The emergence of the private sector of the economy. Public and private sector of the economy
Using the example of privatization in England, at least 22 various ways partial or complete transfer of ownership and functions for the provision of services to the private sector. Sales and giveaways, service contracts, user contributions, sale of public housing to tenants, abandonment of state monopoly to promote competition.
Services - Private Sector
The rejection of the total regulation of wholesale and retail prices occurred at the beginning of 1991. At that time, 50% of machinery and equipment, 40% of light industry products and 25% of raw materials were sold at flexible contract prices. In retail trade, since April 1991, the share of fixed prices has been 55%, and contract prices - 45%. At the same time, the scope of application of unregulated prices for goods and services of the private sector has expanded.
The means to achieve this goal are manifold. These may include management "privatization" measures, recommended for example. by the World Bank - from the use of private sector contracting services to the transition to a partial monopoly on the exploitation of the country's oil and gas resources. Such liberalization and partial demonopolization can be supplemented various forms cooperation with foreign companies that have more advanced technology for the development of hard-to-reach deposits. In this area, cooperation develops from service contracts to production sharing contracts with various variations depending on specific conditions.
Expertise allows you to bypass the difficulties of long-term accounting for qualitative changes in the forecasting object, associated both with the internal logic of its development, which depends on the relationship of qualitative features, and with changes in external factors. As an example, we can take into account the impact of the development of science and technology on macroeconomic indicators for the whole country and for industries (here, expert assessments of various economic restrictions on private sector investment, needs for products and services are required).
A significant difference between financial and economic analysis concerns the prices that are used to evaluate project resources and outputs. In financial analysis, market prices are taken as a basis, at which an economic entity assumes the acquisition of resources and the sale of its products. Prices used in economic analysis are calculated based on opportunity cost values for society as a whole. The economic value of resources and products differs from their financial value due to market distortions created by the state or the private sector. Export taxes and subsidies, excises, sales taxes, subsidies, quotas of all kinds are all typical examples of state-induced distortions. Monopoly and related price distortions are a market phenomenon that can be created by either the government or the private sector. Some market distortions are caused by the public nature of the goods or services produced. The cost to society of public services such as drinking water, transportation, road repairs, and electricity often far exceeds the financial prices that individual consumers must pay for them. It is these factors that are one of the reasons for the discrepancies between financial and economic prices for the project.
The US government has developed a way to regulate intellectual property issues through laws, regulations, acts of the executive branch and uniform government policy. Each individual institution may have uniform laws and additional regulations that apply only to it. For example, there is a single Federal Procurement Regulation (FRZ), which establishes the rules and procedures for the conclusion and implementation of contacts by agencies for the purchase of goods and services in the private sector. Department of Energy, guided by the EDF. however, has developed a more detailed Department of Energy (DOE) Procurement Regulation that is in line with the DOE but includes special rules tailored to the specifics of the DO's business.
There will always be, and perhaps should be, certain types of services/products for which payment must be guaranteed. For example, the population needs transport and. consequently, it is necessary to guarantee the payment of road construction from the budget, but this does not prevent the emergence of toll roads with a competitive spirit characteristic of the private sector. Governments will no doubt continue to debate which important services should be publicly provided, which should be regulated, and which should be privatized.
Along with the urgent need to transfer the functions of developing and implementing restructuring plans directly to the management of defense enterprises, Russian government should also implement a number of additional measures that contribute to the success of the conversion. Perhaps the most important of these measures, and one that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, is a clear decision on the strategy for transforming the Russian defense industry. It can remain isolated and focused exclusively on military production, fully controlled and subsidized by the state. In another option, the government would purchase defense goods and services from the dual-use private sector, which would consider the government as one of its clients. Such a formulation of the question does not exclude the existence of several factories, which, even within the framework of the dual-use production model, can remain exclusively military and controlled by the government. However, according to the second model, the vast majority of factories will be privatized and free to plan and diversify, provided that the volume of supplies of military equipment required by the state is maintained.
How resources are reallocated from the production of individual to the production of public goods In a full-employment economy, the government has to release resources from the private sector in order to make them available for the production of public goods. The way to release resources from the private sector is to reduce private demand for them. To do this, the government levies taxes on firms and households, thereby diverting part of their income - part of their potential purchasing power - from the income-expenditure stream. As incomes fall as a result of taxation, firms and households are forced to reduce their spending on investment and consumption. Taxes reduce private demand for goods and services, which in turn causes a decline in private demand for resources. By transferring purchasing power from private consumers to the government, taxes free resources from their private sphere of application.
It lies in the fact that, according to conservatives, a limited or constant number of decisions related to the functioning of the economy are made during a certain period. Therefore, if the state, in carrying out its officially established functions, makes more decisions, then the private sector will necessarily be left with fewer free decisions or alternatives. These reasonings are considered erroneous. By financing the production of public goods, the state actually expands the scope of free choice, allowing the public to enjoy goods and services that would not be available without the efforts of the government.
Public choice theorists cite a number of reasons why the state sometimes fails to provide citizens with public goods and services a) politicians have strong incentives to support laws that protect the special interests of certain groups b) public choice can be biased in favor of programs that entail immediate, tangible benefits and hard-to-detect costs, and against programs that result in immediate, easily-determined costs and unlikely or delayed benefits c) citizens who vote have fewer choices in public goods and services than in the private sector as consumers d) government officials have less incentive to work efficiently than those who work in private firms.
When Democratic state imposes taxes on the population in order to finance the provision of certain benefits to its citizens, there is coercion. The dissenting minority must pay taxes and fund public goods, whether or not they receive or value them. The right of taxation allows the state, without asking permission, to take from people their property, for example, income. There is no such coercive force in the private sector. Private firms can charge higher prices for their goods and services, but they cannot force people to buy them.
Competition disciplines. If a private firm provides poor customer service, it loses out to competitors who offer Better conditions. Competition gives consumers protection from high prices, bad products and services, and rude staff behavior. With respect to the private sector, almost everyone agrees. The importance of competition in the public sector is unfortunately not widely recognized.
The policy of loans (internal and external) should ensure the implementation of public spending at the expense of real incomes of the private sectors of the economy, but when these incomes are considered by the non-state sector as a way to effectively allocate savings in order to extract again real incomes. In other words, the policy of loans can be effective only when the state promotes the deployment of a system of real investment mechanisms that expands the sources of real appropriation of income. The totality of processes of this kind is called budget crowding out. Budget crowding out is a form of investment competition between the state, business and households, when savings flow from businesses and households to the state, but in order to increase the national income in a real way. Budgetary crowding out is not always effective. Often, what the state collects in the form of loans eventually transforms into bad loans, bribes, misuse of funds and the interests of the bureaucracy, shadow incomes, simple losses, consumer spending not from market sources, etc. As a result, part of the budget deficit covered by loans turns out to be not real, but nominal (purely price without providing a physical equivalent for the production of real goods and services), which leads to the development of negative macroeconomic trends (inflation, unemployment, recession, growth of public debt, etc. phenomena ). Thus, the measure of the effectiveness of budgetary policy is determined by the complex of actually realized goals, correlated with the means that caused their achievement.
The beginning of the reform is associated with the establishment of a dynamic balance in the consumer market, not only with the help of a more flexible price system, but primarily due to the rapid deployment in the private sector of the production of consumer goods and services and the saturation of the market with them. In China, restrictions on the creation of private manufacturing enterprises were lifted in the mid-1980s, which made it possible to completely saturate the consumer market five or six years later.
Prerequisites for privatization. The main reason for privatization, especially in the least developed countries, was the fear-induced realization that state-owned enterprises tend to be embezzlers of national wealth. There is a fairly strong opinion that instead of accumulating profits or effectively providing services, they only empty the treasury. Hence, naturally, the conclusion is drawn about the need to strengthen the role of the private sector.
In a transitional economy, the most important step in creating conditions for competition and entrepreneurship is the privatization of state property. The launched large-scale demonopolization of state property has become the most important institutional transformation, the central link in the economic reform in Kyrgyzstan. The implementation of the actual privatization policy in line with the main economic reforms assumed a phased approach with the allocation of clearly defined goals, objectives and implementation levers.
During the first stage (end of 1991 - end of 1993) the legislative framework, organizational infrastructure, widely tested privatization tools. High rates of "small privatization" have been achieved. The privatization of enterprises in industry, construction, agriculture and other sectors has begun. The adoption of the Law "On the General Principles of Denationalization, Privatization and Entrepreneurship in the Republic of Kyrgyzstan" (1991) and the Program for the Denationalization and Privatization of State and Communal Property for 1991-1993 contributed to the transfer of the spontaneous privatization process to a legally regulated base. (January 1992). The program aimed at privatization to create a competitive environment in the economy by changing the ratio of forms of ownership in favor of private and mixed. The main objectives included: rapid pace of privatization, emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises, privatization of large enterprises in industry and agriculture.
The completion of the first stage of privatization revealed mostly purely quantitative successes: 59% remained in the hands of the state; 7.7% - cooperative and public; 9.2% - collective farm; 9.3% - in the hands of labor collectives; 14.3% - joint property of the state and labor collectives; 0.5% - private property. Relatively successful was the transformation of objects of trade, public catering, consumer services within the framework of the so-called "small privatization". In these sectors of the economy, privatization was carried out through auctions, tenders and direct sales. As a result, already in 1991-1993. in trade, 86.7% were privatized, and in consumer services - 97.2% of shops, restaurants, cafes, consumer services enterprises, which were transferred mainly to private hands. A positive result of "small privatization" was the destruction of the state monopoly in trade and the service sector, the creation of a competitive environment, the elimination of commodity shortages, although it could not solve the problem of transforming state property as a whole.
Due to the novelty and complexity of the process, the first Privatization Program was carried out with significant shortcomings in the legislative and regulatory framework. This was especially evident during the privatization of large and medium-sized enterprises. Here, the predominant form of privatization was corporatization, which implies the concentration of most of the shares in the hands of the state, and the State Property Fund was given the opportunity to use these shares to create holdings or sell them to third parties. Data on the methods of denationalization, privatization in Kyrgyzstan at the first stage (see Appendix, Table b 5) indicate a fairly rapid increase in the number of registered joint-stock companies. If in terms of the number of privatized objects the largest share - 28% - was the redemption into collective ownership, then in terms of the value of property corporatization prevailed - 79%. Since the beginning of the privatization process, 169 joint-stock companies have been created in the republic, of which 36% are in industry, 14% in construction, and 25% in trade. However, their creation was largely a formal transformation, because the main holders and contributors to the statutory fund are the state apparatus and the administration of enterprises. Thus, as of January 1, 1994, the average share of the State Property Fund for all established joint-stock companies was 56.9%, labor collectives - 33.6%, "third" founders - 9.5%.
Thus, the shortcomings of the first stage of privatization manifested themselves in the following. A significant part of the property of state enterprises was left on preferential terms (at extremely low prices) to labor collectives, which did not contribute to the emergence of real owners, the influx of investments and, consequently, the renewal of production. The state share of shares in corporatized enterprises was in most cases transferred to the management of ministries or state concerns, which, due to their sectoral nature, opposed the privatization process and had a negative impact on the behavior of new owners. As a result, ministries and state concerns continued to play a key role in pricing, determining the profile of production, supply and distribution of material and financial resources.
In 1992, a program of mass privatization began with the use of special means of payment accrued to the population. (THX). But due to the imperfection of the regulatory and production base, associated primarily with the extreme limitation of their use, in 1993 only 3% of the SPS were implemented. This was largely due to the low awareness of the population about the forms of privatization, the inefficient method of using the SPS itself. As a result, there was a negative public opinion towards mass privatization. The situation began to improve only in 1994, when the SPS of the population were replaced by privatization coupons, which were liquid securities.
The beginning of the second stage of privatization (1994-1995) was characterized by a very low level fulfillment of program tasks: in the 3rd quarter of 1994, only 25% of annual volumes were privatized. The reasons for the current situation: the limited methods of privatization used, the imperfection of the regulatory framework, the lack of coordination between the activities of the State Property Fund and sectoral ministries. Financial discipline was significantly weakened, because. many enterprises were in arrears in the purchase of privatized property, the deadlines for repayment of previously issued loans were violated, and accounting for the accrual of dividends on the state block of shares was not practiced. The privatization of large enterprises in industry, construction, and wholesale trade was suspended. There was no regulatory framework for the introduction of new methods of state property management. Practically no work was carried out to activate the mechanism of liquidation and reorganization of insolvent enterprises, the process of exchanging ATP for coupons dragged on.
In order to solve these and many other problems, the second Privatization Program was developed, which included three main elements:
- - first, all remaining small businesses must be sold on a competitive basis at auctions for cash;
- - second - the share of state shares in enterprises already privatized at stage 1 should be sold for privatization certificates and cash auctions, with the participation of individual owners of privatization certificates, as well as investment funds;
- - third - medium and large enterprises should be privatized by the following methods: free distribution of 5% of the company's shares to managers and workers (earlier, 25-27% was transferred to the team free of charge); sale at voucher auctions of 25% of shares; sale of the remaining 70% of the shares through an auction or tender.
When the remaining shares are sold directly to targeted investors, including foreign ones, they are considered to have a strategic position in the given industry sector. In early 1995, as a variant of competitive privatization proposals, the "Key Investor Scheme" was adopted, under which bidders are not required to submit business plans and bids as their sole evaluation criteria. In general, the second stage is distinguished by a new, qualitative approach to privatization: the abolition of benefits for labor collectives, the transformation of state enterprises only into Open Joint Stock Companies, the use of such privatization methods as a competition of competing projects, individual privatization projects, the method of strategic investors.
In the implementation of the privatization program, the Government of Kyrgyzstan was assisted by the World Bank on a loan from the International Development Association (IDA) - 60 million dollars, called PESA. In 1994 -1995 under this Program, a diagnostic survey of 27 large unprofitable industrial enterprises was carried out regarding their viability. In mid-1994, the Agency for Enterprise Reconstruction and Decision-Making (ARRP) was organized under the Prime Minister's Cabinet as a temporary body to oversee the passive reconstruction of these enterprises and eliminate unviable enterprises by controlling losses, removing the social and political costs associated with liquidation and reconstruction of enterprises, notification of enterprises that the Government is forced to impose budget restrictions on them. In 1996, out of 27 surveyed enterprises, 2 voluntarily left the ARPRP program, 7 were recognized as unviable (of which 6 unprofitable industrial enterprises underwent bankruptcy proceedings, 1 is subject to liquidation), 11 have completed reconstruction, the remaining 7 are in the program. On the basis of the survey, social and industrial infrastructure objects that are on their balance sheet were separated from enterprises, with the subsequent transfer of these objects to local government bodies, the number of employees was reduced by 50%, ways of privatization of these enterprises were determined. ARPRP program for 1994-1998. provides further: not to allow any budget allocations to enterprises in 1997; make financial contributions to the account of the ARRP itself only to complete its role as a liquidator; settle all claims and lawsuits against the liquidated enterprises within 1998, after which the program will cease its work.
During the implementation of the privatization process in Kyrgyzstan for 1991-1996. about 6 thousand enterprises were privatized or 60% of total strength state facilities. In terms of sectors of the economy, the level of privatization is: in industry - 77%; agriculture - 40%; construction - 54%; transport - 46%; trade - 95%; consumer services - 100%; in the non-productive sphere - 18%; in other industries - 11%. Of all privatized enterprises, 37% were private enterprises, 38% - collective, 21% - joint-stock companies, 4% - limited liability companies. This rather significant quantitative result of privatization was not accompanied, unfortunately, by qualitative changes in the socio-economic situation.
For the period 1991-1995. Kyrgyzstan focused on formal denationalization, moreover, on its quantitative aspect, the actual pace of privatization, which was rather weakly connected with financial stabilization, antimonopoly policy, structural adjustment, and attraction of new investments. As a result, there have been no significant changes that would have contributed to the creation of an entrepreneurial spirit, competition, prerequisites for new approaches to the organization of production and management. The privatized enterprises turned out to be unable to pay suppliers for raw materials, materials, electricity and were forced to work not in full mode. Because of this, their production volume has sharply decreased and financial results have worsened.
A critical assessment of the privatization processes made by the Government of the Republic necessitated the development of a new State Program denationalization and privatization for 1996-1997. According to the Program, 499 state-owned enterprises with the value of fixed assets of more than 433 million soms will be transformed. At this stage, the transformation of medium and large enterprises, as well as a more effective use of the mechanism for the rehabilitation of unprofitable economic entities or their bankruptcy, is to be carried out. The implementation of the Program provides for the following main areas:
- - monetary sale of state-owned objects and implementation of individual privatization projects;
- - creating conditions for the formation of domestic management firms and ensuring their participation in the privatization process;
- - formation of a system of state measures to protect the interests of investors - owners of securities;
- - implementation of measures for the effective management of the remaining state property.
As for the mass privatization associated with the gratuitous exchange of citizens' privatization coupons for shares of reorganized enterprises, it is also entering its final stage. Shares of the most attractive for citizens enterprises and organizations of production branches and social sphere will be put up for coupon auctions. Privatization coupons not realized during the exchange of the SPS are aimed at acquiring shares of privatized facilities, profitable enterprises - Kyrgyzenergoholding, the state concern Kyrgyzaltyn, Kyrgyztelecom with the transfer of the right to receive dividends on shares to the Social Fund in order to support socially vulnerable segments of the population, pensioners and the disabled. The implementation of this two-year privatization program as a whole should contribute to the completion of the process of denationalization of the economy and privatization of property, the creation of full-fledged institutions of market infrastructure, the formation of a real class of owners, overcoming the dependent behavior of the population, and the adaptation of all economic entities to market conditions.
The key concept in Gorbachev's reform strategy was to accelerate the production of means of production, the social sphere, and scientific and technological progress. The priority task of economic reforms was recognized accelerated development engineering as the basis for rearmament National economy. At the same time, emphasis was placed on strengthening production and performance discipline (measures to combat drunkenness and alcoholism); product quality control (Law on state acceptance).
Reasons for restructuring:
Ø crisis phenomena by the mid-1980s;
Ø The Soviet economy finally lost its dynamism (this was manifested in a drop in economic growth rates, especially in industry and labor production);
Ø In the social sphere, the residual principle of financing was practiced;
Ø The share was 45% of the budget.
In April 1985, at the plenum of the Central Committee, M.S. Gorbachev proclaimed a course to accelerate the socio-economic development of the country . Attention of the state to the development of NTprogress => new industrial modernization nar./hoz-va on the basis of the accelerated development of mechanical engineering.
The main acceleration factors were to be scientific and technological progress, the technical re-equipment of mechanical engineering, and on this basis the entire national economy, and also the activation of the "human factor".
I stage(1985-1988) search for ways of development in economic and political terms, the first steps of polit. party system.
II stage(1988-1990) transition to a market economy.
Stage III(1990-1991) the period of disintegration and the collapse of the USSR.
Tasks of economic transformations:
· the accelerated development of mechanical engineering as the basis for the re-equipment of the national economy;
Improving discipline (production)
· the fight against indulgence and alcoholism (all this is related to discipline);
L. Abalkin, A. Aganbegyan, P. Bunich - the development of an economic reform, which was carried out in accordance with the concept of self-supporting socialism. The reform project included:
a) expanding the independence of enterprises on the principles of cost accounting and self-financing;
b) the gradual revival of the private sector of the economy (initially - through the development of the cooperative movement);
c) renunciation of the monopoly of foreign trade;
d) deep integration into the world market;
e) reduction in the number of sectoral ministries and departments between which partnerships were supposed to be established;
f) recognition of equality in the countryside of the five main forms of management (collective farms, state farms, agro-combines, rental cooperatives, farms).
1987. - the law "On the state enterprise". It was assumed: the transition to self-financing, self-refinancing, the right to independent activity.
1988 – the law “On cooperation”, “On individual labor activity". The emergence of the private sector in the economy.
1990 – laws “On joint-stock commercial companies” and “On Securities”, which marked the rapid strengthening of the sprouts of a market economy in the USSR.
There is a transition to a market economy => demand for all types of consumer goods.
In February 1990, the Comprehensive Economic Program (Program 500 days of Yavlinsky):
· Price liberalization;
· Measures of social protection of the population;
· Preservation of state f-th management of the economy.
World oil prices are falling => deficit (the economy is in free fall).
May 1988 - inappropriate transition to a rental contract.
January 1991. - Premier B.C. Pavlov unexpectedly carried out a monetary reform - the exchange of 50- and 100-ruble bills.
Results:
ü the dominant nature of economic policy has not yielded serious results;
ü agriculture was not developed, but was subsidized by the state;
ü The tenant farmers faced great difficulties in financing, acquiring equipment, numerous bureaucratic obstacles, and often with the hostile attitude of local authorities and even fellow villagers. As a result, by the summer of 1991, the tenants' farms covered only 2% of the land and 3% of the livestock.
ü not canceled planning, allocation of resources;
ü administrative-command levers are gradually cancelled;
restructuring led to an economic downturn.
There are two possible methods of state influence on investment activity in the country: passive and active. The passive method is associated with the orientation of entrepreneurs to choose the most effective options investment by developing indicative investment plans.
Active
Direct state investment of funds and implementation of measures in the tax and budget forms, which are aimed at enhancing investment activity:
1. tax
2. creating conditions for the emergence of financial and industrial groups
3. protection of property rights of investors (guarantees)
4. application of the policy of accelerated algorithmization and activities of enterprises
Passive
Orientation of entrepreneurs to the choice of more efficient investment options by developing an investment plan for the country, in this case, the problem of determining the rational structure of the country's economy arises.
The main ways to improve the efficiency of investment activity:
Creation of favorable conditions for the activities of private entrepreneurs;
Direct participation of the state in effective and significant projects for the country;
Implementation of internationally accepted criteria for assessing the financial efficiency of investments, such as current present value, internal rate of return, payback period;
Stimulation of investment activity of the private sector of the economy through tax incentives.
Ways to stimulate investment activity of the private sector
tax regulation of investment activity,
institutional transformation of the economy associated with the creation of industrial groups,
protection of property rights.
The investment potential of the country is primarily determined by the level of savings - the main source of investment. One of the laws of macroeconomic equilibrium is as follows: the balance between aggregate demand and supply is a consequence of the balance of capital investments (investments) and the volume of savings of the population S= I, where: S- general savings; I - total investment. Therefore, when solving the problem of investment in a comprehensive manner, it is impossible to consider in isolation the sellers of capital (the population, foreign investors) and its buyers (national firms).
In a socially oriented market economy, the problem of attracting investment in its real sector begins to be solved with the creation of a civilized market for long-term, or investment, capital as the second component of the capital market as a whole (its first part is the money market).
The investment capital market is divided into:
Market of long-term monetary and financial credit;
Fictitious capital market (securities - shares, bonds, derivative securities).
Since most savings are made by households, and most investments are made by firms, the state should maximally promote the creation and development of a mechanism for the transfer of capital from households to borrowing firms, which is formed on a market basis. The investment capital market includes many channels of its movement. The main ones include:
1. direct financing, when savers' funds are transferred directly to borrowers:
a) by acquiring equity securities - shares;
b) by purchasing debt securities - bonds.
2. Indirect financing, When cash from their owners they move to borrowing firms with the help of specialized intermediaries - commercial banks, investment companies, pension funds, etc. In this case, additional securities issued by intermediaries may appear on the market.
The main difference between investment resources and cash resources is the possibility of their long-term investment on the terms of obtaining a normal income in the future. The state needs to control not only the volume of savings of the population and the income of enterprises, as the main resource base for investments, but also the ratio of interest on long-term loans and the rate of return in industry. If the rate of interest on loans equals or exceeds the rate of profit of industrial companies, then naturally there will be no demand for investment from the latter.
Investment activity depends not only on the availability of capital resources and the rate of return on investments, but also on the investment climate.
One of the main factors that had a systemic negative impact on the Russian economy was the fivefold in 1991-1999. decline in investment. It caused a number of trends associated with the destruction of the industrial potential of the country. The consequences of such a massive reduction in investment in the national economy cannot be overcome in a short period of time. In addition, it is necessary to solve the colossal, in terms of complexity, problem of improving the investment climate in Russia by an order of magnitude.
Investment climate - this is the most important component of the institutional system of the country's economy, designed to create prerequisites for the best use of social economic relations in the development of productive forces through vigorous investment activity 23 .
An important role in activating the investment process is played by the provision of financial incentives by the state related to capital investment. Financial benefits include: exemption from taxation of part of the profits allocated for the development of production; permission to conduct accelerated depreciation of fixed assets, etc.
For the formation of the investment climate of the socio-economic system, it is necessary to have many factors of the market environment, social, socio-cultural, natural resources, etc. The task of the state is to ensure the availability of all factor groups - only in this case can we expect a powerful influx of capital into the economy. However, as time shows, in Russia this task has been transformed into an intractable problem. Its essence lies in the fact that the formation of the investment climate and investment activity have not only a direct but also an inverse relationship. It is very difficult to form the same financial-credit or infrastructural potential when the economy is constantly experiencing an investment "hunger". From this we can conclude that the cumulative growth of investments in our country, in the near future, will be relatively slow and dependent on the continuity of its annual growth. Sudden jump investment is unlikely.
The current structure of Russian production is not yet optimal for ensuring intensive economic growth. A high share of nature-exploiting industries, a decrease in the output of science-intensive products, a huge differentiation in material working conditions at the intersectoral level, the monopoly of the fuel and energy complex as a base one, lead to a decrease in the competitiveness of the national economy and the elimination of the prerequisites for its long-term sustainable development.
Naturally, in such conditions, the state structural policy should be aimed not so much at maximizing the income of society today, but at creating conditions for intensive economic growth in the future. Structural policy is carried out in all countries of the world and is, as a rule, selective. It provides an increase in efficiency due to a targeted change in the structure of production, technical level and range of products, stabilization and development of positive trends. The criteria for selecting sectors for such support depend on the state strategy for the socio-economic development of the country.
Progressive structural transformations are characterized by the pace of development innovation activities. Innovation policy is designed to ensure an increase in the country's GDP through the development of the production of fundamentally new types of products and the introduction of the latest and highly efficient technologies.
Introduction……………..…………..…………..…………...…………...…..2
1. The public sector of the economy…...………………………………4
1.1. The concepts of the public sector, state ownership, their role in the economy……………………….4
1.2. Experience of developed countries in managing the public sector in the economy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Private sector of the economy…………………………………………..11
2.1. The concept of the private sector, its importance for the economy………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2.2. Experience of developing countries in the development of the private sector…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2.3. The formation of the private sector of the economy in Russia……………17
3. Mechanisms of interaction between the public private sector in the economy. ………………………………………………………………21
3.1. The problem of the optimal ratio of the public and private sectors in the Russian economy……………………….21
3.2. Privatization and changing the role of the state in a market economy as the basis for the formation of the private sector…………………………………………………………………29
Conclusion. ……………………………………………………………………..34
Bibliography. ……………………………………………………………38
Applications. …………………………………………………………………….43
Introduction.
Studying the experience of state participation in economic development advanced countries of the world is interesting and informative in itself. But for us there is also the problem of using such experience, taking into account the mistakes of the predecessors. its adaptation to modern market conditions in Russia. The role of the state in economic life is enormous. And so it has been for the past five centuries, although this role has been constantly changing. Calls to drastically limit state intervention in the economy only reflected the opposition of the strengthened industrial bourgeoisie, first to the feudal, and then to the new state, already bourgeois, but which adopted a lot from feudalism. After the complete approval of capitalist market relations, the ideologists of the new system were forced to abandon the categorical denial of the role of the state in economic life.
At the moment, the acute problem of our state is its role in the economic system. There is also a serious problem - the development of its market and the expansion of the economy. Since we have not developed our own industry, therefore, I think that it is worth studying this issue more deeply. And how to solve it?
In all economic systems, the state regulates the economy. Such regulation in the modern market economy is carried out on a much smaller scale than in the administrative-command system. Nevertheless, here the economic role of the state is great.
In the Russian economy, great emphasis is placed on central planning. Our economy is predominantly a market system. At the same time, the economic functions of the state play a very significant role in it.
It is not easy to quantify the economic role of the state. A very rough indicator of the share of the market and the state in the economy is the fact that at present about 4/5 of the national product is provided by the market system, and the rest is produced under the auspices of the state. But in addition to financing production, the state implements a number of social insurance and social security programs, aiming to redistribute income in the private sector of the economy. Statistics show that taxes and total government spending - for the purchase of goods and services and for social programs - account for approximately 1/3 of the national product. Finally, a host of hard-to-quantify regulatory measures designed to protect environment, protecting the health and labor of workers, protecting consumers from hazardous products, ensuring equal access to vacancies and control over pricing practices in certain industries, involves the state in almost all areas of economic activity. The economic role of the state is undoubtedly great and comprehensive. In contrast to the model of pure capitalism, our economy is better characterized as mixed capitalism. The functioning of the private sector based on market system modified by the most different ways the public sector.
Scientists - economists, both foreign and domestic, have long been engaged in the problems of relations between the public and private sectors, questions about the role of the state and the degree of its influence on the private sector of the economy. But a single point of view, a general theory has not been developed.
1. The state's refusal to communicate mandatory plan targets to enterprises and direct intervention in their activities was accompanied by measures to create a mixed economy - the formation of private property and the transformation of state enterprises and organizations into private and mixed ones. 1. Public sector of the economy.
1.1. The concepts of the public sector, state ownership, their role in the economy.
In addition to the participation of the state in the economy as a regulatory force, it also acts as an independent economic entity - this is the so-called public sector.
Government sector - a complex of economic entities wholly or partly owned by central or local government bodies.
The basis of the public sector is a set of state-owned enterprises, which, regardless of the field of activity and national characteristics, can be grouped into three large groups:
non-independent public enterprises(mints, prisons, state and municipal stakes, kindergartens);
independent enterprises operating under public law(post office, railways, government holdings and corporations);
legally independent enterprises operating under private law(in the form of joint-stock companies).
An important role in the modern economy is played by state entrepreneurship.
State Enterprise - initiative activity of enterprises and other state structures aimed at making a profit and carried out directly by the owner of the property or manager on the terms of an agreement (contract).
The low efficiency of the functioning of state-owned enterprises and the high costs of the state for their maintenance often lead to privatization For various models of the public sector, see Annex 4.
IN regulations and economic law enforcement practice, there are currently different interpretations of the concept of “public sector of the economy”. According to the most full definition it includes state unitary enterprises (with the rights of economic management and operational management), state institutions, business companies (open joint stock companies) with a share of state property exceeding 50% of the authorized capital, as well as open joint stock companies with state participation, in which the state is vested with the right to “gold shares” Ivashkovsky S. N. “Macroeconomics” - M.: Delo, 2000, 470 p. .
The concepts of "public sector" and "state property" in our understanding do not coincide there. On the one hand, the public sector includes not only enterprises based on state property, but also business entities, where relations between participants are regulated by the rights of obligations. In addition to property relations arising from the ownership, use and disposal of state unitary enterprises, relations appear in the public sector regarding the participation of the state in the management of equity capital, which are regulated by the law of obligations, and not by property rights. On the other hand, there are objects of state property that are not directly related to the public sector.
The current state of public sector management indicates the absence of any specific mechanism for managing state-owned enterprises.
The real situation of unitary enterprises is no different from the situation of economic units of the private sector. Their relations with the state are limited to the transfer of tax payments to the budget (and for state-owned enterprises and additional payments from profits). The management system of joint-stock companies with a predominant share of the state in the total number of voting shares does not make it possible to identify significant differences between the position of the state-shareholder and private shareholders, since the property rights of the state-shareholder are regulated in a general manner by the norms of the legislation on joint-stock companies.
All this indicates that the public sector as a specific object of management in the economy is not singled out. Shamkhalov F. I. “The State and the Economy: Fundamentals of Interaction” Tutorial- M.: Economics, 200 - 381 p. . This approach is legally enshrined in the Law on the Federal Budget and the Law on Budget Classification, since none of the types of budget classification allows determining the share budget funds directed centrally to the needs of the public sector.
The nature of the interaction between the state and state-owned enterprises currently corresponds to the nature of its interaction with private enterprises Dontsova L. V. “Issues of state regulation of the economy: main directions and forms” // Management in Russia and abroad, 2000, No. 4, p. 34-. At the same time, a significant part of state-owned enterprises will need state assistance for a long time to come, and in this regard, it is necessary to intervene in their activities in accordance with certain rules.
Obviously, the methods of managing state unitary enterprises and corporations with a predominant voting share of the state should be different. Particular attention, in our opinion, should be paid to the creation and operation of holdings and financial and industrial groups under state control as the most promising and viable structures, whose activities will ensure and support sustainable economic growth.
One of the promising directions for the development of the public sector is the creation of vertically integrated structures in which the parent organization is under the control of the state. Since there is no legislative prohibition for such structures to form a network of subsidiaries controlled by private capital, this is universally carried out in practice. According to some economists, the predominant participation of the state in the parent organization is enough for the company as a whole to remain under state control. However, we believe that in such structures, despite the formal compliance with the law, a natural conflict of interest arises, giving rise to a whole series of legal and semi-legal schemes for taking the corporation out of state control.
It is extremely difficult to determine the amount of state property. Indeed, how to measure it. if the market is not able to correctly assess the capitalization of enterprises? There are many questions of this kind, and there are practically no answers to them. After all, an inventory of state-owned enterprises and state property in the country and abroad has not yet been made. Public sector statistics are therefore reduced to measuring the amount of income that actually goes to the budgets of all levels, as well as subsidies, grants, subventions. And this is just the statistics of public sector finance.
The range of components of the state (public) sector is very large: from purely state-owned enterprises to mixed ones, from central government finance to local government finance, from direct government ownership of enterprises, manufacturing firms (i.e. state entrepreneurial activity) to purely legal ways of influencing private firms. from purely national to international organizations and finance. From here it is clear. that the scale of the state (public) economy is huge, although it is difficult to determine with high accuracy.
1.2. Experience of developed countries in managing the public sector in the economy.
The history of the relationship between the American state and the market, with free enterprise, is unique. In America, ideal conditions have developed in their own way for the formation and development of capitalism, for the formation of a state that grows and strengthens along with the rooting of economic principles in economic life. In other words, the state and the market in the United States were gaining strength simultaneously, although the economic function of the state was most pronounced only in the first half. XX century. From the whole variety of factors that determine the nature and causes of America's wealth, we single out the role of the state and try to identify the driving forces of the active position of the state in critical periods in the development of American society Shamkhalov F. I. "State and Economy: Fundamentals of Interaction" Study Guide - M .: Economics, 200 - 381 p. .
Back in the 19th century in the United States, economic crises did not carry the threat of significant destruction, and the economic role of the state was predetermined by the general logic of the country's economic development - the strengthening of industry, the construction of railways, education large corporations rather than "extinguishing" outbreaks of cyclical crises. During this period, the state stimulated the development of the national economy by various methods, provided private business with freedom of initiative and targeted support. Demidova L. "Ways to improve the efficiency of the public sector (the experience of Western countries) // Problems of theory and practice of management, 1998. - No. 4, p. 38 - 43 By the end of the 19th century, the rapid growth of industrial and banking "giants" forced the state to begin developing and implementing antitrust legislation in order to support the competitive mechanism of the national economy, to ensure the national economic security.
If we try to define an economically efficient state, then in the very general view we can say that this is a state that defends its national interests and ensures its national economic security in the face of unlimited international competition. The quantitative expression of such a definition is tantamount to identifying the optimum between the openness of the national economy and the support of its producers in the domestic and foreign markets. In this regard, a new perspective is given to the consideration of the economic role of the state as a whole. Since the conditions for the development of the world economy and the American economy at the end of the second millennium differ significantly from similar conditions at the beginning and even the middle of the 20th century, it becomes possible to study the economic role of the state not by the degree of intervention in the market mechanism, but by the degree of participation in ensuring internal and external conditions functioning of the national economy. In other words, the state can be economically efficient only when the economy itself is efficient. But even with a “bad” state, there cannot be a “good” national economy developing on the basis of market principles.
Relying on private property in all its manifestations, the American economy gradually expanded its base, which owes its stability to the diversity of forms of ownership and organizational types of entrepreneurship. If the existence and development of a particular form of ownership in a country is determined by economic reasons, and not by purely administrative restrictions, then the prerequisites for illegal business are removed, and any entrepreneur can, if necessary, rely on the protection of the state to which he pays taxes.
Obviously, from this point of view, the state can be considered economically efficient only when the country retains the possibility for the effective functioning of any type of entrepreneurship within the framework of the existence of economic legislation.
Statement at the official level of the tasks of creating an indicative planning system in Russia Thus, in the recommendations carried out in April 1997. Federation Council (with the participation of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences) scientifically - practical conference“The role of the state in the formation and regulation of a market economy” pointed out the need to “concentrate efforts on creating a system of indicative planning and forecasting of the economy” (REJ. - 1997. - No. 4. - p. 11 - 12). cannot but draw our attention to the practice of a number of countries with developed market economies, where indicative plans have proven to be effective as one of the means of macroregulation. Among these countries, we single out France, because the French system had a stimulating effect on the development of macroregulation in the UK and Germany.
The system of indicative planning is based on a high share of state property in the national economy.
Already in the late 40s. of our century in France, a unique “democratic planning system” was developed and began to be implemented, allowing public administration to regulate economic proportions in such a way that “the state bureaucracy does not crush the effective functioning of market entities.” Planning, approved “from below”, was based on the principles of consultation and coordination and included representatives of various “groups of interests” on an equal footing: civil servants, entrepreneurs, trade unions, consumer unions, etc. According to the system under consideration, Stiglitz J.E. Economics of the public sector. - M.: MGU, 1997. , the plan was born as a result of multi-stage iterations, and all participants were interested in the consensus of its implementation. At the same time, the planned indicators were not directives, but acted primarily as economic indicators - carriers of information about the expected economic situation.
Nevertheless, the role of the state in managing the economy in France is still rightfully considered one of the most significant among the industrialized countries of the world. Indicative planning remains an element of public administration and regulation of the French economy .
2. Private sector of the economy.
2.1. The concept of the private sector, its importance for the economy.
The private sector of the economy is the part of the country's economy that is not under the control of the state. The private sector is made up of households and firms owned by private capital. The private sector of the economy is divided into corporate, financial and individual sectors of the economy.
There are two groups of reasons hindering the development of the private sector of the economy. The first is the reasons of a cardinal (general economic) nature, embedded in the economic policy of the state, the second is of a local (mainly organizational) nature.
Thus, according to Russian authors, the essence of the new social economic strategy and the core of the concept of reforming the country - in its gradual, phased movement towards the Russian version of a post-industrial type of society with modern characteristics the quality of life of people, a dynamic market economy with a significant role of the state in its transformation and regulation.
And the functions of the state here will be as follows:
Ш Creation of general legislative and legal prerequisites, a kind of game rules for persons operating in a market economy
Ш Direct state ownership and management of the main elements of the infrastructure of the national economy, natural monopolies, especially important politically, economically and financially industries;
Ш Development and implementation of an active industrial policy, participation in key investment, structural and technological programs by financing them in full or in part, providing economic guarantees, soft loans and other types of financial assistance to the private sector of the economy.
Partnerships between the private sector and the state are a fundamental element of the functioning of the economies of countries. These relationships include a wide range of activities and different actors, making it difficult to clearly define the concept of partnership. Partnerships are formed in the process of pooling the resources, funds and knowledge of the private sector and the state in order to: (a) reduce costs; (b) ensuring the improvement of the quality of services and (c) improving the mechanism for their delivery. The activity in which partnerships are formed is comparable to the creation of a public good that the private sector either cannot or does not want to create on its own.
One of the opportunities for the state to more actively build partnerships with the private sector is the establishment of special bodies dedicated to supporting private companies. These bodies deal with two potential private sector partners: the Investment Promotion Agencies deal with foreign direct investment companies, and the Small Business Support Agencies deal with small companies. Another way to maintain good corporate governance is through the development of educational tools that can be used by the business and judiciary sectors in understanding the complex laws and regulations that govern this area.
In Russia, this mechanism has not yet been fully formed.
2.2. Experience of developing countries in private sector development.
Real progress in the formation of market institutions has significantly changed the position of the state in the economy. Ultimately, this was the central task of the post-socialist transformation (the formation of market institutions to a large extent, although not completely, is a "mirror" reflection of the state's refusal from omnipotence in the economy). Therefore, at their core (from the point of view of the formal "rules of the game"), the Eastern European economies became market systems by the mid-1990s. , are undermined by years of crisis in heavy industry and the financial system.
This crisis is caused by the fact that the state is still the owner of large enterprises and practically the only source of social funds, being unable to provide the previous level of financing for industry and support for the population Biryukov V. et al. State property and the public sector in a market economy // World economy and international relationships- 2001 - No. 12, p. 57-64. The crisis manifests itself, in particular, in high deficits of the state budget, and recently the current balance of payments due to the need to repay external debt (which is why the term "double deficit" arose). Therefore, in the mid-1990s, after liberalization, the completion of financial stabilization and the creation of a legal framework for a market system, "big" privatization and budgetary reform became priorities in the state's economic policy in Eastern Europe.
From the very beginning of the reforms, privatization has occupied an important place in the plans for market transformation. But if the transfer of small and part of medium-sized enterprises to new owners through rent, sale and restitution took place in 1990-1993. quite easily and successfully, the "big" privatization faced significant difficulties. So, the Polish government in 1990-1991. managed to sell, using Western methods of valuation and privatization of property, only two dozen enterprises. In subsequent years, less than 200 enterprises were sold at auction and about 30 - through the stock exchange in the same place. In addition, it soon became clear that a formal change of ownership does not give an immediate economic effect in the form of increased production, increased competitiveness, etc. Therefore, the focus of economic policy in most countries (except the Czech Republic and Slovakia) was shifted to liberalization and macroeconomic stabilization. "Large" privatization has been delayed both in "reformist" countries and in those that are usually considered outsiders of reforms.
The most successful Czechoslovak model of mass privatization in the post-socialist world has been fundamentally changed in Slovakia. In the summer of 1995, by an unexpected decision of the country's leadership, the exchange of vouchers for shares of investment privatization funds was stopped. The state property that had not been sold by that time was centralized into a special state fund, which began to implement a program of gradual sale of enterprises, including for unsold vouchers.
But with all the shortcomings of various models, the practice of a number of countries, especially Bulgaria and Romania, has revealed extremely Negative consequences delaying privatization. Although most of the industry remains in the hands of the state, in the conditions of economic liberalization it is losing real levers of control and management. The growing losses of state-owned enterprises are compensated by loans from state banks or budget subsidies, thereby deepening the crisis in the financial sector.
However, the immediate cause of the rise of the current wave of privatization was an acute financial crisis caused by a sharp drop in budget revenues and traditionally high government spending for post-socialist countries Dontsova L. V. “Issues of state regulation of the economy: main directions and forms” // Management in Russia and abroad, 2000, no. 4, p. 34 - 40. . Therefore, privatization is carried out mainly through the sale of enterprises in order to unload the budget and provide the state with revenue. At the same time, the main difficulty is to attract buyers to large objects, characterized by high unprofitability, weighed down by a large social infrastructure, outdated equipment and excessive employment. For example, in Hungary during 1995 the same energy and transport companies had to be put up for auction several times Biryukov V. et al. 57-64.
Among the objects that have been put up for sale over the past year and a half are fuel and energy companies. In the future, the sale of "strategic" companies (Hungary, Czech Republic) is also planned; the delay is mainly due to organizational and financial restructuring to increase the value of these facilities. Due to the high capital intensity large companies and enterprises, the most likely buyers may be foreign investors. The reforms of the first half of the 1990s, in particular, the corporatization of state enterprises and privatization according to the voucher and "insider" models, led to a profound change in the position of the enterprise in the economic and legal system. However, the well-known "blurring" of property rights as a result of these processes, manifested in the confusion and instability of the rights and interests of new owners, and often in the lack of legal certainty of their position in relation to other owners and privatized property, sharply worsened the manageability of enterprises and complicated the procedure making long-term investment decisions. Thus, during the implementation of the Czech privatization model, which involved more than 600 voucher funds, small funds acquired formal control over many enterprises, which are not able to modernize production and therefore limit themselves to personnel changes at enterprises.
In the Czech Republic in 1994, a voucher and share trading campaign between the funds themselves and a merger of several funds (sometimes called the "third wave of privatization") more than halved their number. However, these funds did not become "effective owners" capable of reviving production on the basis of large long-term investments. In addition, about 2/3 of the remaining funds are controlled by state banks, which not only complicates the management of production, but also encourages foreign companies to delay investment in anticipation of certainty in the status of banks (the government intends to privatize them) and in their economic policy.
2.3. Formation of the private sector of the economy in Russia.
The refusal of the state to communicate mandatory plan targets to enterprises and direct intervention in their activities was accompanied by measures to create a mixed economy - the formation of private property and the transformation of state enterprises and organizations into private and mixed ones.
Laws were adopted that legalized the activities of private enterprises and provided for state support for small businesses. In 1992-1994 the network of private enterprises expanded rapidly, especially in trade and services, but then the pace slowed down. In 1995, 900,000 small enterprises, mostly private ones, were registered.
At the beginning of 1997, state statistics authorities registered 2.5 million enterprises and organizations, of which 68% belonged to private ownership, 9.3 and 7.4% to state and municipal ownership, respectively. Problems of formation of market economy in Russia. - M.: 1994. - 272 p. .
Privatization of property played a leading role in the formation of a mixed economy. In 1992-1995 changed the form of ownership of about 122 thousand enterprises (objects), created 29 thousand joint-stock companies in the same place, determined the lists of strategically important enterprises that are not subject to privatization, as well as those whose controlling stake remains in state ownership.
However, the forced privatization pushed the work on improving the management of state-owned enterprises and property (in particular, state-owned blocks of shares) into the background. In a crisis environment, the heads of enterprises and labor collectives focused not on the modernization of production, but on the redistribution of income and property.
Many of the previously established economic ties in market conditions turned out to be unprofitable for privatized enterprises.
But even where the previous contracts remained expedient, their implementation was hampered by the deterioration of the financial situation, the growth of debts and non-payments.
The task of creating competitive markets envisaged by the privatization program has not been adequately resolved either. Although the monopoly position of state-owned enterprises was undermined by the emergence of new companies and firms (including foreign ones) on the market, however, the economic monopoly of the state was replaced by a monopoly of new private owners who used it in their own interests.
To rectify the crisis situation in the economy, the government took a number of measures to restore public administration in those areas where market regulators were insufficient or unable to normalize the situation.
Together with the Central Bank, the exchange rate of the ruble was regulated against the dollar and other convertible currencies.
As a result of the refusal to maintain a fixed exchange rate at the beginning of the reforms and the transition to the market principle of its determination, depending on the price dynamics in the country, the demand and supply of currency, the ruble exchange rate against the dollar decreased from 414.5 rubles. in 1992 to 4,640 rubles. in 1995 (a particularly sharp collapse took place in October 1995) Ivashkovsky S. N. “Macroeconomics” - M .: Delo, 2000, 470 p. . To reduce the possibility of currency speculation, reduce inflationary expectations and limit the demand for currency, a "currency corridor" was introduced, fixing the framework for possible fluctuations in the exchange rate. Its level stabilized and in the middle of 1996 was about 5 thousand rubles. per dollar. Since 1996, a sloping currency corridor has been introduced, when the exchange rate is reviewed once a quarter.
In order to combat inflation, the regulation of natural monopoly prices has been restored by setting limits on the level of profitability and introducing limiting ratios for the permissible increase in prices for energy carriers and electricity, as well as transport tariffs in relation to the increase in selling prices for industrial products. The implementation of the decisions taken by the government in 1995 has become an important lever for slowing down the growth of prices in the manufacturing sector and suppressing inflation in production costs.
To this end, it is planned to carry out a reform of enterprises and, within its framework, to restructure their debts. Those business entities that make current payments to the budget in a timely manner are given the right to issue an additional number of shares and use the funds received to pay off the resulting debt within 2-3 years. Bankruptcy and reorganization procedures are planned to be applied to solvent enterprises.
Numerous resolutions on strengthening the fight against economic crimes and corruption have not yet yielded significant results. This is due not only to their weak economic development, but also to major gaps in legislation. The expansion of the shadow economy continues, and its share in GDP in 1996, according to the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation, increased to 23%.
Thus, the system of state regulation of the economy, although it has undergone a significant evolution, is still not formed in many essential parts. The most important of the unsolved problems are Logua R.A. Problems of formation of market economy in Russia. - M.: 1994. - 272 p. :
* overcoming the crisis of non-payments and liquidation of massive arrears;
* improving the economic situation of enterprises, including those remaining in state ownership and under its control, including improving the management of state-owned blocks of shares in joint-stock enterprises;
* activation of investment activity, carrying out structural restructuring of the economy, increasing its technical level, efficiency and competitiveness;
* support for potentially viable domestic enterprises, primarily in the manufacturing industry and agriculture, the development of which is important for ensuring the economic independence and security of the country;
* blocking the channels of illegal capital flight abroad,
improving control over the export and return of currency to the country;
* creation of conditions preventing the expansion of the shadow
economy and contributing to the return of those abstracted into it
financial and material resources within the normal
permitted by the laws of economic activity.
Thus, the currently existing system of state regulation is of a transitional and incomplete nature. The course of reforms has already shown the impossibility of effective economic development in the mode of automatic self-regulation. The mechanism of the market must be supplemented with tools that compensate for its shortcomings where it does not work or leads to results that do not meet the interests of the whole society. Therefore, the further development of the reforms will take place through certain compromises between liberalization and restoration of the instruments of state regulation of the market and the social sphere.
3. Mechanisms of interaction between the public private sector in the economy.
3.1. The problem of the optimal ratio of the public and private sectors in the economy
As practice shows, the market in pure does not exist in any country. Ridding society of a shortage of goods, stimulating scientific and technological progress, a market economy cannot solve socio-economic problems, especially those that cannot be measured in money, and therefore cannot be solved on a market basis. This is, firstly, the system of national defense, the law and order of the unified energy system, public education and healthcare, etc. These goods and services must be fully provided by the state, financing them from the state budget through taxes and other payments.
It is absolutely clear that the market, as a mechanism that orients the economy only towards increasing effective demand, cannot neutralize "external effects" (see Appendix 1). Their essence lies in the fact that the activity of enterprises in a market economy has, in addition to positive results also negative, which really affect the well-being of other members of society. As an example, we can cite external effects associated with environmental pollution, the depletion of natural resources as a result of their ever-increasing involvement in economic turnover, disproportions in production, etc. Luzin S.P., Pavlov K.V. The ratio of state and market methods of economic regulation in the transition period. - Apatity: Ed. KSC RAS, 1993. - 178 p. .
The regulation of external effects should be undertaken by the state. Redemption negative impact external effects, the state carries out the redistribution of income through the state budget or the redistribution of benefits received from positive external effects, an administrative ban on the use of harmful technologies, the exploitation of natural resources, etc.
Thus, the government's adjustment of the actions of the market mechanism softens or can completely eliminate the negative consequences of market forces, manifested in external effects.
One more group of problems generated by the limited nature of the market mechanism requires special attention.
These are the socio-economic rights of the individual and, first of all, the right to work, see Korobov S. K. “Social functions of the state with a market economy” / / State power and local self-government - 2001. - No. 1. p. 10 - 17. . Life has confirmed the theoretical assumptions about the impossibility of a market economy with full employment. And we do not argue that it is necessary to ensure "full employment" at any cost, for this is the destruction of the market mechanism itself. However, effective regulation of the labor market; supporting with the help of social payments people who have lost their jobs against their will; implementation of programs to create new jobs, etc. possible only by the state.
There is an obvious need for a flexible education system that can quickly respond to the demands that new technologies and new demand put forward.
This also applies to secondary education, and higher education, and retraining in the labor market, and on-the-job training for people who are at risk of unemployment. In Sweden's economic policy, one of the main goals is that full employment is successfully achieved through various government programs.
Without the active intervention of the state, “it is impossible to do without solving other problems that the classical market is not able to solve. These are large investment projects that do not give quick profits and are associated with great risk; uneven regional development; the need to combat inflation and monopoly, etc.
So, in order to mitigate or neutralize the significant shortcomings inherent in the market form of organization of production, state intervention is necessary. It is regulation (adjustment) in accordance with social priority values by the state, combined with self-regulation of market relations, that is characteristic of most modern states.
The economic system in which a mixed way of managing economic processes with the help of a market mechanism and state regulation is called a mixed economy.
In the conditions of a market form of organization of production, the main principles that create the prerequisites for the effective functioning of enterprises are private property, freedom of entrepreneurship and choice, competition, and a system of market prices.
An integral part of the structure of a mixed economy, along with various forms of private property, is state property.
Historically, in many countries, the public sector includes objects of the transport system, power supply facilities, which, on the one hand, are very capital-intensive, and, on the other hand, the services of these industries are of a collective use nature. Efficient use of resources in some "natural monopolies" can be ensured by state ownership. However, state-owned enterprises, as a rule, do not have high incentives to improve efficiency. The public sector is “embedded” in the market economy with other goals: it contributes to the efficient distribution of resources in general in society Luzin S.P., Pavlov K.V. The ratio of state and market methods of economic regulation in the transition period. - Apatity: Ed. KSC RAS, 1993. - 178 p. .
For example, spending on education and health care in all countries with a developed market economy is largely subsidized by the state. A high level of education and health of the population benefits the whole society, and not an individual or a separate business. This means that from a macroeconomic point of view, it is beneficial to maintain low prices for such services, ensuring high availability of these services to the majority of the population and thus contributing to an increase in the efficiency of the economy as a whole. A Tkinson En.B., Stiglitz J.E. Lectures on the economic theory of the public sector. - M.: Aspect Press, 1995. . Consequently, there are economic grounds for transferring part of the healthcare and education sector to public administration and financing.
Fundamentally, the question of the need for a public sector has been resolved theoretically and practically. However, its scale and role in the economy are different in individual countries. States such as the United States and Japan have a small public sector concentrated in key industries and industries. Through the created key systems of legal state regulation, flexible stimulating support is provided for the effective use of private property and entrepreneurship, combined with an effective mechanism for responsibility for the use of this support. It is this system that ensures the priority of national interests in these states. Sweden has a different system: the consolidated public sector there uses about a third of the country's total resources, public spending reaches 62 percent of the gross national product. Ibid.
The structure of the economy in the considered plan is not unchanged. Practically in all countries, including those with a developed market economy, the processes of privatization of state-owned enterprises are being carried out, most actively in England and France. The reason for these dynamic processes of changing the structure of ownership is the need to increase efficiency (Efficiency in general is the ratio of the effect (result) to the cost of obtaining it (Novozhilov V.V.)) of the activities of privatized enterprises and, consequently, the country's economy as a whole.
The increased scale of savings in the private sector, the development of the capital market, associative forms of private property (corporations), the democratization of property and the strengthening of the middle class of owners make it possible to fairly organically include privatized state enterprises in the market system.
By themselves, property and freedom of choice are necessary but not sufficient conditions for ensuring the efficient operation of enterprises. An example of this are monopolies (state or private, it doesn't matter), providing high incomes, profits not by increasing the efficiency of resource use, but by increasing prices, causing damage to consumers of their products, works or services. Therefore, state regulation is an obligatory element, including antimonopoly legislation, support in the economy high level competition.
In a mixed economy, the role of state regulation is very large. And it is carried out in three main areas. Andrianov V. “The State and the Market: Mechanisms of Interaction” // Marketing. - 1999. - No. 5 .. p. 3 - 20 .
Firstly, by influencing enterprises: providing a legal framework (establishing legal “rules of the game” that regulate relations between business participants), supporting competition, in some cases protecting domestic markets, stimulating new forms of business (small enterprises, various programs, etc.). ), stimulating investments, supporting the development of certain types of industries that can progressively change the structure of the economy in the future and bring great benefits to the economy as a whole.
Secondly, state regulation is aimed at a more even distribution of society's resources between individual segments of the population, and is also associated with the redistribution of funds over time (education, health care, social protection of the population during periods of unemployment, childhood, old age, etc.). It is necessary, on the one hand, as a factor of stability, and on the other hand, as a way to maintain the necessary reserves in the economy as a whole, increasing its flexibility and growth potential.
Finally, an important function of the state is the stabilization of the economy, control over the level of employment and inflation generated by fluctuations in the economic situation.
In general, the efficiency of the economy is determined by the efficiency of the activities of enterprises (firms, companies), which, in a mixed economic system, are directly exposed to market mechanisms, as well as state regulation.
State regulation entrepreneurial activity carried out mainly by indirect methods, the main of which is tax system. However, the direct influence of the state on the economy is also possible through public investment, subsidies, the creation and operation of public sector enterprises.
But here a fair question arises: what should be the degree of state intervention, and what role does the state and the market play in a mixed economic system.
This question can be answered based on the concept of a two-sector structure of a mixed economy, based on the recognition of the “market-non-market” duality of the modern organization of social production State and business: partnership experience in a market economy: Review of international practice // Securities Market - 2001. - No. 15. p. 15-21 . As you know, the economy exists in the name of the full satisfaction of all the needs of all members of society. Just as "demand" is always part of "need", so "market" is always part of the "economy". The market provides the solvent part of the need ("demand") because it cannot be unprofitable, since by definition it can only be profitable.
To meet the insolvent part of socially significant needs, the state organizes a non-market (“quasi-market”) sphere of production. The non-market sector of the mixed economy exists at the expense of the market sector and cannot exceed the size of its “consolidated surplus” (ie the sum of “consumer surplus” and “producer surplus”).
Similar Documents
Public sector of the economy. Experience of developed countries in managing the public sector in the economy. The private sector of the economy. Formation of the private sector of the economy in Russia. Mechanisms of interaction between the public private sector.
thesis, added 10/19/2006
The functioning of the public and private sectors of the Russian economy. Public-private partnership and its role in the structural transformation of the economy. International experience in the development of public-private partnerships in economically developed countries.
term paper, added 05/12/2014
The concepts of the public sector, property, their role in the economy. Privatization as the basis for the formation of the private sector. The role of the state in a market economy. Public and private sector: experience of interaction abroad and in Russia.
term paper, added 03/13/2004
The public sector as a complex of economic objects is the goal and instrument of economic policy. Creation of the institutional structure of the public sector and a clear drawing of its boundaries. Groups (subsectors) of the public sector.
test, added 08/06/2013
Interaction between the state and the private sector to solve socially significant problems. The specifics of public-private partnership (PPP) in Russia. Overview of tenders for PPP projects in St. Petersburg. State support for small and medium businesses.
abstract, added 01/28/2012
Theoretical basis and world experience in organizing public-private partnerships. Specifics of interaction between the state and the private sector in public-private partnership projects. Analysis of the experience of public-private partnership in the regions of the Russian Federation.
term paper, added 04/09/2014
Study of the role of the agro-industrial sector of the national economy in the economy of the Russian Federation. Analysis of the impact of the financial crisis on the economic condition of the agricultural sector. Studying the features of innovative development of the agricultural sector of the economy.
term paper, added 11/30/2016
The choice and justification of the form of ownership of the organization based on a comparison of indicators of efficiency and profitability of production for private and public enterprises. Features of the functioning of the non-state sector of the economy in Belarus.
term paper, added 04/19/2016
The essence of the public sector in the regulation of the economy. Problems of economic regulation through state ownership. Economy of the Republic of Belarus as an object of regulation. Normative-legal base of state regulation of the economy.
term paper, added 04/30/2010
Definition of the essence of the financial sector and consideration of its organizational structure. Identification of the importance of the financial sector for achieving dynamic development of the economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan; description of the main methods and directions of its regulation.
Loading...
