Диссертация (1136841), страница 17
Текст из файла (страница 17)
Incidentally, WTOsupporters never commented on the fact that Russia became the world’s leadinggrain exporter without being a WTO member.Supporters relied heavily on economic arguments, whereas geopoliticalarguments (Russia’s world prestige, the prospect of OECD membership) werenot very popular. It is important to note that the argument that the WTO wouldbe an impetus for economic development lost its popularity in the mass media:before accession it was mentioned in nearly every fifth article in support of theWTO; after accession it was mentioned in only every tenth article. Foreigninvestment and competition arguments also became less popular. On the otherhand, the most widespread reasons in favor of the WTO related to reduced pricesfor imported goods and easier access to foreign markets.
Thus, the discussionshifted from addressing a broad spectrum of WTO benefits towards debatingexport opportunities and consumer gains. Other suggested benefits of the WTO(access to investment, impetus for development, competition, etc.) graduallyfaded away, although initially those were the exact arguments used by thecampaign to promote Russia’s accession.VOL. 47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201659Russia’s Accession to the WTO2.3.Standpoints of business, government and expertcommunitiesTo reconstruct the standpoints of businessmen, experts and governmentauthorities, we attempt to generalize those communities’ arguments before andTable 5.
Arguments in favor of Russia’s accession to WTOArgumentWTO as an impetus for developmentShare of articles containing tive argumenteach respecBefore accessionAfter accession32%14%Reduction in consumer prices19%10%Entrance to foreign markets17%11%Foreign investment13%3%Minimal/no negative consequences10%9%Increasing Russia’s prestige9%1%Straightforward rules7%1%Favorable terms of accession6%3%Impossibility of falling behind3%1%Possibility of OECD membership3%1%VOL. 47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201660Russia’s Accession to the WTO© Kazun & Barsukovaafter Russia’s accession to the WTO.
Figure 4 reveals the distribution of thesestandpoints along two dimensions: 1) either favoring or rejecting accession(horizontal axis); and 2) relying on either abstract or more elaborated arguments(vertical axis).VOL. 47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201661Russia’s Accession to the WTOOur analysis shows that the more active opponents of Russia’s accession inthe Russian print media are from the business community.
The most criticalresponse to accession is observed among agricultural producers and producers ofagricultural machinery, and their responses are directly related to the situation intheir economic sectors and their unpreparedness to compete in the absence ofactive state support. Those sectors of the business community that in fact hadreasons to favor the WTO did not participate in public discussion at all, allowinggovernment officials and politicians instead to engage in all of the agitation.WTO opponents explained their negative reaction by referring most often toarguments such as threats to domestic markets and particular economic sectors,the general uncompetitiveness of Russian producers and the WTO-imposedlimits on state support for undeveloped industries.
Businessmen who used thesearguments were usually more abstract in their reasoning than the academic expertcommunity; however, they were substantially more precise than authorities andjournalists.The most active WTO supporters in the Russian media were found amonggovernment officials, particularly those in the Ministry of EconomicDevelopment, along with ruling-party parliamentary deputies (Edinaja Rossija[United Russia]). Their opponents from opposition parties abstained from thediscussion, which resulted in the illusion of complete consensus on the issue. Thefew attempts by opposition parties to block Russia’s accession to the WTO wererather inconsistent and fragmentary, and opposition leaders made very little useof the mass media to promote their arguments to a wider audience.However, the agitators in favor of Russia’s accession to the WTO primarilyrelied on abstract judgments and arguments.
The only possible loss, which theyopenly acknowledged, was a possible reduction in tariffs. The most populararguments to promote the WTO’s generally positive impact on Russia’s economywere the potential increase in foreign investment and the positive influence ofincreasing competition.VOL. 47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201662Russia’s Accession to the WTO© Kazun & BarsukovaThe academic community, which also participated in the public discussion,represented a minority, but generally favored Russia’s accession. However, theiroptimism was quite reserved because they were more aware of the possible risksand threats that the WTO could bring. Their arguments were also highly preciseand elaborated.VOL.
47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201663Russia’s Accession to the WTOExperts’ primary concern was the possible growth of unemployment, theweakening of control over product quality and an increase in GMO imports. Inpopular newspapers, experts usually accepted the role of consumer advocates.However, it should be noted that at the time of the WTO debate, the academiccommunity was itself undergoing a serious reform, which may to some extenthave affected its ability to promote particular arguments in the public discussion.Being well aware that the government itself supported Russia’s accession to theWTO, the academic community apparently abstained from active debates infavor of focusing on the problems of consumers rather than those of producers.Most of the abstract argumentation on the WTO is found among journalists,who failed to present any unified opinion about WTO membership to the wideraudience.
On the one hand, journalists attempted to sensitize the public byarticulating Russia’s general unpreparedness for the accession process, alongwith the unclear and uncertain terms of the accession. On the other hand,journalists were also highly critical of “primordial protectionism” and declaredthat joining the WTO would open foreign markets to Russia.In general, the standpoints of debaters before Russia’s accession can besummarized as follows: the business community clearly rejected the accession;government, politicians and officials were explicitly in favor of the accession;the expert community favored the accession, although to a lesser extent, dictatedby their naturally higher awareness of the risks; the journalist communityremained highly uncertain, depending largely on their publications’ ideologicalstance; and the mass media served mostly as a platform for the intense debatethat unfolded between the authorities and businessmen.Politicians accepted their role as a “progressive-thinking” community with aprimary objective of helping Russia to keep up with world tendencies andovercome the gap in its development, whereas businessmen openly resisted thisintention in favor of protectionist measures by positioning themselves as anationally oriented bourgeoisie struggling against the cosmopolitan views of theTable 6.
Debaters’ standpointsBefore accessionSphere of originStandpointtowardsaccessionAfter accessionLevel ofargumentationParticipation indiscussionFocus of discussionVOL. 47 / N°4 – DÉCEMBRE 201664Russia’s Accession to the WTOBusinessRejecteddecisivelyA balance ofabstract andelaboratedargumentsProblems of certainindustries andeconomic sectorsAuthoritiesFavoreddecisivelyHighly abstractProblems of economyas a whole, political DecreaseddividendsAcademic expertsFavoredmoderatelyHighly elaboratedand evidencebased Problems related toconsumer marketsJournalistsNo clearstandpointMostly abstractProblems related toconsumer markets(quality of goods,GMO imports,prices, etc.)IncreasedDecreasedIncreasedpolitical and academic elites.
Indeed, businesses actively relied on patrioticdiscourse and urged the necessity of protecting particular industries, which wouldquite possibly be devastated by Russia’s accession to the WTO.This fight ended in August 2012, when Russia finally became a WTOmember. The discussion then shifted to discussing the consequences ofaccession.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
