CC BY
6Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 7. №10. 2021
https://www.bulletennauki.com https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/71
УДК 332.143 https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/71/38
AGRIS E10
JEL classification: A10; C03
ПРОБЛЕМЫ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ РАЗВИТИЯ ЛИЧНЫХ ПОДСОБНЫХ
ХОЗЯЙСТВ В УЗБЕКИСТАНЕ
©Якупов К. К., Институт сельского хозяйства и агротехнологий Каракалпакстана,
г. Нукус, Узбекистан, q-abi-l@mail.ru
PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONAL SUBSIDIARY FARMS IN UZBEKISTAN
©Yakupov K., Institute of Agriculture andAgrotechnology of Karakalpakstan, Nukus, Uzbekistan, q-abi-l@mail.ru
Аннотация. В статье рассмотрены особенности развития личных подсобных хозяйств в современных условиях, определены их функции в аграрной экономике и в жизни общества в целом.
Abstract. The article examines the features of the development of personal subsidiary farms in modern conditions, defines their functions in the agricultural economy and in the life of society as a whole.
Ключевые слова: личное подсобное хозяйство, сельскохозяйственная продукция, производство, земля, сельскохозяйственные предприятия, сельское хозяйство.
Keywords: personal subsidiary plot, agricultural products, production, land, farms, agriculture.
The land plots provided for auxiliary economic purposes to the rural population in many countries of the world are identical, in some of them they are intended for small-scale production, to satisfy their needs, and some for commercial production are called differently. In this work, taking into account their general purpose — satisfaction of personal family needs in the first place, and based on family labor resources, all of them are conventionally combined under one term personal subsidiary farms (PSF). Private subsidiary farms of the rural population are located on a personal plot of land. Personal subsidiary farms in many countries of the world occupy a significant part of land resources.
It is known that in the scientific literature there are many terms directly related to the formation and development of personal subsidiary farms, such as 'household', 'private farm', 'peasant farm', 'family farm', 'farmland'. For example, in the Russian Federation, farms are considered an integral part of agriculture, as well as the economy, they are called 'Christian households', and in most studies, such terms as 'household population', 'Christian subsistence', 'Christian household', 'personal subsistence farming' are considered to be very close scientific terms. In Russia personal subsidiary farms were run by rural population in the 1930s as a source of 'self-sufficiency'. Collectivization at the time worsened the situation for thousands of peasant
Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 7. №10. 2021
https://www.bulletennauki.com https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/71
families, and during the famine, the former Soviet government allowed farmers to run their own farms.
In the encyclopedic dictionary by F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron, "Personal subsidiary farms as an economic category is an agricultural enterprise producing small goods based on the labor of the head of the family and its members" [1]. Another encyclopedia states that "Personal subsidiary farms is a form of agricultural production that is mainly based on the joint work of family members on land that has been inherited for life or leased for long-term use" [2]. Personal subsidiary farms also belong to the household and are based on the joint work of family members and produce agricultural products. This will meet the demand of family members, as well as the population for agricultural products.
The key to the successful implementation of rational land use is the corresponding interest on the part of land users. By investing in their land plots, private households face economic, legal and administrative problems. Consider the current state and features of the development of private household plots in a number of countries around the world.
The 2016 Agricultural Census Farm Structure Survey covered 12 million family farms operating in the EU. 49% of the observed properties had less than 2 hectares of agricultural land. 325 thousand households, accounting for about 3% of the total number of family farms, owned land plots of up to 100 hectares. Small family farms up to 2 hectares covered only 2% of the EU's total agricultural land.
In Germany, personal subsidiary farms of the population are found in the form of commercial agricultural peasant farms. In Germany, agriculture is based on small and medium-sized commercial peasant family enterprises. In 2018, there were 280,800 farms. Of these, 45.3% have an area of up to 20 hectares, 20-50 hectares in size — 24.4% 50-100 hectares in size — 17.4%; over 100 hectares — 12.9% of farms. Their effectiveness largely depends on support from the state. They receive 300 euros annually for each hectare of land they cultivate. In May, heads of farms submit applications, and in December, state support funds are credited to their accounts. Currently, this is the only type of state support. It accounts for 70% of the income of the peasants. Its lending system plays an important role in the successful development of peasant farms. It allows them to take loans for up to 50 years at 1%.
A characteristic feature of Canadian agriculture is its high productivity and relatively little use of hired labor in it. Canada is a country of population family farms. On average, 77% of land plots in the country are family property. They grow products for both family needs and marketable products. Most of all farmland is cultivated by the farmers themselves and their families. The average size of family farms is from 32 ha to 103 ha. This is possible thanks to the presence of large families and the extensive mechanization of agricultural labor. Hired labor is mainly used during the harvest. At this time, special harvest excursions run across the country, delivering seasonal workers to various agricultural regions. A large percentage of the seasonal workers are students. The experience of family farms in Canada shows the possibility of using hired labor in the cultivation of agricultural products on the lands of personal subsidiary plots, especially when harvesting [3].
In Japan, personal subsidiary plots of the population are called the dwarf type of peasant farms. Agriculture remains an important industry in the Japanese economy, although its share in GNP has been declining in recent years. The country's agriculture employs 4.1 million people (6.6% of all employed). Small-scale peasant land use predominates. Despite the agrarian reform, a dwarf type of peasant farms prevails in the country (many plots are less than 0.5 hectares). Under these conditions, it is only possible to carry out small-scale mechanization. More powerful mechanization
Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 7. №10. 2021
https://www.bulletennauki.com https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/71
is found on large farms. A distinctive feature of small peasant farms is their placement in small contours in several areas, the widespread use of small-scale mechanization.
The Republic of Uzbekistan is an industrial-agrarian state. 51% of the population lives in rural areas. Farms producing agricultural products in the country are divided into 3 categories. Farms, personal subsidiary farms and organizations engaged in agricultural activities. Farms are organizations with state-registered legal status. Personal subsidiary farms are the rural population with a maximum of 0.5 ha. The third category farms include various agricultural firms. After certain historical processes of formation and development of personal subsidiary farms in the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Dehkan Farms" was adopted in 1998. The law defines a farm as a small family farm, which grows and sells agricultural products on a plot of land given to the head of the family for inherited lifelong possession on the basis of individual labor of family members [4].
Agricultural products are grown on 3309400 hectares of land in the country. Of this, 2623,200 hectares (79.3%) were occupied by farms, 472,900 hectares (14.3%) by personal subsidiary farms, and 213,300 hectares (6.4%) by agricultural organizations. Despite the fact that personal subsidiary farms own small plots of land, they produce about 70% of agricultural production (Figure 1).
120
100 80
29,3
26
27,9
27,8
60
40 20 0
68,4
71,2
68,3
68
2017 2018 2019 2020
■ Personal subsidiary farms ■ Farms ■ Organizations engaged in agricultural activities Figure 1. Structure of agriculture production in Uzbekistan
Farms are mainly engaged in growing cotton and cereals. Cotton and grain crops are grown on 75% of the country's agricultural land. More than 90% of livestock products are grown by private subsidiary farms (Figure 2).
Thus, personal subsidiary farms can be considered a promising form of economic activity, which has the right to exist in the future with the condition of organizing following complex measures [5-7]:
-organization of purchases of agricultural products with the possibility for peasants to conclude contracts for future crops with guaranteed payment at contractual prices and partial crediting;
-organization of mechanized maintenance of field work, satisfaction of other needs of personal subsidiary farms — provision of young stock, veterinary services, artificial insemination, ensuring the availability of loans secured from the expected yield and financial services;
-organization of a marketing service for timely information on market conditions;
-monitoring the observance of labor legislation, primarily when using hired labor.
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 7. №10. 2021
https://www.bulletennauki.com https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/71
Figure 2. Structure of livestock production in Uzbekistan (2020)
Everywhere, in contrast to agricultural enterprises, where the results of labor are appropriated by workers through the system of its payment, in personal subsidiary farms this assignment is carried out in the form of direct receipt of food and additional cash income from the sale of surplus products. Over the past ten years, personal subsidiary farms, as one of the most widespread forms of economic activity of the population, have become the leading producers of agricultural products in many states, they have taken shape as individual subsidiary agricultural production, complementing the sector of agricultural producers. The peculiarities of the functioning and the role of personal subsidiary farms in the social and economic development of many countries give rise to the formation of a special economic mechanism for their support and development [8-12].
An analysis of the experience of different countries of the world, in particular, the functioning of personal subsidiary farms shows that some features of their development can be used in Uzbekistan, including:
-government support of family farms and the credit system, their cooperation.
-development of the multifunctional essence of private household plots.
-owners who effectively use the land and receive high economic indicators of personal subsidiary farms will be provided with the opportunity to allocate additional areas.
References:
1. Xalmuratovich, B. S., Sarsenbaevich, I. K., Timur, N., & Uzakbergenovich, B. K. K. (2020). Use of Marketing Methods in the Development of Strategies for Diversification of Agricultural Production in the Republic of Karakalpakstan. Solid State Technology, 63(4), 516-522.
2. Nurimbetov, T., Umarov, S., Khafizova, Z., Bayjanov, S., Nazarbaev, O., Mirkurbanova, R., & Durmanov, A. (2021). Optimization of the main parameters of the support-lump-breaking coil. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 2(1(110)), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2021.229184
3. Nurimbetov, T. U. (2017). Diversification of the manufacturing activity at agricultural sector and methodological approaches to evaluateits level. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 54(10), 77-82.
4. Jiemuratov, T., & Baijanov, S. (2020). Improving the Economic Efficiency of Agricultural Production by its Diversification in the Republic of Karakalpakstan. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 6(12), 306-312. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/61/34
5. Abdurakhmanov, K. Kh., Mukhitdinov, E. M., Shakarov, Z. G., Nabiev, O. A., & Amanov, O. A. (2019). Labor migration and its impact on employment of population. International research journal, (4(82)), 6-11. https://doi.org/10.23670/mj.2019.82A028
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 7. №10. 2021
https://www.bulletennauki.com https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/71
6. Boldyreva, S. B., Alimov, A. K., Adilchaev, R. T., Idzhilova, D. V., & Chadlaeva, N. E. (2020). On the development of cluster theory. International Journal of Management (IJM), 11(11). https://doi.org/10.34218/IJM.ll.ll.2020.070
7. Salayev, S., Allanazarov, K., Sauhanov, J., & Alymov, A. (2018). Ecological tourism development on protected natural areas. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 4(12), 228-234. (in Russian).
8. Allanazarov, K., & Alimov, A. (2019, June). The model of the development of ecotourism in special protected areas. Uzbekistan in the Central Asia Region. Geography, Geoeconomics, Geoecology. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, Tashkent, Uzbekistan (Vol. 2, pp. 34-39).
9. Alimov, A. (2016). Ecotourism development in Karakalpakstan: challenges, new trends, and prospects. Bulletin of science and practice, (6), 46-53.
10. Adilchaev, B., & Ismailov, B. (2020). Role of Guest Houses in the Development of Rural and Ecological Tourism in the Republic of Karakalpakstan. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 6(12), 79-86. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/61/09
11. Salaev, S. K., Alimov, A. K., Saidov, D. R., & Ollanazarov, B. D. (2016). Features and development tendencies of services sphere in Uzbekistan. International Journal of Current Research, 8(07), 34416-34420.
12. Ubaydullaev, K., & Alimov, A. (2020). Prospects for Industrial Development in the Republic of Karakalpakstan. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 6(10), 258-265. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/59/26
Список литературы:
1. Xalmuratovich B. S., Sarsenbaevich I. K., Uzakbergenovich N. T., Kdirbaevich B. K. Use of Marketing Methods in the Development of Strategies for Diversification of Agricultural Production in the Republic of Karakalpakstan // Solid State Technology. 2020. V. 63. №4. P. 516522.
2. Nurimbetov T., Umarov S., Khafizova Z., Bayjanov S., Nazarbaev O., Mirkurbanova R., Durmanov A. Optimization of the main parameters of the support-lump-breaking coil // Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies. 2021. V. 2. №1 (110). P. 27-36. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2021.229184
3. Nurimbetov T. U. Diversification of the manufacturing activity at agricultural sector and methodological approaches to evaluateits level // ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science. 2017. V. 54. №10. P. 77-82.
4. Jiemuratov T., Baijanov S. Improving the Economic Efficiency of Agricultural Production by its Diversification in the Republic of Karakalpakstan // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2020. Т. 6. №12. С. 306-312. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/61/34
5. Abdurakhmanov K. Kh., Mukhitdinov E. M., Shakarov Z. G., Nabiev O. A., Amanov O. A. Labor migration and its impact on employment of population // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. 2019. №4(82). С. 6-11. https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2019.82.4.028
6. Boldyreva S. B., Alimov A. K., Adilchaev R. T., Idzhilova D. V., Chadlaeva N. E. On the development of cluster theory // International Journal of Management (IJM). 2020. V. 11. №11. https://doi.org/10.34218/IJM.11.11.2020.070
7. Салаев С. К., Алланазаров К. Ж., Сауханов Ж. К., Aлымов A. K. Пути развития экологического туризма на охраняемых природных территориях // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2018. Т. 4. №12. С. 228-234.
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 7. №10. 2021
https://www.bulletennauki.com https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/71
8. Allanazarov K., Alimov A. The model of the development of ecotourism in special protected areas. Uzbekistan in the Central Asia Region. Geography, Geoeconomics, Geoecology // Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. 2019. V. 2. P. 34-39.
9. Aлимов A. K. Развитие экотуризма в республик Каракалпакстан: проблемы, новые направления и перспективы // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2016. №6. С. 46-53.
10. Адильчаев Б., Исмаилов Б. Роль гостевых домов в развитии сельского и экологического туризма в Республике Каракалпакстан // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2020. Т. 6. №12. С. 79-86. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/61/09
11. Salaev S. K., Alimov A. K., Saidov D. R., Ollanazarov B. D. Features and development tendencies of services sphere in Uzbekistan // International Journal of Current Research. 2016. V. 8. №07. P. 34416-34420.
12. Убайдуллаев К., Алымов А. К. Перспективы развития промышленности в Республике Каракалпакстан // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2020. Т. 6. №10. С. 258-265. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/59/26
Работа поступила Принята к публикации
в редакцию 05.09.2021 г. 10.09.2021 г.
Ссылка для цитирования:
Якупов К. К. Проблемы и перспективы развития личных подсобных хозяйств в Узбекистане // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2021. Т. 7. №10. С. 336-341. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/71/38
Cite as (APA):
Yakupov, K. (2021). Problems and Prospects for the Development of Personal Subsidiary Farms in Uzbekistan. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 7(10), 336-341. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/71/38
