Basis and superstructure - what is the danger of a populist approach to the economy of Kazakhstan.

In social networks, a discussion of Kazakhstani economic experts flared up. The reason for it was an article by Timur Aysautov, head of the DAMU Research Group research agency, published in one of the business publications. The author discusses why Kazakhstan is not able to achieve significant improvements in the economy, and opponents give their reasons, reports Total.kz.

Four gaps

Timur Aysautov sees the problem in four fundamental gaps. First, all the economic strategies adopted by the government do not solve the fundamental problem laid down in the basis of the economy, but appeal only to its superstructure. Secondly, the methods of economic management, formed in accordance with liberal concepts, have shown their failure. Thirdly, domestic business within the framework of the current liberal economic model is not interested in solving the problems of industrialization. Fourth, government agencies and development institutions will never have sufficient competence in matters of industrialization and economic development.

“A fragmented solution to any economic problem individually, whether it is the development of the banking or financial sector as a whole, the stock market, diversification and industrialization, export, fighting against corruption, inefficient fiscal policy - all this is extremely unpromising in the framework of the current economic policy, since all these issues basically have common roots. All dynamic processes always and inevitably strive for their basic average, laid down in the basis of the economy. That is why all these and other local problems must be solved at the source of their formation, in the basis, namely, in the nature of the relationship between the state and national capital,”, - the author of the article believes.

Myths and misconceptions

His position was supported by Kuanysh Zhaikov, a partner of the Center for Research and Consulting. In his opinion, the article "collects most of the misconceptions about economic policy". Despite the fact that he generally agrees with the conclusions of the researcher Aysautov, the expert debunked his argument. Speaking about using the experience of "Asian tigers", Zhaikov said that Kazakhstan will not be able to apply the symbiosis of export-oriented and protectionist policies.

"Japan and South Korea's foreign trade partner 60 years ago was the United States — a richer and economically larger country. The United States had a policy of containing communism, so they needed allies in the region, at all costs. As for Russia, our countries are similar in terms of GDP per capita. We are both commodity-dependent. Kazakhstan, as a market, is 10 times smaller and scattered around the perimeter. The US doesn't care about us. Kazakhstan also cannot threaten to leave for Europe after Ukraine, like Belarus. The concession of our positions in the EEU is not liberalism, but its absence. This is an unequal competition, when Russians and Belarusians subsidize their enterprises and come up with non-tariff barriers to enter their markets. This should be eliminated, we should not close, because the principles of free trade are violated", - the expert wrote.

As for studying the experience of East Asian countries, the expert leads the audience to the arguments of institutional economists.

"The culture of East Asian peoples is very similar to that of Western Europe. These were densely populated territories with higher social capital. Their characteristic feature is the ability to sacrifice current needs for the sake of the future. That is, saving even when you are poor and thinking long-term. When some East Asian countries were infiltrated by Western institutions, the coup began. First, the Meiji Restoration in Japan. Then the Japanese military Park Chong Hee introduced a more "right-wing " agenda in South Korea, Chiang Kai-shek- in Taiwan, and Lee Kuan Yew- in Singapore. When China partially switched to these tracks under Dan Saoping, its rapid growth began. “The soil” was fertile, the effect of a “taut spring”, - the expert recalled.

Kuanysh Zhaikov summarized that the primary reason for the success of the "Asian tigers" was not protectionism, but "geography, informal institutions and a lucky combination of circumstances, as in the entire world history".
 
Original articles:
https://www.facebook.com/kuanysh.zhaikov/posts/3933806183327433
https://www.facebook.com/kuanysh.zhaikov/posts/3942523189122399
https://www.facebook.com/kuanysh.zhaikov/posts/3948021218572596