CC BY
10
УДК 334.7
Kodirov S. assistant department of economics Fergana Polytechnic Institute Republic of Uzbekistan, Fergana city
ISSUES OF BUSINESS COOPERATION IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract. World experience shows that large business structures, being the sphere of large-scale production and distribution, play an important and even decisive role in the country's economy and in the formation of a high standard of living. The article reveals the necessity at the present stage of implementing an industrial policy aimed at stimulating the localization of production and expanding intersectoral cooperation. Cooperation of large and small business entities. The author, based on statistical, system and situational analysis, showed that the cooperation of business structures in the national economy will allow achieving maximum competitive advantages of the enterprise system. The paper analyzes the subcontract system of interaction between small and large industrial enterprises.
Keywords: integration, import substitution, clusters, large business, small business, intersectoral cooperation, entrepreneurship, industry, subcontract.
Introduction.
In recent years, much attention has been paid to sustainable development and economic liberalization in Uzbekistan. In the Strategy of Actions on the five priority areas of development of Uzbekistan in 2017-2021, approved by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Sh. M. Mirziyoyev of February 7, 2017 of Uzbekistan, in order to increase the competitiveness of the national economy by deepening structural transformations, modernization and diversification of its leading industries, sets the task of continuing the policy of stimulating the localization of production and import substitution, primarily consumer goods and components, expanding intersectoral industrial cooperation [1]. Taking into account the importance of this issue, in 2019, resolutions were adopted aimed at developing industrial cooperation [2] and "creating a unified system for localization of industrial production in the republic, accelerating localization processes in industries and regions, mastering the production of components, spare parts and materials through the full and efficient use of production capacities, as well as expanding cooperative ties in industry and optimizing the volume of imports" [3]. Intersectoral industrial cooperation is an effective and modern method that allows the country's enterprises to achieve high production efficiency through the rational use of installed capacities, better
use of available resources, and contributes to employment growth. This contributes to the improvement of the social situation, primarily in rural areas and in small towns. The most important and integral factor in ensuring industrial growth is the expansion of intersectoral industrial cooperation, including between large enterprises of the republic and small businesses and private entrepreneurship, the deepening of production localization processes, the creation of production facilities based on local raw materials that ensure import substitution and saturation of the domestic market with necessary consumer goods, medicines, industrial and technical products, components and materials. The 2020 coronavirus pandemic has exposed many problems in the global economy. For a huge number of industrial enterprises around the world, the closure of borders and the collapse of logistics chains have led to disruptions in the supply of key elements and components. As a result, many countries are moving away from a significant focus on the import component, expanding their own production of products that are acutely important for the domestic market. Uzbekistan has been implementing its own programs for localization and the formation of cooperation chains between large local industries and small businesses for a long time to create import substitution mechanisms. In total, 680 enterprises took part in the Localization Program in 2020, the volume of production of localized products for 1427 projects amounted to 15335.3 billion rubles. sum, products worth $ 192.9 million were sold for export and new jobs were created - 7697 units. The main volume of production (53.0%) and export (60.4%) of localized products was provided by industrial enterprises of republican subordination. Regional enterprises, which created 68.9% of all jobs, participated in the implementation of 67.3% of localization projects.
Research methodology.
The methodological basis of the study was the views on entrepreneurship of such authors as J. Galbraith, P. Drucker, A. Marshall, B. Santo, K. Tateisi, A. Hosking, J. Schumpeter, etc. Among the most important studies that cover certain aspects of small business development in the CIS, it should be noted such authors as T. Alimova, B. Anikin, A. Blinov, A. Busygin, E. Buchwald, V. Buyanov, D. Zemlyakov, S. Kalendzhyan, G. Kleiner, M. Lapusta. The works of A. Akhmedieva, U. Validzhanova, M. Ikramov, O. Ismailov, L. Ishmukhamedova, K. Kurpayanidi, N. Makhmudov, S. Salaev, I. Tursunov, M. Tursunkhodzhaev, E. Ergashev, M. Eshov and others were devoted directly to the development of small business and private entrepreneurship [6-44].
The study used statistical methods, empirical, system and situational analysis
Results and discussion.
Due to the changing economic conditions at the global and national levels of development, Uzbekistan's accession to the WTO and increased competition, additional analysis and justification of the possibilities of using new institutional
forms, methods and tools for interaction between large and small firms is necessary, which predetermined the directions of our research [6].
Considering the trends in the development of small business in Uzbekistan, it can be revealed that the share of small business in GDP in January-December 2020, the share of small business in GDP was 53.9 % (54.2% in January-December 2019). This decrease is explained by an increase in the share of large enterprises in the GDP structure. In the regional context, the largest share of small entrepreneurship (business) in GRP falls on the Jizzakh (82.7%), Surkhandarya (77.1%), Khorezm (75.3%), Bukhara (74.7 %) and Samarkand (73.9 %) regions. In the Navoi region, this indicator remains low and is equal to 25.5 %.
In January-December 2020, the share of small businesses in the total volume of industrial production amounted to 27.5 %. In the regional context, the largest share of small businesses in the total volume of production was 64.2 in the Jizzakh region%, Namangan - 50.0%, Surkhandarya-47.3%, Ferghana-45.9%, Samarkand-45.5%, Tashkent - 38.7%, Syrdarya-37.3 %, Bukhara-34.8 %, Kashkadarya — 34.7% and Khorezm-29.5% regions. In the Navoi region, the share of small businesses remains low - 6.6%.
In January-December 2020, the volume of exports of products (works, services) of small businesses amounted to 3,100. 6 million US dollars, or 20.5% of its total volume.
Currently, small enterprises compensate for the slowness of large ones in the search and implementation of new technological solutions, in the development of new sales markets, in the prompt receipt of advanced innovations. This allows large enterprises to shift some of their risks to small ones. The cooperation of small enterprises with each other and with large enterprises can offset the imperfection of the state policy of supporting small entrepreneurship. But there is another point of view. It lies in the fact that the dependence of enterprises on each other is a negative aspect. The enterprise must be an independent economic entity [7,22,25,34].
The effective economic development of each economic entity is determined by the combination of its inherent economic resources, the degree of efficiency of their use in the reproduction process and how successful the conditions for economic integration with other industrial enterprises of the region or industry are [8,9,36,38]. The market economy is characterized by a variety of relationships between enterprises in integrated structures, and growing competition pushes economic entities to search for more effective forms of cooperation, stimulates the emergence of integration entities that differ in the ways of interaction and management.
The economic stability of small enterprises largely depends on their relationships with larger enterprises. It is safe to say that today small business is most closely connected with large financial companies (banks) and monopoly manufacturers. The modern economic environment requires such interaction,
because, as foreign experience shows, it contributes to the development of the business environment.
Relations between large and small businesses have passed through a number of stages throughout history. In the conditions of industry and subject specialization, small enterprises often served large ones or produced some products for them, but all their connections passed through the market. Big business was interested only in the price of products produced by small enterprises, and if it was lower than the cost of their own production of these goods, large enterprises bought them. Large enterprises were not interested in the quality of their products [25-32].
In the economically developed countries of the world, where a balanced state policy of supporting entrepreneurship is aimed at achieving socioeconomic growth, the process of active interaction of small, medium and large businesses is gradually taking place. In addition, in various countries with market economies, a general pattern has emerged, manifested in the most successful development of communities of small and medium-sized enterprises, grouped around leading large enterprises on the basis of industrial, scientific, technical and economic ties in geographically limited areas.
The integration of industrial enterprises of small and large enterprises allows us to achieve maximum competitive advantages of the corporate system. Using the skills of a partner company in the process of cooperative interaction, commodity producers can with great difficulty get what they find in independent functioning.
The commonality of forms of cooperation between large and small enterprises is a special segment in the system of external relations of large enterprises. Inter-firm interaction compensates for the lack of certain resources at a particular enterprise by redistributing them, which ensures the continuity of the reproductive economic cycle. When integrating industrial enterprises, the problem of the most effective use of the potential of each industry is solved, that is, there is a synergistic effect of the entire integration education, which is not available with the independent functioning of the integration participants [1219].
In countries with developed market economies, an important tool for improving the competitiveness of industrial production is the development of interaction between small and large enterprises using the mechanism of subcontracting (industrial cooperation). The interaction of industrial enterprises with small enterprises allows obtaining significant competitive advantages. Using the skills of a partner company in the process of cooperative interaction, commodity producers can with great difficulty get what they find in independent functioning. Large enterprises are one of the most important elements of the external environment of small business, the importance of which, firstly, is determined by their leading role in the market system, and secondly, large enterprises have a huge potential for supporting small businesses, implemented
by various forms of economic integration. Thanks to the flexibility and maneuverability of small businesses, large companies have the opportunity to increase the efficiency of their production, create new sales channels, master and implement advanced technologies. The interaction of industrial enterprises of small and large businesses allows us to achieve maximum competitive advantages of the corporate system [13,14].
In our opinion, the problems of accelerating the development of entrepreneurship in the manufacturing sector can be solved, first of all, through the cooperative interaction of small and large enterprises. Industrial cooperation allows large companies to increase labor productivity and production efficiency, and small enterprises to load existing equipment with production orders, thereby automatically solving the sales problem. In general, industrial cooperation contributes to the further structural restructuring of the industry's economy, increases the use and competitiveness of enterprises and improves the socioeconomic situation in the region.
The system of relations with subcontractors originated and developed even before the Second World War in Japan, in the 1950s in the United States and in the 1970s in Europe. The greatest development of relations with subcontractors was achieved in such countries as the USA, Japan, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Turkey, India, China and Brazil. The awarding of subcontracts was one of the components that ensured high economic development in countries such as Japan, the United States, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Turkey. Currently, relations with subcontractors in China, Poland and other countries are actively developing [15].
In our opinion, the allocation of subcontracts can be considered as a type of industrial cooperation, in which the division of labor is used between the contractor - an assembly plant with the minimum necessary own production facilities (the most profitable production processes that decisively affect the quality of products) and subcontractors - specialized enterprises that produce components, works, services, R & D. Unlike simple supplies of raw materials and components, the organizational system of subcontracting production is characterized by greater strength and reliability of connections, as it is usually accompanied by stable long-term partnerships with a wider range of mutual problems of the general contractor and a specialized subcontractor. For this reason, the allocation of subcontracts should be attributed to one of the most effective tools for improving the efficiency of industrial production, with the help of which the contractor company eliminates all non-strategic industries and orders the necessary components from subcontractors. For the contractor, the main advantage of awarding subcontracts is the relatively low cost of small business components and services, since they have lower overhead costs. This reduces the cost of the final product. The contractor is guaranteed the supply of high-quality and compatible products, which allows to reduce inventory to a minimum. In addition, it becomes possible to reduce capital investments in the
means of production, save financial resources and reduce managers and labor. Thus, the contractor can optimize the use of its resources, develop new technologies, assist in the production of technically complex and high-tech products, develop new sales channels, etc.
Subcontracting is a modern and effective method of organizing industrial production, based on the interaction of large and small industrial enterprises at all stages of the production cycle according to the principles of long-term, stability, a high degree of responsibility and trust. As a result, it is necessary to develop scientific, methodological and practical recommendations for the formation of a management system for cooperation between large and small industrial enterprises with subcontractors, which will ensure the involvement of their potential in the processes of industrial cooperation and the formation of a stable strategic partnership between them.
A more advanced form of cooperation is industrial clusters, which are a group of geographically localized and interconnected enterprises, suppliers of equipment, components, specialized services, infrastructure, scientific and educational institutions and other organizations that complement each other and strengthen the competitive advantages of individual companies and the cluster as a whole. The interaction of enterprises belonging to the cluster is a symbiosis of cooperation and competition. The development of clusters gives the maximum synergistic effect and provides a favorable environment for attracting investment, introducing new technologies, reducing the cost of production and increasing its competitiveness. In a broad sense, clusters are a means of economic and industrial development of regions. Industrial clusters successfully solve the problem of creating cooperative ties and make an important contribution to the socio-economic development of both regions and the country as a whole. For the first time in February 2017, the implementation of cluster reform in Uzbekistan was proposed by President Sh. Mirziyoyev during a visit to the Bukhara region as part of the consistent implementation of measures to form market relations between farms and textile industry enterprises. Currently, in Uzbekistan, in addition to cotton textiles, agro-industrial clusters are being created for the production and processing of cereals and other crops, as well as animal husbandry and fish farming products.
Conclusions.
In conclusion, we note that it is necessary to develop a mechanism for forming a system of managing relations among orders in industry, which includes such elements as setting goals, formulating goals and analyzing factors that determine the possibility of implementing and developing a system of organizing subcontracts for organizing production, as well as creating a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of a cooperative for subcontracts. In our opinion, it is necessary to develop a concept of industrial policy taking into account the development of large and small enterprises in the field of industrial
production, set state priorities in this area and create a legal framework for the provision of subcontracts.
References:
1. Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 02.02.2020 No. UP-5953 "On the State Program for the implementation of the Action Strategy for the five priority areas of development of the Republic of Uzbekistan in 20172021 in the "year of development of science, education and the digital economy"
2. Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 01.05.2019 No. PP4302 "On measures for the further development of industrial cooperation and expansion of production of demanded products"
3. Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 28.08.2019 No. PP4426 "On further increasing the responsibility of state and economic management bodies and local executive authorities for the introduction of a new system of localization of production and acceleration of cooperative relations in industries"
4. Kurpayanidi, K. I. (2021). Stimulation of foreign economic activities of entrepreneurship on the basis of innovative development. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 01 (93), 8-13. Soi: http://s-o-i.org/L1/TAS-01-93-2 Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2021.01.93.2
5. Kurpayanidi, K. I. (2021). Financial and economic mechanism and its role in the development of entrepreneurship. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 01 (93), 1-7. Soi: http://s-o-i.org/L1/TAS-01-93-1 Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2021.01.93.1
6. _Margianti, E. S., and ets. (2016). Entrepreneurship in Uzbekistan: trends, competitiveness, efficiency. Indonesia, Jakarta, Gunadarma Publisher.
7. Kurpayanidi, K., (2020) About some questions of classification of institutional conditions determining the structure of doing business in Uzbekistan. South Asian Journal of Marketing & Management Research. 5(10). 17-28 pp. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2249-877X.2020.00029.6
8. Kurpayanidi, K.I. (2018) "Doing Business 2017" in Uzbekistan: problems and prospects. Mauritius, Scholar's Press, Germany. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21730.15043
9. Kurpayanidi, K. I. (2020). To issues of development of entrepreneurship in the regions: theory and practice of Uzbekistan (on the materials of Andizhan region). ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 06 (86), 1-10. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2020.06.86.!
10. Malhotra, R., & Temponi, C. (2010). Critical decisions for ERP integration: Small business issues. International Journal of Information Management, 30(1), 28-37.
11. Nthutang, P., & Telukdarie, A. (2018, December). Integration of Small and Medium Enterprises for Industry 4.0 in the South African Water Services Sector: A Case Study for Johannesburg Water. In 2018 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (pp. 1206-1210). IEEE.
12. Kurpayanidi, K. I., & Mukhsinova, S. O. (2021). The problem of optimal distribution of economic resources. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 01 (93), 14-22. Soi: http://s-o-i.org/1.1/TAS-01-93-3 Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2021.01.93.3
13. Kurpayanidi, K. I. (2020). Actual problems of implementation of investment industrial entrepreneurial potential. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 01 (81), 301-307. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2020.01.81.54
14. Kurpayanidi, K.I. (2018). The typology of factors of increasing the innovative activity of enterprise entrepreneurs in the industry. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 10 (66), 1-11. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2018.10.66.!
15. Stepnov, I. M., Kovalchuk, J. A., & Gorchakova, E. A. (2019). On Assessing the Efficiency of Intracluster Interaction for Industrial Enterprises. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 30(3), 346-354.
16. Abdullayev, A. M. & ets. (2020) Analysis of industrial enterprise management systems: essence, methodology and problems. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7 (14), 1254-1260. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.14.261
17. Ershova, I., Kalinina, N., & Mezentev, P. (2017). Mechanism of interaction between large industrial enterprises and small innovative enterprises. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 35, p. 01070). EDP Sciences.
18. Kurpayanidi, K., Abdullaev, A., Ashurov, M., Tukhtasinova, M., & Shakirova, Y. (2020). The issue of a competitive national innovative system formation in Uzbekistan. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 159, p. 04024). EDP Sciences. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015904024
19. Ferneley, E., & Bell, F. (2006). Using bricolage to integrate business and information technology innovation in SMEs. Technovation, 26(2), 232-241.
20. Kurpayanidi, K. I. (2020). Some issues of macroeconomic analysis and forecasting of the economy of Uzbekistan. Iqtisodiyot va innovatsion texnologiyalar. Ilmiy elektron jurnali, 2, 100-108.
21. Kurpayanidi, K. (2021). National innovation system as a key factor in the sustainable development of the economy of Uzbekistan. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 258, p. 05026). EDP Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125805026
22. Ivanovich, K. K. Public Debt And Its Place In The Macroeconomic Policy Of The Republic Of Uzbekistan. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), 15, 157.
23. Санина, Л. В. (2014). Рейтинги оценки предпринимательского климата: международный опыт. Baikal Research Journal, (5).
24. Курпаяниди, К. (2021). Actual issues of digitalization in the industrial sector of the economy of Uzbekistan. Общество и инновации, 2(4/S), 201 -212.
25. Margianti, E. S., Ikramov, M. A., Abdullaev, A. M., Kurpayanidi, K. I., & Misdiyono, M. (2020). Role of goal orientation as a predictor of social capital: Practical suggestions for the development of team cohesiveness in SME's. Monograph. Gunadarma Pulisher, Indonesia.
26. Курпаяниди, К. И. (2018). К вопросам оценки эффективности предпринимательства в рейтинге FORBES" лучшие страны для бизнеса"(на материалах Республики Узбекистан). Бюллетень науки и практики, 4(3).
27. Курпаяниди, К. И., & Абдуллаев, А. М. (2020). Актуальные вопросы инновационной стратегии развития территорий Узбекистана. In Минтака иктисодиётини инвестициялашнинг молиявий-хукукий ва инновацион жихатлари (pp. 166-171).
28. Kurpayanidi, K. I. (2019). Theoretical basis of management of innovative activity of industrial corporation. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 01 (69), 714. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2019.01.69.3
29. Курпаяниди, К. И. (2018). К вопросам оценки эффективности предпринимательства в рейтинге Forbes «Лучшие страны для бизнеса» (на материалах Республики Узбекистан). Бюллетень науки и практики. Т. 4. №3. С. 193-202. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1198710
30. Курпаяниди, К.И. (2020). Corporate industry analysis of the effectiveness of entrepreneurship subjects in the conditions of innovative activity. Экономика и бизнес: теория и практика - Journal of Economy and Business. 2-1. С.164-166. Doi: https://doi.org/10.24411/2411-0450-2020-10111
31. Ivanovich, K. K. (2020). About some questions of classification of institutional conditions determining the structure of doing business in Uzbekistan. South Asian Journal of Marketing & Management Research, 10(5), 17-28.
32. Mamurov, D. E. (2020). Regulation of innovation processes. Наука сегодня: вызовы, перспективы и возможности [Текст], 38.
33. Мамуров, Д. и др. (2019). Особенности поддержки инновационной деятельности: зарубежный опыт и практика для Узбекистана. Бюллетень науки и практики, 5 (11), 255-261. Doi: https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/48/29
34. Абдуллаев А. М., Тешабаев А. Э., и др. (2020). Исследование систем управления предприятием: сущность, методы и проблемы // Бюллетень науки и практики. Т. 6. №2. С. 182-192. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/51/18
35. Abdullaev, A. M. & ets. (2018). Activation of foreign economic relations on the basis of innovative development. Practice of Uzbekistan. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Germany.
36. Abdullayev, A.M. and ets. (2020). Analysis of industrial enterprise management systems: essence, methodology and problems. Journal of critical reviews JCR. 7(14): 1254-1260. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/0SF.I0/E6JFS
37. Ilyosov, A. A. & ets.(2020). Problems of the use of digital technologies in industry in the context of increasing the export potential of the country. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 10 (90), 113-117. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2020.10.90.23
38. Kurpayanidi, K. I. (2020). Actual problems of implementation of investment industrial entrepreneurial potential. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 01 (81), 301-307. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2020.01.81.54
39. Kurpayanidi, K. I. (2020). To the problem of doing business in the conditions of the digital economy. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 09 (89), 1-7. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2020.09.89.1
40. Kurpayanidi, K.I. (2018). Questions of classification of institutional conditions, determining the structure of business management in Uzbekistan. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 09 (65): 1-8. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2018.09.65.!
41. Kurpayanidi, K.I. (2018). The typology of factors of increasing the innovative activity of enterprise entrepreneurs in the industry. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 10 (66), 1-11. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15863/TAS.2018.10.66.1
42. Курпаяниди, К. И. (2020). Вопросы ведения бизнеса в условиях цифровизации экономики / К. И. Курпаяниди // Управление инновационными и инвестиционными процессами и изменениями в условиях цифровой экономики: Сборник научных трудов по итогам III международной научно-практической конференции, Санкт-Петербург, 2728 октября 2020 года / Под редакцией Г.А. Краюхина, Г.Л. Багиева. -Санкт-Петербург: Санкт-Петербургский государственный экономический университет, 2020. - С. 126-133.
43. Mamatova, Z. M., Nishonov, F.M. end ets. (2019). To the question of Science approach to the construction of outsourcing business model of modern enterprise structure. Достижения науки и образования. 7 (48).
