6

What is your assessment of the existing economic situation in Slovenia? Is the current, economic growth stable or merely a consequence of the major GDP fall in recent years and a logical, at least partial recovery following the short-term initiatives such as the extensive infrastructure investment at the local level and the reasonably good position in our export markets?

Current economic growth is definitely not stable and fluctuation is to be expected also in the future. The fall of production in the past has liberalised the production capacity which led to the higher growth rates. However, since the beginning of the crisis, the productivity increase of processing activity has enabled companies to be more competitive and achieve higher exports than before 2008, which is vital. Another strong supporter of growth is investment in infrastructure having the short-term acquiring effect and providing the investment is rationally selected, infrastructure can expand market activity.

Exports, the engine of growth in Slovenia, registered record growth in September. Will our exporters keep up the pace without any serious structural reform and additional labour market reform with the government preparing new taxes on financial transactions and soft drinks, pollutant fees, a new energy tax... Do you think this is the best policy?

The exporters have made significant structural change and changed the production range (discontinued the unprofitable ones) and increased productivity by reducing capital and the number of employees. Labour market reforms are definitely necessary, but mostly in the public sector because redundancy is already possible in the private sector. It is, nevertheless, still relatively expensive in comparison to countries where there is no severance pay or notice period. New taxes will slow down all economic activity. It is my opinion that a tax increase is not the solution and it would be better to rationalise the public sector, not by linear reduction but by effective management. A general reduction in bureaucracy with partial suppression of posts in the public sector would be first in line for reform. Then, only increasing other taxes if this is not sufficient.

You are an expert on the situation in Russia and Ukraine. What is the current impact of the Ukrainian crisis on the business activity of Slovenian companies and what are the long-term risks if the situation is not mastered?

In the short term this crisis hasn't significantly affected Slovenian exports. But with certain legal actions and sanctions, we are definitely blocking our way into the Russian market and Russians are already reorienting toward their east, toward new markets. Another interesting fact is that these sanctions were imposed in that they do not affect the USA, but have other effects in respect of policy relevance of the EU. At its core, the capital is timid and cautious and wriggles out of high risk. That is the reason that any political tension paralyses the vitality of business relationships and slows down business activity.

However, Russia is facing several major economic difficulties which are, in the short-term, solved by the price of oil. To illustrate, Russian industry has not been restructured and remains uncompetitive in numerous fields. The car industry, for example, is obsolete which is, nevertheless, a good sign that it will be modernised in the future and means new business opportunities for us.

I would like to stress that it is important for Slovenia not to withdraw, in spite of the crisis, from the Russian market and to keep building good relationships. Slovenia has simply built a good image in the Russian market because we had a very good starting position after the collapse of the old systems built during the time of Yugoslavia.

Do you think the corporate promotion of Slovenia is appropriate and effective and the economic diplomacy is oriented toward operational objectives? Are the government institutions harmonised, do we even have an umbrella strategy in this area....? It often appears that foreigners, potential investors, have poor data on Slovenia and that we sometimes describe our situation as ''suicidal'' and worse than it actually is?

Building a trademark is difficult at the best of times. We probably expect too much from this promotion, at least in the short run. I think that the government organisations in charge of the promotion spend too many financial resources on self-maintenance and not enough on operative promotion. Their thinking is not entrepreneurial enough. I miss entrepreneurial thinking; not only in government institutions but in Slovenia in general, even in Europe. We expect too much from the country. I design the atmosphere in Riko in a way that we rely on the country as little as possible. The country should provide good education, an efficient healthcare system, cultural platforms but here too encourage the entrepreneurial spirit as much as possible. But predominantly it should lighten the bureaucratic burden, promote the Slovenian economy abroad and cultivate ''political moves'' which shut some doors due to partial interests against Slovenian economic breakthrough.

Has our attachment to the country and its interventions been dragged from our recent history?

Here we basically face an interesting paradox - I, who survived socialism, stand for entrepreneurship, whereas the young, who were born yesterday, stand for the ''communist'' regime. But it is true that the recent crisis is responsible for such observations and people do not understand that crises are a systemic part of the capitalist system. Furthermore, everybody forgets that in the planned socialist system, we were in an economic crisis practically all the time. Until a better system is invented, the capitalist system is still the best in my opinion.

Which action do you personally expect from the government in the next year to actually move toward economic growth?

When asked this question, I like to summarise the great Uzbekistani leader from the 14th century, Kimur Amur, who said the country should make sure that a merchant travels from Samarkan to Istanbul as quickly as possible and encounters as little difficulty as possible on the way. In my opinion, this is the principle role of the country to this day - it should provide an effective infrastructure for its operation and not an ownership system of (quasi) government institutions.

Privatisation is therefore one of the most important projects since it might reduce interest payments and enhance management effectiveness. State ownership has proven sub-optimal on many occasions. Unfortunately, important obstacles are hidden behind the government's prudence which may also affect the attained price of the property sold. It is unlikely that any given company, on the free market, will tie its hands as far as redundancy is concerned. The government personnel obviously don't understand that security is important in the sense of being employed and not in the sense of keeping existing jobs (employment versus job security).

All this sounds rather simple. Governments usually also speak in general, but not much is done about it. We get stuck by numerous bureaucratic obstacles, unnecessary politicisation, things drag on forever... Is the problem in the grassroots organisation of the government, the teams and concepts of the people running it? More and more competence is being conferred to the Ministry of Finance which indirectly runs the entire country and which is becoming an increasing system anomaly retarding development thinking?

This is true. What is happening is similar to a situation where an accountant is managing the company. In the long run, such a company will definitely fail. At the head of a country, at the head of a company there should be a visionary, not just a financier. A good example is the relationship between Nokia and Apple. Nokia has spent billions on development of smart phones and completely failed whereas someone with a vision and far less money succeeded.

Some of the most successful countries (such as the Switzerland) and examples from history show that a decentralised system is far sturdier and more successful than centralised systems. However, there is a small advantage with centralised systems, that good practice will transfer to all parts of the system much faster but there is also a bigger risk that the central planner will miss the point altogether. In a decentralised system, it is the variety of ideas, specificity of each individual part, that creates a competitive process of a generation because of which, the system per se is sturdier. The probability of 1,000 individuals finding the right idea in a competitive market is much bigger than someone from above doing so (such as the central planner).

What is your opinion about the structure of the use of European development resources? Do we disburse the funds merely because we can? Do we channel these sources meaningfully? Do you think that roundabouts and fountains are the best examples of ''development'' investment?

Well, things are not so unclear with the use of these resources. In Riko, we have some experience with this because we are building several purification plants and regional waste management centres across Slovenia. We have used all the resources mainly in the field of enhancing water quality. The EU has set high criteria for quality of life and environment and here we are achieving excellent results in terms of the EU but in Slovenia we still fall slightly behind. We are at 40 percent of the EU average as far as water purity is concerned. I believe that, in the long-term, one of the few comparative advantages of Europe is quality, the way of life. We will be able to sell our cleanliness, security, orderliness, healthy environment. That will be the sole source of financing development and that is, of course, particularly true for Slovenia. We've created utopia, thinking that some trademarks can be global leaders but this simply does not work, except in some niche exceptions. In the long-term, the ''quality of life'' is our best product and I personally bet everything on this development. This should be absorbed by the state structure.

The exacerbating underlying Slovenian macroeconomic imbalance lies in the mismatch of revenue and consumption by the public sector, the budget. Do you think we are caught is some kind of a trap which is slowly becoming logical to people? This results in the fact that over 10 percent of expenditure represents interest on debt payments?

No doubt the current state of affairs is very difficult, none of the parties involved is ready to give up anything. But the state is committed to the objective of reducing public expenditure and is bound to sell property and reduce the general government deficit in order to meet sustainable public finances. It is also very important for us that the general government debt doesn't exceed 100 percent of GDP. Even 80 percent is a dangerous figure which indicates at least 2.4 percent sustainable growth at an average interest rate on public government debt of around 3 percent. Attaining such a growth rate of GDP is difficult at this point. At 100 percent, GDP, the general government debt becomes untenable because it indicates that required growth rates of nominal GDP are around 3 percent.

What is your view on the diminishing significance and the role of the Ministry of the Economy recently? One can't deny the fact that we haven't got a ''normal'', strong, creditworthy Minister of the Economy who could advocate and pursue clear development strategies and have the power within the government.... Furthermore, the Ministry of Economy is no longer empowered in the areas of infrastructure, energy economics, spatial planning...?

It is an exaggeration to say it is a matter of depreciation of the role of the Minister of the Economy, it is more of a difference between the expectations of the society about the role of a saviour of an individual or an institution on the one hand and their actual power on the other. People often long for somebody from above to show the right direction and find the solution, but the reality is far more complex and dynamic. Actually, it is not up to the ministries to lead the politics of each individual company but create conditions where the more creative individuals can materialise their ideas. Companies will be founded and fail (this is a natural process), in the long-term artificial prevention of this process of creation and destruction is not possible and will result in failure and big costs for the company. So I don't see the role of the Minister of the Economy as the central planner, but principally as a catalyst in the sense of creating a fertile environment for growth and development of companies.

How do you see privatisation in Slovenia? Do you think it's reasonable, without a clear strategy, for state property management to be placed within individual sector policies?

The key problem of Slovenian privatisation, so far, lies in the fact that it significantly undermined companies instead of bolstering them which was the main objective of these processes. The reasons for this are various, but principally it's the phobia about foreign capital and the so-called ''domestic'' approach which has created the so-called ''tycoons'' who ruined companies under the false pretence of national interest. I am personally against any extremely complicated strategies because we will never be able to reach agreement on exactly what it is that we want, what is strategic and what isn't. There are simply too many interests. To me, nothing is strategic, principles are strategic. The first strategic principle is that the economy should be as open as possible, which particularly applies for a small country such as Slovenia. Vast economies can afford certain irrationalities, Slovenia cannot!
However, we have implicitly defined the problem of privatisation exceptionally well in Slovenia which is substantively summarised by the catchword ''we shall not sell our silverware''. What is silverware exactly? You are an owner merely from some completely irrational, non-economic reason which offers no further benefits. Basically, we don't even know why we mourn any kind of ''silverware loss'' so much.

The key function of privatisation is to obtain clear owners who are prepared to take the upside as well as the downside risk. In Slovenia, we tend to look to avoid risk as well as success. It is a fact that it is the competitive environment and the possibility of failure that creates the initiative for development. Of course, we must not forget those who can't participate in this process objectively and are reasonably to be taken care of. How will a child start to walk if it is always kept in the playpen? Without falls there is no growth and there are no new ideas without the risk of failure. If you protect a butterfly against all danger and shut it in a glass, it will survive in the short-term, but in the medium-term it will die and never fly.