Tweet
COMPROMISE WITH OLIGOPOLY?
James Hakobyan
Lragir.am
23/12/09
A regular official of the World Bank, this time, the head of the
Yerevan office Aristomene Varudakis, voices about the problem of the
Armenian oligopolies. It has become an ordinary thing. International
financial structures give loans to Armenia always reminding that
there is such a problem which creates obstacles for the Armenian
economy to develop.
At the same time, the same structures do not give up feeding the
same oligopoly system with loans realizing that the loans promote
the preservation of the current system. If these loans lack, the
government will be obliged to divide its internal resources more
optimally in order to avoid social shakes. So, the international
financial structures could in reality affect the actions of the
government allocating loans on different conditions or preconditions.
On the other hand, if the Armenian government leads fair and effective
economic and political activities and uses the home resources with the
maximum optimality, the necessity for loans will sharply decline. In
this case, the work of international structures in Armenia will become
less, as well as Armenia's role will drop. If the government works
effectively and optimally, it will not need the regular assistance
of heads of international representative offices in Armenia. In other
words, there will be no need for the heads of those offices to state
regularly that the economic policy of the Armenian government is
unique, its anti-crisis program is the best, etc.
If the government works well, the society will appreciate that work.
And if the society appreciates that work the government will not need
others to evaluate. This is a simply described but quite a real chain.
And naturally, the question occurs whether the international financial
structures are sincere when dwelling on the necessity to struggle
against oligopolies and the provision of a competitive field in
Armenia. The result of that struggle is that the role of those
organizations in Armenia will decrease which is very high now. The
lowest official of an international organization is received in
Armenia as a king because the lowest circumstance may affect the
decision of allocating a loan or of assessing as high the work of
the Armenian government.
But, international financial organizations do not have to care for
the practical steps aimed at solving the issues of oligopolies and
competitiveness in Armenia. They have stated with the lips of a regular
official who visited Armenia that it is the problem of the Armenian
government. But the point is in this case, that the international
structures with their activities do not promote the settlement of
this issue which they do not have to do, but they even promote the
crystallization of the system of oligopoly and monopoly.
Perhaps, this is the problem. Of course, they allocate a loan to
Armenia explaining that the society needs the expenditure. But at
the same time, they seem not to care at all for the effectiveness
of the loans as well as for the fact that the government uses their
appraisals as a propaganda shield to communicate with the society.
Overall, an image seems to be present when the international structures
fit into the same logic of the Armenian oligopoly system, they found
the optimal way of communication with the system. When they dwell on
the need to change the system or to reform it, they prove the fact
that they fit into the logic of the system. The system itself thinks
about the need to fight against oligopolies much. But almost nothing
is changed.
James Hakobyan
Lragir.am
23/12/09
A regular official of the World Bank, this time, the head of the
Yerevan office Aristomene Varudakis, voices about the problem of the
Armenian oligopolies. It has become an ordinary thing. International
financial structures give loans to Armenia always reminding that
there is such a problem which creates obstacles for the Armenian
economy to develop.
At the same time, the same structures do not give up feeding the
same oligopoly system with loans realizing that the loans promote
the preservation of the current system. If these loans lack, the
government will be obliged to divide its internal resources more
optimally in order to avoid social shakes. So, the international
financial structures could in reality affect the actions of the
government allocating loans on different conditions or preconditions.
On the other hand, if the Armenian government leads fair and effective
economic and political activities and uses the home resources with the
maximum optimality, the necessity for loans will sharply decline. In
this case, the work of international structures in Armenia will become
less, as well as Armenia's role will drop. If the government works
effectively and optimally, it will not need the regular assistance
of heads of international representative offices in Armenia. In other
words, there will be no need for the heads of those offices to state
regularly that the economic policy of the Armenian government is
unique, its anti-crisis program is the best, etc.
If the government works well, the society will appreciate that work.
And if the society appreciates that work the government will not need
others to evaluate. This is a simply described but quite a real chain.
And naturally, the question occurs whether the international financial
structures are sincere when dwelling on the necessity to struggle
against oligopolies and the provision of a competitive field in
Armenia. The result of that struggle is that the role of those
organizations in Armenia will decrease which is very high now. The
lowest official of an international organization is received in
Armenia as a king because the lowest circumstance may affect the
decision of allocating a loan or of assessing as high the work of
the Armenian government.
But, international financial organizations do not have to care for
the practical steps aimed at solving the issues of oligopolies and
competitiveness in Armenia. They have stated with the lips of a regular
official who visited Armenia that it is the problem of the Armenian
government. But the point is in this case, that the international
structures with their activities do not promote the settlement of
this issue which they do not have to do, but they even promote the
crystallization of the system of oligopoly and monopoly.
Perhaps, this is the problem. Of course, they allocate a loan to
Armenia explaining that the society needs the expenditure. But at
the same time, they seem not to care at all for the effectiveness
of the loans as well as for the fact that the government uses their
appraisals as a propaganda shield to communicate with the society.
Overall, an image seems to be present when the international structures
fit into the same logic of the Armenian oligopoly system, they found
the optimal way of communication with the system. When they dwell on
the need to change the system or to reform it, they prove the fact
that they fit into the logic of the system. The system itself thinks
about the need to fight against oligopolies much. But almost nothing
is changed.