According to the online report of Etemad newspaper, he wrote: The three-emergency plan of “Resistance Economy” which is formulated in 24 articles is a worthy example of this issue. The announced goals of the plan, including curbing inflation, strengthening the national currency, economic stability and supporting production, are understandable and necessary goals; But the main problem is the distance between these goals and the tools that have been chosen to achieve them.
The main points of this plan are: Mandatory stabilization of the exchange rate at a certain level for a period of five years, the monopoly of the management of foreign exchange transactions in the central bank and the prohibition of transactions based on other rates, the requirement for all exporters to return 100% of the exported currency and sell it to the central bank, the criminalization of foreign exchange transactions outside of the official rate and the blocking of websites announcing unofficial rates, the ban on the supply of coins and non-jewelry gold by banks and the restriction of advertising the purchase of gold, zeroing the nominal interest rate. banking and limiting the facility fee to four percent, limiting the payment of cash subsidies to the first three tenths of income and allocating the resources of the National Development Fund to support agriculture and domestic production and changing energy pricing policies.
The basic question is: can the problems of Iran’s economy be solved with these tools? The reality is that Iran’s economy is facing, above all, the trade deadlock, the difficulty of financial and banking exchanges, limited access to global markets, uncertainty in economic relations, disruption in the supply chain, and the halt or slowness of the national wealth production process. In such a situation, the main problem of the economy is not the lack of orders and prohibitions; The issue is the opening of trade, investment, production and exchange routes.
When the producer is faced with obstacles to supply raw materials, transfer money, buy machinery and sell his product, what problem does the mandated stabilization of the exchange rate solve? When the exporter is facing real limitations to return the currency and meet his production needs, what effect will the obligation to sell 100% of the currency at the set rate have on the export motivation? Is it possible to achieve economic stability by banning other currency rates without reforming foreign trade bases? This is the point where there is a gap between the goal and the means.
The legislator wants to strengthen the national currency, but instead of addressing the factors that create the value of the national currency, he goes to ban the tools that people have chosen to maintain the value of their property. It wants to support production, but it imposes restrictions that may increase the cost and risk of the producer and exporter. It wants to contain inflation, but without explaining about fiscal discipline, liquidity growth and budget deficit, it sets the bank interest rate to zero.
The experience of the so-called “fixing prices” law in the 7th Parliament is a significant historical example of this kind of facing reality. In 1383, the 7th parliament stopped the increase in the price of energy carriers for 1384 by approving this law. The result of this policy in practice was not to eliminate the problem of excessive energy consumption. The increase in gasoline consumption, the need for more imports, the aggravation of the domestic and foreign price gap and the formation of rent fields due to this gap were among the consequences that were raised in the criticisms of that period. Of course, this law was for one year, and all the disagreements of the following decades cannot be considered as its direct result; But its experience showed that mandatory price stabilization, without reforming the structure of consumption and production, does not solve the problem and can transfer its cost to the future. The main danger in such legislations is not simply the ineffectiveness of a resolution, but the disconnection between the legislator’s mind and perception with the objective realities of society.
When this discontinuity is formed, instead of being a tool for regulating relationships, the law becomes a tool for denying them. In this situation, non-enforcement of the law, spread of informal behaviors, increase of exchange cost, uncertainty of economic activists and even criminalization of behaviors that are rooted in economic necessity can be predicted. The final result may be a decrease in public trust in the law and weakening of the rule of law. Legislators should know that it is not possible to eliminate the lack of currency, open blocked trade routes, create investment or restore lost confidence by passing the law. These require real policies, institutional reforms and enabling economic activity. If resistance economy is to have a practical meaning, it should mean increasing the economy’s ability to produce, trade, invest and face shocks; Not just increasing the range of interventions and legal prohibitions. In short, the law cannot fight reality. The legislator’s art is not to control reality; His art is to know the reality, accept its limitations and pave the way for its change by designing the right rules.
17302
