CC BY
14
ДАННЫЕ ОБ АВТОРАХ
Гусаревич Наталья Владимировна, кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры финансов Киевского национального торговельно-экономического университета e-mail: asshattan@ukr.net
Маркуц Юлия Игоревна, кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры финансов, Киевского национального торгово-экономического университета e-mail: j.markuts@gmail.com
DATA ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Husarevych Nataliia, Ph.D. in Economics, Associate Professor of Finance Department Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics; e-mail: asshattan@ukr.net
Markuts Yuliya, Ph.D. in Economics, Associate Professor of Finance Department Kyiv National University of trade and Economics e-mail: j.markuts@gmail.com
Подано до редакци 06.03.2020 Прийнято до друку 27.03.2020
УДК 517.948:330.105 https://doi.org/10.31470/2306-546X-2020-45-135-138
КАРАГАНОВ ПРОТИВ ЛЕОНТЬЕВА -ЕСТЬ ЛИ НЕПРАВИЛЬНОЕ ПОНИМАНИЕ МОДЕЛИ ЛЕОНТЬЕВА?
Сабрина Калинкова
Актуальность темы исследования. Межотраслевой баланс - это инструмент с уникальными качествами для анализа и проектирования экономического развития. Эволюция экономических систем также влияет на сам баланс и отношение исследователей к нему.
Постановка проблемы. По этой причине интерес представляет мнение одного из известных экономистов - профессора Караганова об основных формулировках модели Леонтьева. Это базовые показатели, изученные с помощью модели, характер которой не подлежит изменению.
Постановка задачи, цели исследования. Целью статья является обоснование несостоятельности критики модели межотраслевого баланса Леонтьева профессором Сергеем Карагановым.
Метод или методология проведения исследования. Использован метод анализа научной литературы и метод сравнения.
Изложение основного материала (результаты работы). В самом начале статьи профессора Караганова представлено неверное изложение структуры модели Леонтьева. Межотраслевой баланс одновременно отражает каждую из отраслей в двойной роли - производителя продукции и поставщика продукции собственного производства для других отраслей для удовлетворения их производственных потребностей. Профессор Караганов демонстрирует явное отсутствие знаний о межотраслевом балансе (модель «затраты-выпуск»), представляя в ложном свете каждую из отраслей национальной экономической системы. По его словам, отрасли народного хозяйства делятся на производящие и потребляющие отрасли. Тот факт, что в балансе межотраслевых связей отрасли промышленности не делятся на производство и потребление продукции, остается вне поля зрения профессора Караганова. В каждый момент времени каждая отрасль представлена как в роли производителя продукции, так и в качестве потребителя продукции других отраслей в связи с производством собственной продукции.
Выводы в соответствии со статьей. В настоящее время модель Леонтьева используется исключительно благодаря ее аналитическим возможностям, и основной причиной этого является наличие множества методологических и информационных сложностей. Но особенно важно прояснить, что эти сложности, существующие вне и независимо от модели, не делают модель неправильной или неприменимой для использования. Обстоятельства, представленные профессором Сергеем Карагановым, являются лишь некоторыми примерами неправильного понимания возможностей модели, приводящими к приписыванию ей проблем, которые на самом деле не существуют.
Ключевые слова: Леонтьев, межотраслевой баланс, модель «затраты-выпуск», отрасли народного хозяйства, производители, потребители.
КАРАГАНОВ ПРОТИ ЛЕОНТЬбВА - ЧИ е НЕПРАВИЛЬНЕ РОЗУМ1ННЯ МОДЕЛ1 ЛЕОНТЬбВА?
Сабрша Калшкова
Актуальнсть теми досл'1дження. Мiжгалузевий баланс - це iнструмент з ункальними якостями для аналзу i проектування економ'чного розвитку. Еволю^я економ'чних систем також впливае на сам баланс! ставлення досл'дник'т до нього.
© Сабрина Калинкова, 2020
Економiчний вюник ушверситету | Випуск № 45
135
Постановка проблеми. З ujei причини ¡'нтерес представляв думка одного з в/домих економ/'ст/'в -професора Караганова про основн формулювання модели Леонтьева. Це базовi показники, вивчен за допомогою моделi, характер якоУ не Ндлягае змн!'.
Постановка завдання, n'rni досл'дження. Метою стаття е обфунтування неспроможноcmi критики моделi м'жгалузевого балансу Леонтьева професором Сергiем Карагановим.
Метод або методологiя проведення досл'1дження. Використано метод анал'зу науковоУ лтератури та метод порiвняння.
Виклад основного матер'алу (результати роботи). На самому початку статтi професора Караганова представлено невiрний виклад структури моделi Леонтьева. Мiжгалузевий баланс одночасно в'дображае кожну з галузей в подвшнш рол!' - виробника продукци i постачальника продукци власного виробництва для нших галузей для задоволення Ухн/'х виробничих потреб. Професор Караганов демонструе явну вiдсутнiсть знань про м'жгалузевий баланс (модель «витрати-випуск»), надаючи некоректне представлення кожноУ з галузей нацюнально'У економiчноУ системи. За його словами, галузi народного господарства подляються на таю, що виробляють, i таю, що споживають. Той факт, що в баланс м'жгалузевих зв'язк'в галузi промисловост1' не подляються на виробництво i споживання продукци, залишаеться поза увагою професора Караганова. У кожен момент часу кожна галузь представлена як в ролi виробника продукци, так i в якост^ споживача продукци нших галузей у зв'язку з виробництвом власноУпродукци.
Висновки в'дпов'дно до статт'1. В даний час модель Леонтьева використовуеться виключно завдяки УУаналтичним можливостям, i основною причиною цього е наявн 'ють безлiчi методологiчних i нформацЮних труднощ1в. Але особливо важливо прояснити, що ц труднощi, як.i юнують поза i незалежно вд моделi, не роблять модель неправильною або непридатною для використання. Обставини, представлен професором Сергiем Карагановим, е лише деякими прикладами неправильного розумння можливостей моделi, що призводять до приписування Уй проблем, яких насправдi не снуе.
Ключов'1 слова: Леонтьев, баланс м'жгалузевих вдносин, модель «витрати-випуск», галуз нацональноУ економки, виробники, споживач/'.
KARAGANOV V.S. LEONTIEF - IS THERE A MISUNDERSTANDING OF LEONTIEF'S MODEL?
Sabrina Kalinkova
Relevance of research topic: Cross-sectoral balance is a tool with unique qualities for analyzing and designing economic development. The evolution of economic systems also affects the very balance and attitude of researchers to it.
Formulation of the problem: For this reason, the opinion of one of the famous economists - Prof. Karaganov regarding the basic assumptions of Leontief's model is of interest. These are the baseline indicators examined with the model whose nature is not subject to change.
The purpose of this study is to substantiate the inconsistency of criticism of Leontiefs cross-sectoral balance model by Professor Sergei Karaganov.
Method or methodology for conducting research. Scientific literature analysis method and the method of comparison were used.
Presentation of the main material (results of work). At the very beginning of the article by Prof. Karaganov an incorrect presentation of the structure of the model of Leontief is made. The balance of inter-branch connections simultaneously reflects each of the branches in a dual role - a producer of production and a supplier of own manufactured products for other industries to meet their production needs. Prof. Karaganov demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge of the balance of cross-sectoral links (input-output model) by misrepresenting each of the branches of a national economic system. According to him, the branches of the national economy are divided into producing and consuming industries. It is beyond the view of Prof. Karaganov that in the balance of inter-sectoral links, the industries are not divided into producing and consuming products. At each point in time, each industry is represented both in its role as a producer of production and in its role as a recipient of production from other industries in connection with the production of its own production.
Conclusions according to the article. At present, Leontiev's model is used solely from its analytical capabilities. And the main reason for this is the presence of many methodological and informational problems. But it is particularly important to make it clear that these problems, existing outside and independently of the model, do not make the model itself wrong or inadequate to use. The circumstances presented by Prof. Sergey Karaganov are just some of the examples of misunderstanding the capabilities of the model, leading it to impute problems that do not actually exist.
Key words: Leontief, balance of inter-branch relations, input-output model, branches of national economy, producers, consumers.
JEL Classification: C67; D11
The author of the unjustified and unlawful accusations about the presence of problems in Leontief's model related to the methodology of its implementation and its information supply is Professor Sergey Karaganov. He explicitly introduces the fallacy of error in the title of his article «About the error of using of the economic and mathematical model of V. Leontief and the inter-branch balance «input-output model» in the economic planning».
136
EK0H0Mi4H^ вюник ушверситету | Випуск № 45
The introduction of Karaganov's article begins with the presentation of the structure of the balance of inter-branch relations. The introduction finalizes the directions in which the balance of inter-branch links is misstated.
Incomplete knowledge of the model of the balance of inter-branch relations is evident at the very beginning of the article by Prof. Karaganov, where an incorrect presentation of the structure of the model of Leontief is made. In clarifying the contents of the variables in the model, Prof. Karaganov argues that xij represents the volume of output of industry «/'», consumed in industry «j». According to him, in the model it is accepted to denote by / he number of the vector line, hence the number of the manufacturing branch, and by j the number of the vector column, hence the number of the consuming branch.
From the above it is clear that, according to Prof. Karaganov, there are two types of industries in one national economy - one producing production and the other consuming production. The truth is that at any given time, each sector of the national economy should be regarded as both a producer of products and a consumer of production, both his own (intended for production needs in the sector concerned) and the production of each of other sectors of the economy.
In other words, the balance of inter-branch connections simultaneously reflects each of the branches in his dual role - a producer of production (ie user of production for industrial purposes), and a supplier of own manufactured products for other industries to meet their production needs. It is this property which is one of the fundamental advantages of the studied model, which sets it apart from all other instruments that describe and examine economic development.
In other words, by vector column each sector of the national economy is represented as a producer of production and in this connection as a consumer and a recipient of both its own production for production needs and production of each of the branches of one national economy. At the same time, the same sectors of the national economy present themselves as suppliers of manufactured goods, both to themselves (consumption of their own production for their own production needs) and to other sectors of the economy, in order to satisfy their production needs.
It is not enough to say that, on a vector-by-column basis, industries represent themselves as producers of their products. Each vector column reveals the main factors on which the creation of the production of the respective industry depends, as well as the required quantity of each of the factors. The vector column first presents the necessary production of the respective industry to meet its production needs in the form of raw materials, materials, fuel, energy ..., which it must receive from the branches of the national economy, including production from itself (consumption of its own production to meet its own production needs).
These needed elements for the production of an industry's output are found in the corresponding vector column for the industry in the first quadrant. In the corresponding vector column in the third quadrant, the other two fundamental factors are expressed - production capacity and the human factor. The production capacity is represented by the depreciation of the production funds in the respective industry.
Depreciation is the amount of fixed material costs, as opposed to the amount of output that the industry receives from other industries and which generates variable material costs. And the sum of the variable material-production costs and the constant material-production costs gives the value of material-production costs, without which the production of the production of the respective industry is impossible.
The human factor in the vector column of the third quadrant is represented by the amount of wages received by employees in the respective industry. The vector column in the third quadrant also reflects the contribution of our own to the production of production in the respective industry. This contribution is reflected by the amount of profit generated by the industry.
The amount of wages and profits forms the amount of value added created in the industry. And the sum of the three elements in the corresponding vector column - depreciation, wages and profit - answers the question of conditionally created added value, or conditionally created net production.
As indicated above, the role of the respective sector as a supplier of the production necessary for the production needs of the branches of the national economy is presented in a row. In addition, the vector-row represents the volume of output for the final consumption of the industry.
Thus, Prof. Karaganov demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge of the balance of cross-sectoral links (input-output model) by misrepresenting each of the branches of a national economic system. According to him, the branches of the national economy are divided into producing and consuming industries. As already stated, it is beyond the view of Prof. Karaganov that in the balance of inter-sectoral links, the industries are not divided into producing and consuming products. At each point in time, each industry is represented both in its role as a producer of production and in its role as a recipient of production from other industries in connection with the production of its own production.
It is inadmissible for one critic of the balance of interconnections to write that: «it is accepted that the coefficients of direct material costs aij, respectively, are the coefficients of matrix (E-A) to be called coefficients of direct material costs» 1. In that case it is not about an arbitrary acceptance or not of the name of the coefficients aij, respectively the coefficients of the (E-A) matrix. Their name coefficients of direct costs is a result of indisputable mathematical proof, not an arbitrary decision of the name2.
1 Karaganov, S.A., "About the error of using of the economic and mathematical model of V. Leontief and the inter-branch balance "input-output model" in the economic planning", Moskow, 2006.
2 The proof that (E-A) is a matrix of direct material costs is made by Prof. Ph.D. Vassil Manov also opens in his work „Designing of a Suitable (from an Economic, Social and Ecological Perspective) Competitive Development and Functioning of National Economic Systems (Theory and Methodology)", UNWE, Sofia, 2016, pp. 336-340.
Ekohomnhmm BiCHUK yrnBepcMTeTy | BunycK № 45
137
The lack of knowledge for the structure and content of the balance of the cross-sectoral links is also evident from the judgments made regarding the full cost matrix (Е-А)-1. In his article, Prof. Karaganov writes that: « it is accepted that the elements of this matrix are called coefficients of total material costs»1. The name of the coefficients of the matrix (Е-А)-1 as the coefficients of total material costs is proved mathematically, and is not the result of an arbitrary choice of name3.
At the end of the introduction of the article, the author expresses his reservations about listing the wide opportunities for using the method of inter-branch relations in the analyzing the economic indicators, determined on the basis of construction of balance models... However, the outlined benefits of the model and its fundaments - the economic-mathematical model of Wassily Leontief - are greatly exaggerated.
To suspect the possibilities of the balance of the inter-branch relations is an expression of nothing but the ignorance, respectively, disregard of the theoretical development of the different sides of the balance of the inter-branch relations. Here are included the questions about the capabilities of the direct matrix and the full cost matrix. Unfortunately, for Prof. Karaganov the possibilities of the unique instrument for carrying out economic analysis and for designing the development of a national or international economic system apparently remain unknown.
Of course, one important clarification needs to be made. At present, Leontiev's model is used solely from its analytical capabilities. And the main reason for this is the presence of many methodological and informational problems, which Karaganov himself writes about. But it is particularly important to make it clear that these problems, existing outside and independently of the model, do not make the model itself wrong or inadequate to use. The circumstances presented in the above statement are just some of the examples of misunderstanding the capabilities of the model, leading it to impute problems that do not actually exist.
Sources
1. Karaganov, S.A., «About the error of using of the economic and mathematical model of V. Leontief and the inter-branch balance «input-output model» in the economic planning», Moskow, 2006.
2. Vassil Manov «Designing of a Suitable (from an Economic, Social and Ecological Perspective) Competitive Development and Functioning of National Economic Systems (Theory and Methodology)», UNWE, Sofia, 2016.
ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОБ АВТОРЕ
Сабрина Калинкова, кандидат экономических наук, ассистент кафедры «Маркетинг и стратегическое планирование», Университет национальной и мировой экономики, г. София, Болгария e-mail: s.kalinkova@abv.bg
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR Sabrina Kalinkova, Ph.D.,
Chief Assistant at the Department of «Marketing and Strategic Planning» University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria e-mail: s.kalinkova@abv.bg
УДК 334.027: 37.07 https://doi.org/10.31470/2306-546X-2020-45-138-145
БРЕНД ЯК 1НСТРУМЕНТ ГЛОБАЛ1ЗАЦП
Студшська Г. Я.
Простежено ступнь досл'дження зв'язку мiж поняттями «глобалiзацiя» та «брендинг». Проанал1'зовано коректнсть застосування термнологи, що використовуеться втчизняними досл'дниками у концепцп брендингу. Визначено перелiк ознак, за якими встановлено схожсть процесв, що анал'зуються. Обфунтовано, що вплив брендингу на економ'чний розвиток е процесом, яким необхдно управляти. Встановлено, що брендинг та глобалiзацiя впливае на соцiально-економiчний розвиток кра'Уни.
Об'ектом досл'1дження е теоретичн!' та методологiчнi засади брендингу в умовах глобал'зацИ, що розширюе горизонти концепцп бренд-ор/'ентованого розвитку нацюнальноУ економки.
Предметом досл'дження виступае характер взаемного впливу процесв глобал'зацп та брендингу.
Дослiдження глобал'зацп, умов та фактор'в, що сприяють УУ розвитку, напрямiв УУ впливу, результат'¡в цього впливу мае мiждисциплiнарний характер та потребуе здшснення фундаментального вивчення. Мета дано)'роботи полягае у обфунтуванн'1 наявност'! взаемного впливу глобал'зацИ та брендингу, визначення його характеристик.
3 The proof that (E-A)-1 is a matrix of full (total) material costs is made by Prof. Ph.D. Vassil Manov also opens in his work „Designing of a Suitable (from an Economic, Social and Ecological Perspective) Competitive Development and Functioning of National Economic Systems (Theory and Methodology)", UNWE, Sofia, 2016, pp. 341-358.
138
EKOHOMi4H^ вюник ушверситету | Випуск № 45
© Студшська Г. Я., 2020
