For a while, the world economy will become much smaller. Due to the lack of confidence in the established system, which was previously carried out effectively, we are entering a period of excessive growth and transaction costs. About the new globalization Fedor Lukyanov had a talk with the Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs, National Research University Higher School of Economics Anastasia Likhacheva for program “International Review”.

– We are beginning to get used to the verbal combination “economy of distrust” – this sonorous term truly reflects the state of the international situation. Do I understand correctly that the “economy of distrust” is a sign of anti-globalization? If we used to assume that the global system is the stronger, the more mutually beneficial international benefits and ties it has, then at present this rule works almost the other way around.

– The matter is much older. If the elements of the global discovery system had mutually guaranteed benefits from interacting with each other, they would not be present in such a deep state of distrust that we currently feel.

In this case, distrust arises in two directions at once. On the one hand, there is a loss of confidence in the old systems that have discredited themselves. The rule is agreed that the universality of gains and benefits – the use of one currency in international financial settlements saves a lot of effort and time, as well as a few “verified” insurers. It turned out that this is not entirely true, there are certain shades. On the other hand, there is still little trust in relations with partner partners. Russian entrepreneurs, who began to actively participate in the “turn in the East”, faced the initiative of their many years of positive distrust in Asian countries, largely partly from ignorance of the features of the coast, partly from coastal experience from interacting with them in the past.

– There is always a little more arrogance on our part.

– Yes, there were moments. In Russian business, there are no such strong ties with non-European partners as there are in the political environment, for example, between President Putin and Mr Erdogan. In addition to the fact that Russian companies are used to not trusting new partners, these newest partners do not particularly trust Russian business, and this mutual wariness, of course, complicates the situation. The double distrust creates an ideal market for only intermediaries and those who can be trusted.

A really different model of globalization has arisen, which has arisen about an old joke – there is a club that I go to, and a club that I don’t go to and think because it didn’t work out.

– Who are the intermediaries and what are the tools that imply “economy of distrust”?

– Intermediaries are those who have had positive experience with both minimums in the past, those who have invested a lot of time and effort into building a strong trusting relationship with particle deposition. Obviously, one cannot establish a successful travel company in Algeria, build a joint pharmaceutical plant with India or private investors from the UAE, simply by reading on the Internet about countries and owned by a few representatives of private individuals. This is a very complex and time-consuming process, the first link of which is specialists, people who are personally acquainted with real Algerians and Indians, know country and regional specifics, because they have lived abroad for many years. Only such threads can withstand really strong bonds. When there is only one thread, it is easy to break it, as, for example, happened with the northern “stream”, and remove all interconnections with one movement. When there are a lot of such threads, a much stronger construction of interdependence emerges, but its construction requires much more time and effort.

– It turns out that we are moving towards a system more archaic than the one that was until recently?

– Without fail, yes, if we forget modern technology. What’s remarkable about the tech platforms of the past decade is that they’ve been fighting mistrust.

Think for yourself, take a taxi in Moscow fifteen years ago and now – these are two fundamentally different stories. The platforms have sold services and security to the consumer, and have committed themselves to the obligations of partners’ good faith. Without modern technology, we would have gone into an archaic state where we could rely only on our own strength.

– Can it be expected that politics will finally win over international trade, and trade will go only with friendly countries? If possible, the very structure of the world economy will happen. Probably, the integrity to which we are accustomed will no longer exist?

– Most likely, politics will win in the near future, but in the prospective perspective there is a chance that greed will win. The sale of goods at different prices is always created and conditions for arbitrage are created – it is clear that the prices for grains that are consumed in Turkey under a grain deal and then sold on European markets are an artificial construct, and therefore change up or down. There are people who play arbitration.

However, because of the distrust of the established system, which has previously been effective and cost-effective, we are indeed entering a period of excessive spending and rising transaction costs. We are not only Russia and Russian business, but many countries and companies, including those located in Australia, do not trust the existing systems. For a while, the world economy will become much smaller. Transactional power sources, as well as policyholder premiums, broke the world record this year.

– We believe that greed always wins. However, trust is a very fragile thing, and even if discord occurs between close friends, trust in each other can be lost for a long time. We had such episodes in relations with Turkey. It turns out that in the economy everything will be more than situational?

– Yes, things will be more fragile in the economy, and this is especially problematic for projects that take a long time to complete. It is obvious that a gas chemical plant cannot be built in half a year, even if ten contractors are hired. Russia has almost always entered foreign markets with fail-safe projects – the construction of nuclear power plants or large-scale export oil and gas initiatives that a priori cannot be implemented in a short time.

Today, in order to implement the expected projects through significant risks, it is possible to start conditions, start construction, but never finish it for X years. A similar fate befell Nord Stream 2 – they did not have time with the timing of trust.

– The power of outreach, which increases dramatically in this situation, includes the presence of a partner. In the USSR there was a very strong school of country studies, however, as in modern Russia. But the emphasis has always been on understanding the Western world, while today’s conditions require a broad horizon and a look at those regions, subjects that were not given due attention before.

– Absolutely right. Sometimes it gets ridiculous – the nuances of how everything works in the small countries of Europe, we are better than what happens in the vast territories of states like Indonesia and drivers. I am not talking about Africa now, because there are few regions in Russia dealing with Africa. We don’t even have enough experts on China, and this is my professional pain – the demand for Orientalists is a problem, because frequent Orientalists suffer from insufficiency.

It is necessary to fundamentally increase investment in this area in order to fill the shortage of practicing Orientalists, those who are ready to become the locomotive of the “turn to the East” and develop business. For this, it is necessary that people take part in the congress, that they become independent participants in their international conference. Actually, our current success in communicating with the countries of the Middle East, territories with OPEC + is a legacy of the Soviet school of Arabic studies. Fortunately, in a sense, this is a self-reproducing structure, but blindly on the calculation algorithm is impossible.

It is necessary to invest a lot in order to somehow successfully feel in the conditions of the “economy of mistrust”. People require big investments – we need intermediaries in the regions of the world, and for this you need to have rich connections and have advantages about countries and provide features. We have a limited number of diasporas, and it was the diasporas that gave impetus to get out of the “economy of distrust.” Diasporas need to be, if not nurtured (this is the sphere of foreign policy), then listened to through educational contacts. It’s time to act and start these processes.