CC BY
33
Секция 12. Экономика и управление
Section 12. Economics and management Секция 12. Экономика и управление
Vasilchenko Artem Alekseevich, South Ural State University (National Research University),
postgraduate student, the Faculty of Economics and Management
E-mail: arty-vasilchenko@ya.ru Gabrin Konstantin Eduardivich, South Ural State University (National Research University), Doctor of Economics, Professor of Economics, Management and Investment Department,
the Faculty of Economics and Management E-mail: konsg@mail.ru Rumyantsev Jurij Vladimirovich, Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Russian Federal Nuclear Center — Academician E. I. Zababakhin All-Russian Research Institute of Technical Physics", Assistant Director for civilian industry products manufacturing
E-mail: Y. V. Rumyantsev@vniitf.ru
Entropy principle of regional investment allocation as a mechanism оf urban planning activities regulation within the framework of ecological building safety
Abstract: The article tells about investment allocation problem from the point of view of ecological building safety. It describes the current situation and stresses out the ineffectiveness of current urban planning safety regulation mechanisms. The article underlines the special role of entropy approach to urban development and investment activities and defines some ways of ecological building safety problems solution.
Key words: ecological building safety, entropy, negentropy, investment, urban planning, environmental protection problem, urbanization.
It’s obvious that urban development activities have an impact on ecosystems and scientific research in this field has been carried out for a long time all over the world. For example, methods for achieving environmentally optimal compromise between anthropogenic systems of different levels and natural environment are investigated within the bounds of urban development ecology. Environmental legislation is constantly improving.
Reliability level of the ecosystem is mainly determined by its stability which is defined as the ability of the ecosystem to resist the influence of external, mostly technology-related, destabilizing factors, as well as the ability to exercise independent or forced recovery. Stability, as well as the emergence, diversity and nonequilibrium state is a system-wide feature, and depends on its internal interactions energy. Lack of the desired organizational level (negentropy), which is necessary to counter different threats, inevitably causes death of the ecosystem [4].
According to the equilibrium principle, any natural system with a stream of energy which is passing through it is always evolving towards a steady-state condition. Homeostasis is carried out automatically by means of feedback mechanisms. Natural equilibrium means that the ecosystem is able to maintain its steady-state condition and some parameters unchanged, despite the impact of environmental factors [3]. However, unfortunately, there are no anti-entropy technologies in modern civilization. Everything that is created by the humanity in the era of “techno”, influences the environment negatively and sooner or later goes to wreck. Environmental achievements are generally much exaggerated and have a local character. Entropy emissions of modern settlements and industrial zones in the environment nullify the negentropic potential of natural development mechanisms and these mechanisms are inevitably degrading at the ever-increasing speed.
135
Section 12. Economics and management
We are firmly convinced that the solution of the environmental protection problem within the current economic paradigm and the conception of metropolitan urbanization, which is arising out of it, is fundamentally impossible. In fact, the growth of the dynamics of abandoned, degradation and desertified lands is going on to be depressing [1]. Dividing the reasons of this phenomenon into “natural” and “manmade” is a major systemic error, which leads to the creation of models that are inadequate to reality. In our opinion it should be assumed that all “natural” selfregulation mechanisms initially have no entropy and the nature of their energy source remains an open question to science. And the modern anthropic (more exactly tehno- anthropogenic) civilizational factor is the only main fundamental issue, which provokes the accelerating growth of entropy in the environment. Catastrophic results of this growth many people mistakenly take for the so-called “naturally occurring risk factors”.
Unfortunately, it should be noted that the environmental legislation of modern developed countries (including the activities that are carried out within the framework of this legislation!) as a part of their general legal system is a-priori ineffective. It is a well-known fact that the Roman-Germanic (which modern Russian legal system is included with), and the Anglo-American legal systems are based on a common foundation of Christian values, liberal democracy, recognition of the so called “Rights” of Man and the extreme individualism. That’s why the “western” world countries legal systems are products and the recipients of the “evolution” of individually oriented Roman law and essentially do not imply parity coexistence of civilization and Nature. Contraposition between Man and Nature, dominant position of humans in relation to Nature, positioning of humans as the pinnacle of creation have very deep roots in the modern (western) world-view doctrine, which has in fact predetermined the shape of the 21st century techno-civilization. Involving Russia into the biblical project of economic globalization virtually destroyed the remnants of the positive potential of the Russian authentic legal system, that is determined not so much by formal technical and legal characteristics but by profound social, cultural, public vital principles of the Slavic peoples, whose sovereign system of life has always been in deep harmony with nature and based on Higher Law, Tradition and Conscience. That is why it is necessary to understand that inefficiency of environmental standards of the Russian Federation, which has turned
to be a proverbial, is caused only by the external control purposes and is imposed upon Russia by its geopolitical rivals. However, there is no information about it in the textbooks on environmental law, ecology and environment protection [3]. Regulatory legal mechanics for the environment protection does not work because it cannot work within a framework of the existing conditions. There is the well-known way out of this situation — it is decolonization of Russia, its going out of control from the West influence. Today, this process has sharply accelerated and the eco-building field needs to search for new mechanisms of safety levels regulation, focused on the creation of work and life conditions, in that inappropriate damage to society and the environment would be impossible. And it is not because of fear to be punished for some actions, but because of deep moral impossibility to act out otherwise.
In urban planning ecology a lot of methods of projecting and operations support of intraurban ecological systems are considered [3, 6, 8]. Despite there is some success here, in general, such an approach, in our opinion, is wrong and deadlock. Intraurban ecosystems are strongly reduced and, in fact, they are artificial objects. Their own homeostasis maintaining mechanisms are very weak or moreover are not available. Because these systems are reduced or sometimes primitive they cannot provide for themselves even necessary influx of negentropy. These systems are desperate people’s attempts to improve the situation and bring into the hostile to Life, urbanized techno-environment some elements of the nature harmony. Without constant and expensive care such urban quasi-ecosystems are doomed to a quick death. Urban planning ecology is trying to resolve the issues of “scientifically optimized” implantation of irrelevant elements of natural ecosystems into the techno-urban environment by creating artificial mechanisms in order to ensure their bearable existence. In our opinion, these tasks no more meet the strict requirements of environmental reality.
The point must be raised in a completely different way. An organizational and economic mechanism of urban development activity regulation (in the entire range — from the rapid development up to the complete termination) based on the criterion of ecological building safety is required, which would provide public resources distribution between the two spheres:
1) establishment and maintenance of artificial human environment;
136
Секция 12. Экономика и управление
2) ensuring the system entirety and stability of natural ecosystems within the territory of ecological “parasitism" of an urban settlement, that would provide acceptable levels of associated risks — technical and environmental.
Today the simultaneous execution of requirements stated above is no longer possible, because the size of areas needed to preserve the stability of what city planners mistakenly referred to as “urban ecosystem” and the reproduction of its resources, should be at least 3 times larger than the city itself occupies. Therefore, it is obvious that without creating a new effective regulator megapolis urbanization will destroy the natural life environment. The regulator should be rigid and impartial, and its control actions should be unquestionably executable. Such a regulator will ensure the survival of mankind, but it will require the most decisive and drastic actions — up to a total transformation of the modern economical system.
Taking into consideration the mentioned features, ecosystems reliability assessment should be carried out inseparably and in conjunction with the other kinds of human activities assessment that are aimed at the transformation of the surrounding reality. First of all it is the urban development. The essence of the new regulatory mechanism, from the point of view of the authors, should be the establishment of per object (for elements of urban and ecological systems) and territorial negent-ropy quotas based on knowing its regulations, actual (those that will be tracked in the process of urban planning and economical activity) and threshold limit values [2]. The methods of negentropy estimation for urban and ecological systems should be identical. As the result, capital allocation should be based on information about spatial distribution of negentropy density.
Economic science toolkit that is used today to determine optimal investments allocation, was developed to achieve a single global goal within the framework of the current economic paradigm — the maximization of the total capital increase in its various forms: private, corporate, public, using GDP and NPV criteria etc.. There is also the so-called time optimization, which determines the order of the execution of different projects, but at the heart of this optimization there is still the minimization of financial losses. Today it the mostly spread issue in practice. More sophisticated variants of investments allocation optimization are multi-criterion methods, and there is a number of mathematical calculation methods (linear, nonlinear and dynamic programming, etc.). However, in such complex problems with non-economic criteria of
efficiency, formalization, as a rule, appears to be useless, because the zone of optimum cannot be often localized and a large number of development indicators cannot be monetary evaluated, such indicators as lifetime, lethal level, crime level, morbidity rate, divorce rate, migration, labor conditions satisfaction, the number of suicides, intellectual development, suffering level ... etc.
The principle of local (individual, corporate, group) profitability and efficiency, which was dogmatized in the days ofAdam Smith and which still exists and dominates in contemporary society, is principally not able to provide the so-called “sustainable development”, because it’s de facto reliably provides only the uncontrolled growth of entropy on a global basis.
In the 90s of 20th century John Nash proved the proposition that the classical approach to the competition when every man is for himself, is not optimal, and the strategies when everyone is trying to do better for himself by doing better for others are preferable. But it is purely the principle of social cooperation, not competition, for example according to M. Porter. In fact, Nash mathematically demonstrated a well-known from ancient times proposition — the idea that only the dominant of common good (in its final not value indicators) is able to compensate for the effect of entropy increase by outrunning growth of social organization.
Acceptable safety level of artificial habitat and of industrial activity, while ensuring system integrity and stability of natural ecosystems on the territory of natural environmental “parasitism” of an urban settlement, can be achieved only by means of entropy approach to system modeling [5,7], and by determination of growth rates alignment of maximum possible urban and environmental systems entropy and negentropy as the primary target of business processes management and of enterprises management that are the participants of different investment projects. Unified methodology for calculating these indicators allows to introduce new concepts “ecological building system” and “ecological building safety” into economical activity.
In connection with the above matter, in order to ensure an acceptable ecological building safety level of urban settlements areas ofRussia we should use the urban planning regulation mechanism which is based on the principle of entropy allocation of regional investments. They should always be channeled in the systemic changes sphere in which entropy increase is larger than the negentropy increase. Resources volume, structure and destination should be enough to overcome the ascertained destructive tendency to the root.
137
Section 12. Economics and management
References:
1. Akimov V., Lesnikh V., Radaev N. MCHS Rossii - Riski v prirode, tehnosfere, obshchestve i ekonomike [EMER-COM Russia - Risks in nature, techno sphere, society and economy] M.: Delovoj Express, 2004.
2. Gabrin K., Meshkova T. Emissij a i kvotirovanie negentropii kak mekhanizmi effektivnogo regulirivanij a bezopas-nosti stroitelnih obektov na vseh etapah investitsionnogo tsikla [Emission and negentropy quotas assignment as effective mechanisms of safety regulation of construction projects at all stages of the investment cycle] Bulletin of the South Ural State University, Economics and management. - Chelyabinsk: SUSU, 2009.
3. Ignateva M., Ekonomika prirodopolzovanija [Economics of nature use] - Ural State Mining University. - Yekaterinburg: USMU, 2009.
4. Kutlakhmedov U., Matveeva I., Rodina V, Nadezhnost ekologicheskih sistem. Teorija, modeli I prakticheskije rezultati [Reliability of ecological systems. Theory, models and practical results] - Saarbrücken: Palmarium Academic Publishing, 2013.
5. Lijv E., Infodinamika. Obobshchennaja entropija i negentropija. [Infodynamics. General entropy and negentropy] - Tallinn, 1998. -200 p.
6. Maslov N. Gradostroitelnaja ekologija [Urban planning ecology] - M.: Higher school, 2003.
7. Prangishvili I. Entropijnije I drugie sistemnie zakonomernosti: Voprosi upravlenija slozhnimi sistemami [Entropy and other system laws: Problems of management of complex systems] Institute for Management Problems n. a. Trapeznikov V. - M.: Science, 2003.
8. Shadrina A. Modelirovanije ekologo-gradostroitelnoj bezopasnosti goroda Yekaterinburga [Modeling of urban ecological building safety in Yekaterinburg] “Architecton: izvestija vuzov" № 22 - Appendix, 2008.
Nesterova Daria Sergeevna, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv,
postgraduate student, the Faculty of Economics E-mail: dnesterova89@gmail.com
Measures to improve the efficiency of state regulation of investment activity of insurance companies in Ukraine
Abstract: The article defines the features of state regulation of investment activities of insurance companies in Ukraine. The study highlights the main problems and constraints of the domestic insurance market. The measures of improving the investment performance of insurers at the state level are proposed.
Keywords: investment activity of insurance companies, government regulation of investment activities of insurers, insurance reserves, the assets of insurance companies, the government control.
The need of state regulation of investment operations of insurers can be explained by the fact that insurance is a necessary element of social and market economy, and protect the interests of each insurer should the government that monitors compliance with the balance of interests of all market economy. Investment approach to insurance in Ukraine is still underdeveloped. However, the importance of the proper investing is becoming increasingly obvious to most domestic companies.
A significant contribution to the study of problems of formation and regulation of the insurance market, including the investment of insurance companies have made such scholars as V. D. Bazylevych, A. I. Baranovski, A. V. Vasilenko, O. A. Hamankova, S. S. Osadets,
A. A. Slyusarenko, V. M. Furman and others. The features of insurance asset management companies were brought up in papers of scientists such as S. V. Berezina, N. M. Nikulina, A. A. Suprun and N. V. Tkachenko.
In view of the possible manifestations of economic instability in the future, it is necessary to pay great attention to the development of the insurance market in Ukraine, especially in investment activity of insurers, because it is an effective recipient of risk and a mean of accumulation and allocation of financial resources.
In order to protect policyholders from the failure by the insurer of its obligations there is established state control over the investment activities. The role of investment activity of insurance companies, which is
138
