This is very wrong primarily because such waiting creates an environment in which there is always someone who would like to jump the line, the paper says.

After decades of such practices, it has become a general custom in many fields, not only in construction, that permits and other administrative matters are settled through connections or by "putting money in the pocket".

When Magna was threatening to leave, it was wrong to put pressure on environmental NGOs. Instead, people should have be appalled with the slow and ineffective bureaucratic apparatus.

Regardless of how many interested parties participate in the procedure, the procedure should not take so long to influence the decision of an investor. The army of 230 thousand civil servants and state company employees should work quickly and smoothly.

"I understand that extensive documentation had to be collected, read and checked for Magna, which will stretch across several hectares of what is not prime agricultural land, near to settlements and sources of drinking water. But if Magna made it in less than a year, there is no reason why one should not get a permit for building a house in, for instance, a week."

From now on, getting permits should not take longer than in the Magna case, Finance says, adding that this would require procedures to be understandable and rules clear. Of course, the bureaucratic apparatus would then require significantly fewer people, concludes the commentary.