Typically, the term “nationalization” is associated with communist ideology and violent expiration for the Professor. In fact, this is a completely market category. Nationalization in a market economy is not a gratuitous expropriation of property into state property and not its confiscation as a measure of punishment, but a civilized method of redeeming property by the state from an ineffective owner for money with the aim of repeated privatization. Thus, nationalization is the same ordinary process as privatization, and the law on nationalization naturally should “balance” the privatization law.
Meanwhile, in many civilized countries, such a law has long existed. The meaning of the law is the formulation of the legal basis for the redemption of the enterprise from an ineffective owner, as a rule, with the aim of subsequent re -privatization. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the law on nationalization is not the law of mass application. Nevertheless, even one only precedent of nationalization would immediately have a sobering effect on all grief investors and mediocre privatizers. As a rule, the state makes a decision on nationalization only in exceptional cases in relation to enterprises that are of strategic importance for the country, and in a situation where the inefficiency of the owner is obvious. Each such decision is drawn up by a separate law, and financing of nationalization is carried out from the budget. This means that the process of nationalization cannot be carried out instantly. If the decision on nationalization is made, then the money for its execution is usually provided for by the budget of the next year. At the same time, the most difficult and controversial issue is the assessment of the market value of the nationalized enterprise. It is usually determined using independent appraisers, but the owner has the right to challenge the value of the assessment in court. All these legal procedures should be accurately and in detail in the law in order to avoid endless trials. As a basis for the development of this rather complicated law, its Russian counterpart, recently adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation, could serve as a rather complicated law. Of course, there are some fears that the law on nationalization can become an instrument in the hands of officials to revise privatization processes in their interests. But, firstly, the law will apply, as already noted, in exceptional cases and its involvement is not a prerogative of middle-level officials. Secondly, the law may and should be such that there is no way to use it for evil. Thirdly, the lack of a law on nationalization gives rise to even greater arbitrariness of officials in the issues of privatization. The opinions are also expressed that the law can supposedly negatively affect the country’s investment climate in the transition period.
