CC BY
9
УДК 338.43
DEVELOPMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN CONDITIONS OF EXTERNAL LIMITATIONS: TOOLS AND MODELS'
D. Yu. Samygin, A. G. Lazuko, D. N. Lyulyakina
РАЗВИТИЕ АГРАРНОГО СЕКТОРА В УСЛОВИЯХ ВНЕШНИХ ОГРАНИЧЕНИЙ: ИНСТРУМЕНТЫ И МОДЕЛИ
Д. Ю. Самыгин, А. Г. Лазуко, Д. Н. Люлякина
Abstract. Background. Russia got challenge from the Western partners almost simultaneously with the global economy integration of the domestic market and it have to evolve in conditions of economic sanctions and antisanctions. Materials and methods. The research tries to analyze the situation in the agricultural sector in conditions of external challenges and constraints. We suggest to develop forecasting tools and formation scenarios of strategic development of agriculture and food markets with the aim of increase the scientific validity and the coordination of agricultural and food policy. The scientific novelty and significance of the research consist of methodical development and forecasting models of strategic evolution of the agri-food sector in conditions of external constraints. Results. The models of supply and demand rule of core products in value terms were created on the example of Penza region. Simulation models allow to reduce the risks of unnecessary social costs and dangerous social consequences. Conclusions. The research concludes that the new socio-economic situation does not fit within existing national agricultural policy because of the recent political and economic events. The necessary adjustments of the agri-food policy are identified in state program of agricultural development, the doctrine of food security and other. But many scientists and experts notice that these documents have insufficient scientific investigation of planning and forecasting, it does not allow to manage by means of foresight and proactive measures.
Key words: agrarian economy, food security, import substitution, prediction model.
Аннотация. Актуальность и цели. Почти одновременно с интеграцией отечественного рынка с мировым хозяйством Россия по политическим соображениям получила внешние политические вызовы со стороны западных партнеров и сегодня вынуждена развиваться в условиях экономических санкций и антисанкций. Материалы и методы. В исследовании предпринята попытка проанализировать положение вещей в аграрном секторе в условиях внешних вызовов и ограничений. В целях повышения научной обоснованности и координации проведения агропродовольственной политики предлагается разработать инструментальные средства прогнозирования и формирования сценариев стратегического развития сельского хозяйства и рынков продовольствия. Научная новизна и значимость исследования заключаются в разработке методов и моделей прогнозирования стратегического развития агропродоволь-ственного сектора в условиях внешних ограничений. Результаты. На примере Пензенской области с использованием методов эконометрического анализа были построены модели зависимости предложения от спроса основных видов продукции в стоимостном выражении. Имитационные возможности моделей позволяют снизить риски
1 Статья подготовлена при поддержке гранта Президента РФ для молодых российских ученых № МК-5177.2016.6 «Стратегическое планирование и прогнозирование агропродовольственного сектора: проектный подход».
неоправданных общественных издержек и опасных социальных последствий. Выводы. По результатам исследования делается вывод, что на фоне последних политических и экономических событий новая социально-экономическая ситуация во многом не укладывается в рамки действующей национальной аграрной политики. Необходимые корректировки агропродовольственной политики обозначены в госпрограмме развития сельского хозяйства, доктрине продовольственной безопасности и т.д. Однако, как отмечают многие ученые и специалисты, эти документы имеют недостаточную научную проработанность вопросов планирования и прогнозирования, что не позволяет осуществлять управление на основе предвидения и опережающих мер.
Ключевые слова: аграрная экономика, продовольственная безопасность, им-портозамещение, модели прогнозирования.
In recent years, the food becomes a major factor of the political and economic developed countries pressure to Russia. Our country has taken over stringent WTO commitments on minimum intervention in the development of the agri-food sector at the same time with the awareness of the importance of agriculture in solving food problems and the announcement of priority national economy. The increase of budget support for agriculture unheard-of until 2006 year is accompanied by a refocusing of production subsidies in favor of social infrastructure. The need of WTO law-abidingness has led to limitation of the direct support, which subsidized interest rate of bank lending.
Food security depends on banks, because only producers who use credit sector capital could count on support of production. The Ministry of Agriculture is completely lost his powers of direct policy control and regulation of the agricultural sector, which was believed that its further development would accord with the rules of international trade and financial institutions conditions.
The paying capacity and financial stability are the main major datum point, the need of food market saturation takes a back seat. For example, diagnosing the agricultural policy of Penza region using OECD methodology it was found that farms where production is the core business, has a low yield, high prime cost, and deficient effectiveness of sales as against the households, which don't include this products with core activity. This being said, the security level on the part of the state is higher and the business environment is better where the production is not the core business of commodity producers. For example, emphasis on milk performance to the region mean value is only 85 %, prime cost is 151 %, efficiency of sales is 106 % and protection rate is 89 %. At the same time farms where milk production is not the core business, have better indicators at least 10 percentage points. Interpreting the results of the analysis in crop research we should trace conclusions, consider the worst production of crop farming compared to other commodity producers.
This leads to the assumption that agricultural production provides demand of domestic market for production, which costs more and does not provide for a cheaper production, as a result of refocusing of the agri-food sector management to advantage of the financial structure. The availability and quality of food decline, and therefore ultimate customers and general public suffer.
With the advent of embargo on import of provisions, the domestic manufacturer accessed market. Sociologists, politicians and scientists formed an opinion that it is a unique opportunity for the development of the agricultural sector. This view may be acceptable, but the reaction of the domestic manufacturer can't in-
stantaneous, and therefore the issue of import substitution can't be resolves in short period of time.
Despite its key role in trade relations on the world arena, Russia hasn't entirely prepared for solution of full self-complacency of food. As noted by some experts [1], today Russian production does not meet the standards of food needs identified by Doctrine of food security. This is particularly so with meat and milk. Production volumes of sugar and potato are on the verge of crest (fig. 1).
-The rali: Doctrine
Fig. 1. The level of food independence of Russia, percent
Given the existent imbalances of the agricultural sector in the regions [2], we have to admit that the principle of food self-sufficiency in some federal subjects is implemented with great difficulties than in the whole country. On the condition that the size of the consumer basket for selects foods are often lower than the physiological rates of consumption [3], and their quality is far from perfect [4].
Measures taken by the Government of the Russian Federation in recent years to improve the level and quality of life should contribute to greater food availability, despite the temporary difficulties with the purchasing power of people. The level of food consumption will be gradually come to the physiological norms. At present, the domestic production in some regions is not able to provide these standards. However, it is important to bear in mind that supply is unlikely able to respond so quickly by domestic production with a dramatic increase in demand. But import is able to react today.
This conclusion confirms the research of top-level Russian scientists. One of the scenarios of agriculture development in Russia, formed by international model Aglink-Cosimo, has demonstrated that the growth of purchasing power entails increase of its imports, not agricultural production [5].
The situation exacerbated by the introduction of economic sanctions in 2014 and their extension by the Western partners in 2015, as well as the response from the Russian side in the form of product embargo on import. Expectations from antisanctions were associated with formatting the food market conditions. It was envisaged that the domestic commodity producers were conceived as the main suppliers on the market of agricultural products and its processing. However, we use import substitution of food from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Asia.
The financial crisis, which began in 2014, has created conditions for improving the profitability of agricultural production. The weakening of the ruble exchange rate and the introduction of restrictions on the supply of imported food led to increase in demand and the rise in domestic food prices. At the same time the availability of credit resources decreased against the backdrop of the bank crisis. Even large producers have stopped their investment projects [6].
In response to external constraints the low level of breeding and selective base had an adverse impact on the manufacturers of agricultural products
According to the information obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture, sowing and planting material used for the cultivation of sugar beet, vegetables and potatoes, as well as breeding material for the production of grass-flesh and poultry, comes from abroad more than half. The share of imported raw materials for agricultural production averaged more than 57 % (fig. 2). This situation threatens the achieved level of food self-sufficiency for certain types of products and aggravates the problem, where the level of food security is low.
Fig. 2. The share of agricultural production of domestic and imported seed and breeding material, percent
Consequently, the development of agricultural economy will be conducted in a difficult manner. Therefore, further development of agriculture requires constant scientific awareness, development of new methodological tools for their research.
It is proposed to develop forecasting tools and formation scenarios of strategic development of agriculture and food markets in order to increase the scientific validity and the coordination of agricultural and food policy.
The theoretical aspects of agricultural policy assessment and modeling of state regulation of agriculture are reflected in the works of authors such as A. I. Al-tukhov, G. V. Bespahotny, N. A. Borhunov, I. N. Buzdalov, S. V. Kiselev, E. N. Krylatyh, V. V. Miloserdov, V. I. Nazarenko, A. G. Paptsov, A. V. Petrikova, I. G. Ushachev and others. Most of the works are devoted to the quantitative assessment of the state support of agriculture, some authors are still desputing about
its importance and necessity. There are works about the comparison of domestic and international experience in the implementation of agricultural policy.
There is inadequate forecasting and planning research of the agricultural sector and development forecasts for the agricultural markets using the Western models, which are unadapted to Russian conditions [7].
Many authors consider WTO aspects, state the experience of neighboring countries to decline the economic situation in the development of the agricultural business, but do not study the impact of support measures on the agri-food sector. For the most part the works are devoted to the federal issues, although it does not take into account the production capacity, features, specialization and budgetary security of regions.
The developing system of planning and forecasting was supposed to clarify the formation of agricultural and food policy. However, the mechanism of planning, implementation and monitoring of indicators is not perfect yet.
The modern system of forecasting and planning of agricultural development should take into account the external constraints imposed by the WTO for Russian Federation, sanctions and antisanctions, the necessity in food import [8]. This problem is mainly considered with regard to the world market and the federal center. The matter is equally important when it comes to the world market and the federal center, where there is no uniform competitive environment at present [9]. In this regard, the development of the strategic prediction models of agriculture opens up a unique possibility to obtain forecasts for the agri-food sector taking into account food security under foreign trade restrictions.
Awareness of the need of forecasting system for Russia came in 2008 with the approval of the conception long-term socio-economic development of Russian Federation for the period until 2020 and the guidelines of the development of the Russian Federation government programs. Final position of the state in the development of the planning system established in July 2014, when the Federal Law "About the strategic planning in the Russian Federation" entered into force. It is intended to It aims to order a procedure for the establishment and functioning of the planning system of socio-economic development of the country. The federal law "About the development of agriculture," State program of agricultural development for 2008-2012 and for 2013-2020, food security doctrine and others were adopted With regard to agriculture. The editorship of modern legal acts defines a set of different indicators, activities, tools and resources of the development of agriculture as against to the documents of previous years. It is to early to talk about rebuilding of planning institute, but in fact it is an attempt of reestablishing of planning system in agriculture.
Despite the huge number of benefits, there are some vulnerabilities. For example, in the first state program the regulatory and state aid mechanisms were not strongly differentiated by industry, territory, social sectors and groups of households with different levels of financial condition [10]. Evaluation of the implementation and achievements of predictive values according to the national report on the implementation of the state program for 2008-2012 years showed their considerable divergence with the actual values, and this is only the official data, excluding numerous studies of the agricultural scientist.
As noted by Academician G. V. Bespahotny, the adopted program for the years 2008-2012 was imperfect in many ways, because of the lack of experience in such document creation. The methodological approach to the development of the
state program was to reflect only AIC industries and sub- industries, for which measures of state support were implemented and budget was envisaged. Noting the positive aspects and fundamental changes in the new program for 2013-2020, the scientist recognizes that it is also far from perfect. . It is necessary to make constant changes on contemplated actions because of the inclusion of tactical tasks in it. The insufficient scientific investigation of planning issues forces public authorities to manage based on the current situation, not foresight and proactive measures [11].
Our studies show that the linkage between effective indicators and resource targets of state program, and the linkage between sectorial programs and state program is not always sufficiently clear.
According to the results of the econometric analysis, there has been a weak connection and low validity of a combination between a successful program performance indicators and resource support for their achievement. All this requires a scientific justification and elaboration [12].
The mentioned above system of economic and mathematical models Aglink-Cosimo is particularly in demand among foreign forecast models of the development of the agricultural sector. Based on this model, the OECD experts annually prepare a variant of the forecast for the world's food markets for the next 10 years. In the authors' view, the main disadvantage of this model is its using only at the macro level of particular countries. This includes a discrepancy of domestic statistics and used foreign indices.
The development of forecast models of the agriculture development can be one of the similar approaches in the Russian conditions, taking into account food security.
For example, the models were built demand -supply matrix of core products in terms of value on the example of the Penza region using econometric analysis.
The dependence of supply on demand is quite high, it confirms the generally accepted postulates of economic theory. A polynomial trend showed the highest validity, where there is a the dependence of supply on demand of 94 %.
Simulation opportunities of models allow to avoid unnecessary social costs, dangerous social consequences. All this shows the great interest in this issue and hopes of the scientific community for a wide practical application of these methods.
The study is planned to be used for the preparation of propositions to AIC management body to improve methods and models of forecast mechanism and agricultural production planning. Using practical propositions to improve the methods of planning and agricultural forecasting models will contribute to the strengthening their focus on the end result, the formation of a single market space for the territories, improve the sustainability of agricultural producers' incomes, the investment attractiveness of the industry, production efficiency and use of budgetary resources, increase the degree of achievement in AIK state programs.
Список литературы
1. Тарасов, В. И. Взаимосвязь социально-экономических категорий «продовольственная безопасность» и «продовольственная независимость» государств в условиях региональной интеграции / В. И. Тарасов, И. С. Глотова // Экономика сельскохозяйственных и перерабатывающих предприятий. - 2015. - № 2. -С. 50-54.
2. Барышников, Н. Г. Оценка природно-экономического потенциала и условий возникновения дифференцированного дохода в сельском хозяйстве региона /
Н. Г. Барышников, Д. Ю. Самыгин // Региональная экономика: теория и практика. - 2012. - № 18 (249). - С. 16-24.
3. Самыгин, Д. Ю. Роль проектного управления в преобразовании аграрной политики России / Д. Ю. Самыгин, Н. Г. Барышников // Модели, системы, сети в экономике, технике, природе и обществе. - 2015. - № 3 (15). - C. 71-80.
4. Samygin, D. Yu. Scenarios of Agricultural Business Development in Penza Oblast: Forecast and Risk Estimate / D. Yu. Samygin, N. G. Baryshnikov // Studies on Russian Economic Development. - 2015. - Vol. 26. - № 1. - P. 59-62.
5. Крылатых, Э. Опыт прогнозирования развития агропродовольственных рынков России с использованием модели Aglink-Cosimo / Э. Крылатых, С. Строков // Международный сельскохозяйственный журнал. - 2012. - № 4. - С. 3-6.
6. Беспахотный, Г. В. Направления совершенствования механизмов реализации аг-ропродовольственной политики / Г. В. Беспахотный // Агропродовольственная политика России. - 2015. - № 5 (17). - С. 2-5.
7. Барышников, Н. Г. Эконометрические модели анализа и оценки эффективности использования бюджетных ресурсов в сельском хозяйстве / Н. Г. Барышников, Д. Ю. Самыгин // Экономический анализ: теория и практика. - 2012. - № 24 (279) -С. 2-10.
8. Самыгин, Д. Ю. Модели прогнозирования стратегического развития сельского хозяйства / Д. Ю. Самыгин, Н. Г. Барышников // Модели, системы, сети в экономике, технике, природе и обществе. - 2015. - № 1 (13). - С. 81-86.
9. Беспахотный, Г. В. Формирование государственной системы планирования аграрного сектора / Г. В. Беспахотный, А. Ф. Конев, А. А. Капитонов // Экономист. -2014. - № 10. - С. 36-42.
10. Беспахотный, Г. В. Соотношение источников финансирования сельского хозяйства / Г. В. Беспахотный, Н. Г. Барышников, Д. Ю. Самыгин // Нива Поволжья. -2011. - № 3 (20). - С. 2-7.
11. Барышников, Н. Г. Возможности развития сельского хозяйства в условиях ВТО: региональный аспект / Н. Г. Барышников, Д. Ю. Самыгин // Экономика сельского хозяйства России. - 2014. - № 4. - С. 27-33.
12. Baryshnikov, N. G. Value added inspection agricultural business in the region / N. G. Baryshnikov, D. Yu. Samygin // International Journal Of Applied And Fundamental Research. - 2013. - № 2. - URL: www.science-sd.com/455-24292 ( дата обращения: 14.10.2013).
Самыгин Денис Юрьевич
кандидат экономических наук, доцент, кафедра экономической кибернетики, Пензенский государственный университет E-mail: vekont82@mail.ru
Лазуко Алина Георгиевна
студентка,
Пензенский государственный университет E-mail: alinalazuko@mail.ru
Люлякина Дарья Николаевна
студентка,
Пензенский государственный университет E-mail: darya.nikolaevna.1995@mail.ru
Samygin Denis Yurievich
candidate of economic sciences, associate professor,
sub-department of economic cybernetics, Penza State University
Lazuko Alina Georgievna student,
Penza State University
Lyulyakina Darya Nikolaevna
student,
Penza State University
УДК 338.43 Samygin, D. Yu.
Development of the agricultural sector in conditions of external limitations: tools and models / D. Yu. Samygin, A. G. Lazuko, D. N. Lyulyakina // Модели, системы, сети в экономике, технике, природе и обществе. - 2016. - № 1 (17). - C. 24-31.
