthcare system – and to overcome economic and social problems that arise during quarantine measures.

Thus, the nature of the challenge, caused by this viral infection, is not only epidemiological but also civilizational (political, economic, cultural and value). It tests the viability of various levels of human life organization: the entire civilization, the efficiency of public administration at the national level, people’s way of living at the individual level.

Every country that faces this challenge chooses its own tactics for conducting foreign and domestic policy to get out of this situation not only “alive” but also competitive14.

In particular, China’s experience – the first country to face the coronavirus and, therefore, the leading state in the fight with the infection – shows that the main condition for overcoming the epidemic is a high efficiency of public administration: a clear organization of all spheres of life, mobilization and consolidation of society and government, mass readiness to adapt mutual restrictions and change the usual way of living for common interests (prevention of the infection spread). At the same time, no social outbursts should be allowed.

China is gradually coming back to normal life: quarantine restrictions are being lifted, people go to work, visit cultural places and events, public transport is beginning to function... Some European countries (Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic, Denmark15, etc.) are also gradually removing quarantine restrictions, but, unlike them, China is really beating a viral infection, and it is not just sacrificing the safety and health of its citizens in favor of additional opportunities to support its national economy.

«Today, during a bacteriological war declared to all mankind, China shows wonders of resilience. A billion-and-a-half population, all its divisions: science, army, medicine, and public organizations consistently and simultaneously perform a grandiose, deadly strategic task, saving China from destruction. China has been living all these decades within a mobilization project: a powerful state, an unshakable party that is the intelligence of the nation, the regulator of all country’s contradictions. Strategic planning, the ability of a huge population to mobilize, the subordination of personal interests and whims to a common goal and task, the reliance on the state allow China to cope with a terrible epidemic among other, unprepared for this scourge peoples who are dominated by hedonism, blind consumption, thirst for pleasure, the idea of unrestrained individual freedom, the rejection of the state” ¹⁶ .

efficient measures to save human lives) in China is 4–5 times lower than in Italy, Spain, or the United Kingdom.

For Russia, the comprehensive crisis at the beginning of 2020 becomes a test of the efficiency of “manual” government control of the last 20 years; the ability of all government levels to be “maximally mobilized, to act in a coordinated way and, most importantly, to work in advance”17. It is important that the Russian Federation faces the pandemic in the middle of deep, complex, and dynamic transformations related to the President’s initiatives, announced during his Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in 2018–2020.

It is clearly showed by the dynamics of statistic data on the spread of the coronavirus infections in countries: in April – March 2020, a number of infected people in China increased by 2 thousand. At the same time, this number increased by 87 thousand in Italy, by 80 thousand in Germany, and by 124 thousand in Spain ( Insert 1 ). The mortality rate from coronavirus in March – April 2020 in China increased from 0.2 to 0.3 per 100 thousand people. For comparison, in Italy – from 19.9 to 41.6 cases per 100 thousand people; in Spain – from 16.9 to 45; in Germany – from 1 to 6.9 ( Insert 2 ). ¹⁶

Even though China faced the epidemic earlier that European countries and, consequently, earlier reached a “plateau” of the infection, a number of infected people in China is significantly lower than in countries of the Old World. Most importantly, a number of deaths from coronavirus (as an indicator of the spread of the infection and the ability of public administration and health system to take

“Amendments to the Constitution and the transition to “breakthrough development” are separated in time, but they form a unity” ¹⁸ .

The entire course of national development, which Russian President Vladimir Putin has been implementing since 199919, is challenged. “Deep state”, which is based on special relations between society and the national leader, and the “manual” management style, implemented by V. Putin throughout all his presidential terms, are tested.

In these conditions, any supporting points aimed at stabilizing the future (in economic, political, cultural, social terms) become especially important for national security. From these positions, it should be noted that the President once again showed by an actual example what it means to “act ahead of the curve”.

Insert 1

Insert 2

Е z

<

со

8

co

2

co

co

Si

g

co

2

g

2

g

^ co *» о

CD

2

о   ^ О  ^ i  1 CD   ^ 2 |  1 ? I °    ’ey —    O) 5       TO         2d s  E |  | °  Ъ ^  5 r-    ° VD    c to        "o    "^ CD   S ^   ^ cm    Toto    cd 22ВЙ *7 CM   CD ' " ol —: с о   о < s  ~  2 ^ LO CD CD     у °2 5 E  £ 03 о +^ O)    -Q о то ^5 ш    о tt -— <У "О    > Ш   ° | || 8 со ТО     СО еУ       I со      О 2 о = Е   "2, 05 Ё5  CD О CD <      СМ о<2  ° аЗ ^ ^   ‘о ° ^ Е ф  ^ Ф с О Е ^ о -CD _О Е Ф т- "4^ Е у  ° 6 g 8   8 2 > -| Ф ^ о -О ^ о -Е1 >      5 о) -С=  ГСЗ "СО 2   1  с= 5 § S  С 5 2    та ° та ^ 8 2 та "2 8 - _ о  G У § Е 7 я ш ” 8 М= JO Q g = ™ 2 ° о - 2 ° § °? 2 2 2 о" 2 S О1 2 Д s          ? °   та 5 5" о о ^ 2 8 >    та ' та   та О -К g 2 g  2 °   е g та $ 2 о та 8 8 -с "Е <У ^ -^ ^ ^ 1   то то О > *   о -к  ОС Q СО <С *

2

со

со

co

2

g

co

CM

2

s

co

2

CM

g

CD

g

g

g

CM CD О

CD

§

g

g

co

§

g

g

g

g

§

g

g

CD

g

g

g

g

g

О о CD О

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

g

О о CD О

CD

g

Е Z

<

2

со

g

co

CM

CM

CD

co

g

co

CD

8

2

О см *» со ^

CO

co

2

со

s

8

co

co

co

2

g

g

Si

co

g

g

g

co

co

g

а> *» со

CD

g

g

g

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

g

g

g

CO

CD

g

g

g

g

о CD О

2

та

g

g

§

CD

S

g

g

g

2

g

g

g

s

g

g

g

g

О CD О

s

g

t:

со

2

2

CO

2

g

CO

S

2

2

s

g

2

g

2

Ш О см см см 5

g

g

о CD

1 "55 СО

'to CO

О

"to m TO 6

TO z

CO

ZD

S)

E S

TO

-S

H

TO m

сс

та

с

CM

co

"У

CO

co

▻*

co

od

CD

CM

co

CO

co

со

CD

g

Let us remind that the first case of coronavirus infection in the world was recorded on November 17, 201920. Perhaps, it caused the President’s unusually early Address to the Federal Assembly. He, of course, understood that “Russia, due to its geographical location, cannot isolate itself from this threat. There are states near our borders that have already been seriously affected by the epidemic, and it is objectively impossible to completely block its penetration into our country”21.

«World, indeed, changes very fast. The significance of state unity foundations only increases. Social obligations of the state are related to it. These amendments constitutionalize a social state… And it is not necessary to oppose “social” amendments to “political” ones. Conceptually, it is a single entity ²² .

The nature of constitutional amendments, securing principles of a “social state”, the priority of national interests over international ones, making a real step toward the nationalization of ruling elites, together with wide involvement of society in the discussion on amendments and the idea of all-Russian voting as a final authority of implementing it, allowed uniting and mobilizing society in the period of a serious crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic.22

It is unknown, how a large-scale discussion on constitutional amendments would go if it had not been announced earlier – before the country faced the coronavirus epidemic and its socioeconomic consequences. Most likely, the political situation in the country would be much less stable if the President was in a “lame duck” situation today; if he did not timely “remove” unnecessary questions about the transit of power by initiating amendments to the main law.23242526

However, currently, at the peak of the epidemic, the political situation in Russia seems quite stable. Issues related to the transit of power in 2024 were, in fact, removed from the current agenda; society highly evaluates the efficiency of measures conducted by the President and government to protect people, and it follows quarantine regulations of the authorities in a fairly organized manner. Even

According to VCIOM:

V more than 60% of Russians are certain that “Russian authorities (epidemiological and medical services) will protect population from the coronavirus spread” (32% of population share an opposite opinion) ²³ .

V 60% of citizens think that Russian authorities take “sufficient” measures to prevent the coronavirus spread (26% of population share an opposite opinion) ²⁴ ;

V 80% of Russians stopped to go out and walk or started to do it less often in the last two weeks;

V 84% - limited their contacts with friends, 69% – with elderly relatives;

V 76% - stopped leaving a house to go to stores or pharmacy ²⁵ ;

V 81% of people, assessing the behavior of their friends, relatives, acquaintances, say that “most of them keep self-isolation” ²⁶ .

Weekly dynamics of the assessment of the RF President’s work (VCIOM data), % from a number of respondents

though difficult times are experienced by a majority of Russians, the President’s support remains stable, and it started to increase since the moment of introduction of all-Russian quarantine in the country²⁷ (Figure ).

People can see that all elements of the state administration system work dynamically; the State Duma and the Federation Council make quick decisions, and, if necessary, make legislative changes, which take effect immediately after the adoption; all this work is mobilized personally by the President, who basically holds various kinds of daily meetings28 with cabinet members, governors, and experts. After such meetings, within a few days, specific decisions are adopted, and a real assistance is provided to population, business, the health system, and the economy itself.2728

Another “ahead of the curve” step was the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, proposed by a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation V.V. Tereshkova.

It is no secret that V. Putin, who, according to the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation, was supposed to resign in 2024, is the only guarantor of the Constitution itself and of the entire course of the development focused on sovereignty and priority of national interests. However, the amendment to “nullify” presidential terms, proposed on March 10, 2020, completely changed the situation by guaranteeing the possibility of implementing a nationally oriented development course conducted by the President. Even despite non-system opposition’s reflex protest reaction toward the fact that there were no wide public debates on the “Tereshkova’s amendment”, the logic of tense global events contributed to the fact that this amendment was included in the general Law “On improving the regulation of certain issues of the organization and functioning of public authority”29, signed by the President on March 14, 2020, and was approved by the Constitutional court of the Russian Federation (March 16, 202030). The idea of “nullifying” V. Putin’s presidential terms was supported by a majority of Russian society: according to VCIOM, 73% of Russians knew about this initiative, while 64% of respondents said that they would vote for amendments to the Constitution31.

The very possibility of a new presidential term for V. Putin is itself a guaranteed opportunity and a signal to elites to continue implementing a nationally oriented political course if “something

“Political forces that dream about returning to the 90s have not been making any differences on the Russian political Olympus for a long time, but they have not disappeared . The “beneficiaries of the 90s” are not limited by the “non-system opposition” which the President recently called “beneficial” for the “system”. This is a part of economic and political elites who want to survive Putin’s rule and return everything” ³² .

goes wrong”. This abstract phrase refers not only to the economy or international relations’ problems but also to possible liberal forces’ attempts to take advantage of the power transit and tilt the scales of public administration in their own direction.32

At the same time, it should be noted that, at least, two more potential presidential terms of V. Putin are not a “panacea” for deep internal problems that firmly rooted in the Russian system of public administration in the last 30 years.

During his previous presidential terms, V. Putin managed to do a lot. In particular, it would be impossible today to talk about the division of “centers of gravity” in the system of state administration and a higher role of society in decision-making and control of state structures’ activities without a political and civil maturation of society to the level that allows the President to make such proposals. It is no accident that a new term appeared in the political space of the country – “the system of public power” which “turns into a common denominator for all authorities” and “at the first approach, it means a power that is open and accountable to society”³³.

“In general, we may talk about changing the “center of gravity” of the political system. An ”extended” version of the “center of gravity” is formed, the system’s connectivity and the ability of various elements to work to work together increase” ³⁴ .

However, the question of how the system of state administration will function without its main actor will not be removed from the “agenda” until the head of the state solves, for example, the main task – the nationalization of elites. Without it, there would be no fundamental changes in issues concerning personal responsibility, professionalism of strategic planning, moral attitude of ruling elites to the management of the country and people’s lives, and, ultimately, no further construction of the Russian state based on principles of priority of national interests, social justice, and sovereignty. Without these components, it is impossible to make a breakthrough in solving the most relevant problems that concern the population.

According to scientists, “there are 20 million poor people in Russia according to official data. In fact – 57 (if we look only at incomes) and 120 million (more than 85% of population) if we look at income and housing conditions… That is, 3 million of “rich” people versus 57 million of “poor” people. This data is based solely on incomes, without considering accumulated property and assets of so-called “oligarchs”. It is a huge gap”³⁵ (Tab. 2) .

Similar amount of problems has accumulated in the public administration system itself. Even though D. Medvedev’s liberal government was replaced by a team of professionals “sharpened” to solve specific, functional problems, not all experts optimistically assess prospects of the Cabinet of Ministers headed by M. Mishustin.

Table 2. Distribution of Russian population by income level

Group Number Income level mil. people* % from total population number of subsistence minimums rub. People below the poverty line 19.09 13 < 1 < 10328 People with low-income (poor) 41.11 28 ≤ 2 ≤ 20656 Intermediate level 33.77 23 2 – 3 20656 – 30984 People with middle-income 46.99 32 3 – 11 30984 – 113608 People with high-income 2.94 2 > 11 > 120000 According to: Exorcist Golikova will drive the poor out of the country. Interview with chief of the laboratory on problems of the level and quality of life of the Institute of socio-economic problems of population at RAS prof. V.N. Bobkov. Argumenty nedeli, 07.02.2019, p. 3. * Average permanent number of population in Russia in 2018 was 146.830.576 people (Source: Database of the Federal State Statistics Service. Available at:

Experts about the composition of the RF Government headed by M.V. Mishustin ³⁶ :

Mel’nichenko O.V. (member of the Federation Council from the Penza Oblast): “ All new members of the government – people who have been successful in their professions, who have experience of work in regions, universities, and large enterprises. People who have actually walked the land, and who know their industries. This is encouraging”.

Danilin P.V. (director of the Center for Political Analysis): “ Update of the Cabinet of Ministers corresponds to the staff policy of the President, who responds to the existing social request for changes. Certainly, the new government will be engaged in implementing May decrees and national projects with new strengths”.

Badovsky D.V. (head of the foundation “Institute for Socioeconomic and Political Research”): “The government becomes technological to achieve efficiency in the implementation of national projects at the expense of management digitalization and social policy too. These topics are very close to the Prime Minister . The government also aims to ensure a significant increase of the economic growth rate”.

Kolesnikov A.V. (head of the program “Russian domestic politics and political institutions” at Carnegie Moscow Center): “ Mishustin has a technocratic function. He is a man, more or less, non-clan-nish, without especially expressed political values, who has experience of setting up a large organization and digitalization. He is a technologized person who does not cause rejection of different clans. It is good for Putin”.

Martynov A.A. (politologist, publicist, human rights defender): “As for the overall composition of the new government, it seems that this is a cabinet of professionals and technocrats focused on the implementation of tasks set by the President in his Address. Moreover, the implementation should be fast and energetic. Many announced measures have been in effect since January, we may say since “yesterday”. This is exactly what I think these people were brought together for. They were selected according to this principle, competence, and the ability to work efficiently in such difficult, dynamic current conditions ”.

Delyagin M.G. (Doctor of Sciences (Economics), economist, publicist): “ The new Cabinet of Ministers will continue the socio-economic policy of the government of D. Medvedev. As the head of the Bank of Russia, madam Nabiullina is a guarantee of this. Another guarantee is the retention of such iconic government figures as Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova ³⁷ .

Putin V.V.: “Give me 20 years, and I will give you back a strong Russia” ³⁹ .

Thus, the country still has a significant number of acute problems mainly because Russia has not had a necessary period for a calm internal development during the entire period of V. Putin’s presidential term⁴⁰. The solution of these problems will largely depend on the international situation (especially, political and economic consequences of the pandemic); on the rate of national projects’ implementation slowdown due to economic consequences of the coronavirus epidemic and the efficiency of authorities’ solution to support most groups of population. An equally important factor will be the ability of the public administration system to function efficiently in the new political environment. It will be put into effect after the all-Russian vote on amendments to the Constitution if they are supported by most of the country’s population.

A new National Security Strategy may become a real asset for improving the efficiency of public administration at all levels. It should be developed next year4135 and, let us remind, it is carried out under the personal control of the President42.

Key differences between the current National Security Strategy, signed by V. Putin in 2015, and National Security Strategy – 2009, signed by D. Medvedev, were given in our previous article. We noted that practically every paragraph in it was given “a completely new content, and the general summary of these innovations is aimed at developing the level and quality of life of “ordinary” Russians and ensuring the sovereign, independent development of the country”⁴³³⁷. Here we would like to say that, in unison with a new (or, rather, updated) Constitution of the Russian Federation, National Security Strategy – 2021 should provide a state guarantee and a possibility to really ensure all social, political, cultural and value responsibilities taken by the state in relation to Russian society.

It means not just maintaining main provisions of the Strategy – 2015, related to the protection of national interests at international and domestic levels, but also its development in accordance with conditions, which changed over the last 6 years, and new (mainly social) obligations assumed by the state in accordance with a new version of the Constitution. It includes “ensuring the provision of affordable and high-quality medical care”, the formation of “a system of citizens’ pension provision on the basis of principles of universality, justice, and solidarity”, “indexation of pensions at least once a year”, “guaranteed minimum salary not below the minimum subsistence level of able-bodied population»443. In other words, obligations the implementation of which should be tangible for each citizen of our country. It implies the formation of a new generation of elites focused on priorities of national development and capable of ensuring dynamic development of the level and quality of life among majority of population.

The next decade, therefore, is the time for Putin, as the President, national leader, and guarantor of the Constitution, to build an efficient and stable system of vertical public power that can function without him, without “manual” management, and work in accordance with Russia’s national interests, including ensuring independence and competitiveness in the international arena.

Perhaps, determining factors of Russian statehood’s further development are the President’s decisions, which remain unpredictable for many experts. V. Putin has always been aware of his historical responsibility to the country, and he has never avoided it. A voter sees that the President takes responsibility for everything that happens in the country and how it looks in the international arena.

Let us remind that, in his first official speech as the President of the Russian Federation,

• A. Khazin: “I am not going to predict Putin’s actions. In this sense, he is a grandmaster, and his moves are usually as unexpected as they are efficient. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that he still has a lot of reserves, and they will be put into action. We do not know about them yet. But I can say one thing: any person who understands that it is necessary to return to conservative values should support Putin today” ⁴⁵ .

• V. Putin emphasized that he addresses “Russian citizens”. He began his speech with words that, by and large, may characterize all his further actions during subsequent presidential terms, including current times, 20 years later:

“ I understand that I took a huge responsibility, and I know that, in Russia, the head of state has always been and will always be the person who is responsible for everything that happens in the country” ⁴⁶.

Twenty years of V. Putin’s presidency give reasons to believe that, with such ideology of responsibility of the highest official, we will withstand the challenge in 2020 and during his subsequent presidential terms.