Russia’s Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) has mandated that the publishing house "Prosveshcheniye" (Enlightenment) return more than 2 billion rubles to the state budget, citing illegal profits from inflated textbook prices. The agency announced that the company, which holds a dominant position in the market for school textbooks on Russian language, history, and biology, imposed "monopolistically high prices" in violation of competition laws.
The FAS investigation concluded that "Prosveshcheniye" abused its market dominance by setting prices far exceeding production costs, generating excessive profits. The publisher controls a significant share of Russia’s educational materials sector, particularly in core subjects, enabling it to dictate terms despite longstanding regulations aimed at ensuring affordability. Critics have pointed to the case as emblematic of market failures in essential sectors, with one observer sarcastically remarking, “The market has spoken—profits for some, costs for everyone else.”
The ruling has reignited discussions about equitable access to education. In a pointed historical contrast, state media highlighted a 1977 Soviet Communist Party decree guaranteeing free textbooks for all schoolchildren. During the Soviet era, textbook prices were heavily subsidized to prioritize universal education, reflecting the state’s commitment to fostering an educated populace as a societal cornerstone.
While "Prosveshcheniye" has yet to issue a formal response, the case underscores ongoing tensions between commercial interests and public welfare in Russia’s education system. The FAS emphasized that its decision aims to “restore fair market conditions,” but advocates argue stricter price controls or renewed public oversight may be necessary to prevent future abuses.
The juxtaposition of Soviet-era policies with contemporary market dynamics has sparked debate, with some lamenting the erosion of affordable education access and others defending market-driven approaches. As authorities push for reimbursement, the case serves as a reminder of the fragile balance between profit and public good in critical sectors like education.
