The World Bank presented its international development report for 2006, Equity and Development, in the end of September. Many conclusions of this report are about Belarus.

Apart from everything else, such reports are also good because they help take a stranger's look at one's country potential and check whether the country develops in the right direction.

Gross national income in Belarus in 2004 amounted to $20.9 billion, or $2,120 per capita. The same indicator in terms of purchasing power parity equaled $68 billion, or $6,900 per capita. Yes, the country is ahead of Azerbaijan and Armenia. But it was the same in the Soviet era. Against its partners in the Common Economic Space, not to mention countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Belarus does not look good.

Kazakhstan has gross national income at $2,260 per capita, 6.6 percent more than Belarus does, and $6,980 per capita in terms of purchasing power parity. The figures for Russia are $3,140 and $9,620, respectively. Belarus is ahead of Ukraine, by more than 40 percent, but in terms of purchasing power parity, the two countries are more or less on the same level.

Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have chosen to rely on the market. They prefer to have more economic and political freedom. They decided to go for deeper integration with the European Union. And finally, they got decent results. In particular, Poland's gross national income is almost three times higher than that of Belarus and almost two times higher in terms of purchasing power parity. Lithuania is on the same level with Poland. Belarusian neighbors are rather quick in approaching the social and economic standards of the prosperous West. Meanwhile, Belarus is still behind by generations.

Germany's gross national income is 14 times higher than that of Belarus, and the USA's average "capita" is 19 times richer than that of Belarus. Moreover, Belarus is nearly three times behind the average gross national income for the entire world economy.

The GDP growth that Belarus has been showing in recent years is not at all unique. Belarus' GDP rose in 2003 and 2004 by 11.5 percent per capita. It is a good achievement, but it is almost the same as in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Ukraine reached 12.9-percent growth in the same period. Belarus' average GDP increase in the period between 2000 and 2004 - 6.7 percent - is at the same level with dozens of other countries.

Obviously, Belarus cannot boast its high technologies. The share of high-tech production in the total volume of output amounted to just four percent in 2003. Russia with 19 percent, Kazakhstan with nine percent and the Czech Republic with 13 percent look much better in this respect. There is still a huge gap between Belarus and rich Western countries, as well as between Belarus and those countries that have active cooperation with leading transnational corporations. In particular, 58 percent of Malaysia's exports and 38 percent of Thailand's exports are high-tech products. To speak about some mythical Belarusian achievements in the market of high technologies is just ridiculous against this background.

Due to very special domestic and foreign policies, the Belarusian authorities deprive the country of international development aid. In 2003, Armenia got 27 times more aid per capita than Belarus, the rich-in-oil Azerbaijan 12 times, Latvia 16 times and Lithuania as many as 36 times. Even Russia got three times more than Belarus.

With very little international assistance, Belarus fails to develop its own financial market. Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and even Ukraine have more dynamic financial markets. Therefore, their loans are cheaper and deposits are safer. And they can earn not only on deposits denominated in the national currency, like in Belarus. Thus, there is no Belarusian miracle in the field of finance, either, let alone the instable credit sector with its high inflation and low profitability.

Belarus disregards recommendations of international organizations, including the World Bank, instead of appreciating them, because they are developed on the basis of achievements and mistakes of many countries. There are no examples in the world in which poverty reduction could be successful, a social welfare state could be build and sustainable growth could be achieved on the basis of dominant state ownership, discrimination against private and foreign capital, monopolistic practices and tough price regulations.

Alas, Belarus ignores rich international experience and intellectual assistance. Instead, it has been experimenting for a nearly complete Zodiacal cycle (12 years) within the same faulty model of development.

*GNI is the broadest measure of national income, measures total value added from domestic and foreign sources claimed by residents. GNI comprises gross domestic product (GDP) plus net receipts of primary income from foreign sources. Data are converted from national currency to current U.S. dollars using the World Bank Atlas method. This involves using a three-year average of exchange rates to smooth the effects of transitory exchange rate fluctuations. Source: World Development Report 2006, Equity and Development