Bugromenko
V.N.
THE
NEW ROAD TAX AS THE BASE FOR GROWTH OF GDP
Recently Methodical instructions
which assess the pure contribution of roads to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
were published. It has been worked out by "Geogracom"
on the instructions of Ministry of Transport of
ROADS AND GROSS
DOMESTIC PRODUCT
The former head of road branch (Rosavtodor) I. N. Sljunjaev has
sounded at recent All-Russia Meeting of scientific organizations of Rosavtodor unexpected for many theses: it is time to report
not for input of the roads, the consumed resources and even their saving. But
for that how road branch have improved quality of life and promoted economic
growth. An integrated parameter of well-being of economy is Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), at a region level - Gross Regional Product (GRP). But just
calculation of direct influence of roads on growth of Gross Domestic Product
was simply absent.
There are two reasons - and both are
objective. The first one - a dual economic nature of
infrastructure which does not produce material assets. But it produces
services as the general, more favorable conditions of vital activity and
managing. For example, a road has been reconstructed. Numerous users have taken
advantage of the best again created conditions: both the population and
manufacturers (carriers). But nobody of them does not
calculate benefits which have wonderfully appeared: smaller
deterioration of trunks, saving of fuel, smaller environmental pollution, save
of time, at last, growing appeal of adjoining territories. Means, there is no
appropriate accounting. It turns out, that the effect is created by roads, but
it "is smeared" on all users. And nobody of them do not tell even
thank. Earlier there was road users tax (not market), but now and it does not
exist.
So, economic features of a road
infrastructure conduct to underestimation of output of road branch in the
simple formula:
Gross Added Value
(GAV) = output - intermediate consumption.
The branches using improved road
services, reduce the intermediate consumption and due to it show the increased
contribution of the branch to Gross Domestic Product though there is no their
merit in it. In Ministry of Economy agree, that underestimation of production
of transport is about 1,1 %, and on our estimations in
any way it is not less than 20 %.
Let's take a real segment of economy
which we have studied in the
The economists understand this
problem, but do not solve it despite the importance for road branch. But the
situation has changed. The number of federal and presidential programs is
decrease. After successful decision of problems of federalism (reduction
conformity of the regional and federal legislation) plenipotentiaries of
President of Russian Federation try to provide doubling of GDP for one decade.
And each branch if it applies on normal existence is obliged to prove, that its
positions in it "big gallop" are preferable.
Therefore we have offered to refuse
stereotypes and to solve a problem "from the other hand" - to
investigate, how the improved road conditions have an effect for decrease of
the cost price of production everyone who uses roads, including motor transport
as branch. As nobody conducts such account it is possible to make with help of
model, in this case, with the help of multiple regression
where in the left part there is a cost price of production, and in right - the
variables influencing it, including road conditions. The last pay off with the
help of a new parameter of Integrated Transport Availability (ITA) checked up
on practice of thirty regions of
This table can be interpreted as the
address guidebook to the private-public partnership (ppp):
the more the figure, the easier to convince the private investor to put means
in road branch.
The second table gives
representation about a public overall performance of branch, in other words it
answer for a question, as burdensome (or on the contrary favorable to country)
to support road branch (last line - "a road surplus"). Here is
approximate results for
Table 1.
Typical shares of motor transport and highways in the
cost price of production, %
|
Branches |
Typical shares of motor
transport and roads in the cost price of production, % |
||
|
|
In Russia (1999-2002) |
In USA (1999)[1] |
|
|
Industry
|
average 4,0
(3-7)[2] |
|
|
|
Power industry |
1,5 |
|
|
|
Machine-building |
5,0 |
|
|
|
Fuel industry |
2,0 |
|
|
|
Ferrous metallurgy |
2,3 |
|
|
|
Chemical industry |
2,8 |
|
|
|
Mining industry |
8,5 |
4,3 |
|
|
Timber industry |
22,0 |
|
|
|
Industry of building materials |
8,0 |
|
|
|
Light industry |
5,8 |
|
|
|
Food industry |
average 9,0
(7-15) |
|
|
|
Including: |
|
|
|
|
Dairy |
10,2 |
|
|
|
Bakery |
5,0 |
|
|
|
Meat |
12,3 |
|
|
|
Flour-grinding-groats and mixed foddering |
6,5 |
|
|
|
Other industry |
0,3 |
|
|
|
Agriculture |
|
average 7,0
(5-25) |
8,0 |
|
Including: |
|
|
|
|
Dairy cattle breeding |
|
8,6 |
|
|
Grain
growing |
|
4,2 |
|
|
Vegetable growing |
|
5,6 |
|
|
Other |
0,3 |
|
|
|
Construction |
9,5 |
7,7 |
|
|
Transport and connection From them: Motor transport |
|
average 35
(25-80) |
|
|
Retail trade |
average 24
(20-30) |
4,5 |
|
|
Other |
0,3 |
|
|
Table 2
The approximate Calculation of the pure
contribution of road branch in gross domeStic product of the
|
Branches in structure GDP |
Share
of branch in GDP, %
|
Share
of roads and motor transport in the cost price, % |
The
contribution of roads and motor transport in GDP branches, % |
Share
of industry in the total contribution of roads and motor transport, % |
|
Industry |
36,10 (39,00) |
4,00 |
1,43 (1,56) |
26,28 (28,06) |
|
Ferrous metallurgy |
7,40 (6,00) |
2,30 |
0,17 (0,14) |
3,13 (2,52) |
|
Industry of building materials |
2,40 (2,80) |
8,00 |
0,19 (0,22) |
3,49 (3,96) |
|
Food industry |
8,60 (10,10) |
9,00 |
0,77 (0,91) |
14,15 (16,37) |
|
Other branches |
17,70 (17,20) |
1,70 |
0,30 (0,29) |
5,51 (5,22) |
|
Agriculture |
7,30 (7,30) |
7,00 |
0,51 (0,51) |
9,38 (9,17) |
|
Transport |
8,00 (8,00) |
18,00 |
1,44 (1,44) |
26,47 (25,90) |
|
Motor transport |
2,40 (2,40) |
35,00 |
0,84 (0,84) |
15,44 (15,11) |
|
Other modes |
6,60 (6,60) |
9,1 |
0,60 (0,60) |
11,03 (10,79) |
|
Trade, commercial activity |
21,70 (21,70) |
|
1,98 (1,98) |
36,40 (35,61) |
|
Retail trade |
8,10 (8,10) |
24,00 |
1,94 (1,94) |
35,66 (34,89) |
Other branches
|
13,60 (13,60) |
0,30 |
0,04 (0,04) |
0,74 (0,72) |
Other
|
26,90 (24,00) |
0,30 |
0,08 (0,07) |
1,47 (1,26) |
Total
|
100,00 |
|
5,44 (5,56) |
100,00 (100,00) |
The contribution of roads and motor transport in GDP
region, %
|
5,44 |
||
The contribution of
road only in GDP of a region
|
2000 |
||
Expenses for roads, % |
|
||
"Road surplus" of a region, %
|
1,55 |
The contribution of roads and motor transport in GDP
region, %
|
5,56 |
The contribution
of road only in GDP of a region
|
4,72 |
Expenses for roads, % |
2,89 |
"Road surplus" of a region, %
|
1,83 |
Table
3
The economic contribution of
roads in GRP of the
|
Branches |
Share of branch in GRP, % |
Share of roads and motor transport
in the cost price, % |
The contribution of roads and
motor transport in GRP branches, % |
Share of branch in the total
contribution of roads and motor transport in GRP, % |
The
level of commercial road use, % |
Relative
effectiveness of road use, in times |
|
Industry |
42.0 |
3.8 |
0.9 |
25.66 |
11.4 |
2.25 |
|
Power industry |
4.9 |
0.3 |
0.015 |
0.42 |
|
|
|
Ferrous metallurgy |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.001 |
0.03 |
0.75 |
0.04 |
|
Chemical industry |
7 |
0.3 |
0.021 |
0.6 |
|
|
|
Machine-building |
13.3 |
0.3 |
0.04 |
1.14 |
|
|
|
Timber industry |
0.6 |
22 |
0.132 |
3.76 |
|
|
|
Industry of building
materials |
2.2 |
4.6 |
0.101 |
2.88 |
0.62 |
4.6 |
|
Light industry |
0.8 |
5.8 |
0.046 |
1.31 |
|
|
|
Food industry |
8.4 |
4.8 |
0.403 |
11.49 |
0.19 |
60.5 |
|
Flour-grinding-groats and mixed foddering |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.001 |
0.03 |
|
|
|
Other main branches |
4.5 |
3.1 |
0.14 |
3.99 |
|
|
|
Agriculture |
12.8 |
8 |
1.024 |
29.19 |
15.01 |
1.94 |
|
Construction |
6.4 |
21.4 |
1.305 |
37.21 |
|
|
|
Other branches |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0 |
0.02 |
|
|
|
Market services |
25 |
0.3 |
0.075 |
2.13 |
|
|
|
Transport |
4.5 |
3.9 |
0.176 |
5.02 |
|
|
|
Non-Market services |
9.2 |
0.3 |
0.027 |
0.77 |
|
|
|
Total |
100 |
|
3.507 |
100 |
100 |
|
|
Contribution of roads and
motor transport in region GRP (roads only), % |
3.51
(2.62) |
3.17
(2.21) 2003 2.28 0.89
(0) |
||||
|
Expenses for roads, % |
2.01 |
|||||
|
"Road surplus" of a region, % |
1.5
(0.61) |
|||||
The contribution of roads in GDP in 2001 exceeds expenses for roads on
the size comparable with 1,50% of GRP of the
Comparison
of a share of branch in the total road contribution in GRP and a payload on
roads given branches allows defining the "fair" market rate of
transport taxes. Logic simple: the less branch uses
roads (volume of transport work) and the more feedback in GRP from use of road
services, the less should be tax withdrawals, and on the contrary. Thus, the
balance of interests of manufacturers and consumers of road services is
achieved: it is important not loading on roads itself, but feedback from it
through microeconomic parameters. Apparently from table 3 enterprises of the
food industry most effectively use roads for growth GRP.
It is possible to consider "the
road surplus" (tab. 2, 3) from the point of view of an estimation of the
contribution of road branch in the decision of a strategic problems for
Various branches have various
investment multipliers. So, transport matters 0,7,
that means a gain of GDP for 70 copecks from each rouble of investments (more than 1,0 have machine-building whereas oil industry - only 0,41). From these
positions the program of development territorial roads only nominally is
capable to increase GRP of the
SYNERGY OF ROADS
The second reason of absence of
calculations of direct influence of roads on growth of GDP – synergy of
infrastructures as a whole, and roads, in particular. The essence of synergy is
that useful economic benefits of functioning roads are shown not synchronously
with improvement of their consumer properties (as in overwhelming majority of
material and non-material manufactures), but accumulate (and a time log of
accumulation is derivative from environmental, social and economic surrounding)
and according to nonlinear paradigm of economy at certain moments of time
"shoot" (sometimes even "not in right side"), in other
words, takes place bifurcation.
The empirical design reflecting
synergetic character of behavior of infrastructural (transport) systems is the
road (transport) curve. We have received it by development of investment
strategy of development of road branch in more, than 30 regions of
Fig. 1. "The road
(transport) curve".
The typical S-shaped form of a curve
reflects nonlinear (synergetic) character of reproduction of the added value by
all consumers of road (transport) services. At a curve always there are two
points of an excess (bifurcation). The first point reflects a situation at
which accumulation of useful responses from investments in an infrastructure
changes a direction curve aside break-evens. The second point again sharply
changes a trajectory of a curve: there is saturation, and the further
investments result rates of growth of useful responses in zero.
The individual form of curve (a
corner of an inclination of its median part) depends on type of region and a
level of its economic development (the continuous line is typical for the
developed regions, a dotted line - for developing and depressive). We shall
result a range of values of a curve on an abscissa: between 1 and 2 points the
level of financing of transport and roads in % from ÂÐÏ, showing with what size begins rough growth of
feedback from investments in roads and when it stops. So, for the Tula area it is equal 2,5-2,8; Orenburg
- 1,9-1,3; Sverdlovsk - 1,0-3,6; Ryazan
- 1,3-2,0; Arkhangelsk - 1,3-2,2.
To essence, these figures show
possible "zone" of legislative decisions on financing transport and
road industry. It is impossible to fall
below which, as it will result to recession of economy. And it is not necessary
to rise above, as a lack of financing of other branches also will result in
negative consequences. Thus, the road curve precisely shows at what levels of
financing the roads can result to recession/growth of economy: in figure for
the Tula area is reproduced, it is 2,52 % (the high
system ceases to be unprofitable) and 2,75 % (when feedback from investments in
roads ceases to be increased).
Now road branch is able to answer a
challenge of Putin about doubling of GDP. Many economists
consider that potential of doubling have not all branches. The main engines are
manufacturing industry, trade, transport which annually are capable to add not
minimally necessary for doubling GDP 7,2 % annual, but
10 % and more. Our calculations show, that if to take into account the full nontransport effect the share of transport will be at a
level of 12 %.
It is necessary to remind, that
efficiency of the infrastructural activity from GDP is not found out, as well
as influence of efficiency of functioning of infrastructures branch against
each other. Whereas the feedback is traced obviously - regression dependences
of length of roads and äóøåâîãî GDP are statistically authentic almost on 100 %.
So answering to a question, whether always
investments in a road infrastructure result in economic growth, it is possible
to answer confidently "yes", provided that:
·
the
contribution of nontransport effect to GDP will be
taken into account to a full measure;
·
the
level of financing of a transport infrastructure will be there are in limits,
on the one hand, crossings of a "road" curve of a break-even sales
level of functioning of an infrastructure and, on the other hand, a point 2
(saturation) (see fig. 1.)
The important result of an
estimation of additional release of road "production" is the
recognition of conditional character of road (transport) taxes. The general
principle "the user pays" expediently to divide into two groups: 1)
direct action for individual users ("how many has passed - pay" so
much), 2) return (conditional) action for corporate users - under the
contribution of this user in GDP from use of benefits of an infrastructure.
In the second case, the system
response from improvement of a transport network as "quantum of
utility" all over again is defined; the integrated effect which is taking
into account specificity of consuming branch is defined and, at last, the
contribution of the given branch in GDP from use of the improved consumer
properties of roads is defined. Such circuit allows designing the
"fair" market tax to an infrastructure - the more corporate user
gives on GDP from improvement of a network the more he pays and on the
contrary.