You are here

Diversification as a tool for economic sustainability of farms

It is revealed that on the basis of socio-economic relations a system of moral and cultural values ​​of the farmer's professional activity, which is influenced by national peculiarities of agricultural production, as well as the acquired experience and traditions, is formed. The article considers the market transformations of the domestic economy, which resulted in the manifestation of destabilizing factors in the production and sales activity and the possibilities of expanded reproduction. In the study of the activities of farms conducted an assessment of their behavior in the context of medium, large and small business entities.
The corresponding calculations have been carried out, which made it possible to conclude that the value of profitability of small farms is subjectively underestimated as a result of shadowing of their production and economic activity.
It is argued that the diversification of the activities of farms creates positive externalities, in particular, the preservation of the features of the rural landscape and the creation of jobs in rural areas, reducing pollution and improving the quality of the soil. The average length of employment in the production process is determined, which is 2-3 months in terms of full employment, which requires substantiation of diversification of production activities.
It has been established that the shadowing of the activities of members of farms is mainly related to non-agricultural activities, and is conditioned by the peculiarities of taxation of such farms. It is proved that the application of the grading principle of aggregate income will enable the tax payer to be taken into account when calculating the amount of tax, and therefore more consistent with the principle of social justice.
It is substantiated that the formation of a strategy of diversification of domestic agricultural production based on the experience of leading countries requires its implementation taking into account national peculiarities and factors of influence. The following main internal and external factors that influence the process of diversification are distinguished: external – the development of the regional economy and the local labor market, the state of their infrastructure; among the internal factors: the level of education, age structure of the population, social capital in the countryside, the position of commodity producers in the industry, which are supported by state programs.
Based on the study of rural tourism development opportunities based on FАRM and expert assessments, 37% of farmers can realize the idea of ​​creating conditions for rural tourism on their own, due to the lack of infrastructure of farms and rural areas.
Among the main conditions for the development of rural tourism on the basis of farms are as follows: definition of the potential of rural tourism development at the regional level, ensuring the safety of tourists living, working out the schemes of visiting tourist routes, attracting tourists working in the region, organizing a large-scale advertising campaign.
Key words: farm, diversification, rural tourism, folk crafts, non-agricultural activity, taxation.
 
doi: 10.33245/2310-9262-2019-148-1-133-146
  1. Zemel'nyj  kodeks  Ukrai'ny [Land Code of Ukraine] : Vidomosti Verhovnoi' Rady Ukrai'ny (VVR). 2002, Vol. 3-4. no. 27. Available at: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2768-14.
  2. Voronin, B.A., Voronina, Ja. V. (2015). Sostojanie i tendencii razvitija fermerskih hozjajstv v zarubezhnyh stranah [Condition and trends of development of farms in foreign countries]. Agrarnyj vestnik Urala [Agrarian messenger of the Urals],  no. 10 (140), рр. 65–70.
  3. Gullino P., Battisti L., Larcher, F. Linking multifunctionality and sustainability for valuing peri-urban farming: A case study in the Turin Metropolitan Area (Italy). Sustainability (Switzerland), 2018, vol.10(5), рр.18. DOI: http://doi 10.3390/su1005162.
  4. Willemen L., Jones S., Estrada Carmona N., De Clerck F. Ecosystem Service mapsin agriculture. In Mapping Ecosystem Services, 1st ed. Pensoft Publishers: Sofia Bulgaria, 2017,  pp. 317–321.
  5. Vander Zanden E.H., Verburg P.H., Schulp C.J., Johannes Verkerk P. Trade-offsof Europe an agricultur alaban donment. Land Use Policy. 2017, 62, рр. 290–301.
  6. Ohe Y. Multifunctionality and rural tourism: A perspective on farm directions. J. Int. Farm Manag. 2007, 4, рр. 18–40.  URL: http://www.ifmaonline.org,
  7. Huang J., Tichit M., Poulot M., Darly S., Li S., Petit C., Aubry C. Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture. Environ. Manag. 2015. 149, рр. 138–147. DOI:http://doi10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.020.
  8. Zhang W., Ricketts T., Kremen C., Carney K., Swinton S.M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. Vol. 64, рр. 253–260.
  9. Cairol D., Coudel E., Knickel K., Caron P. Conclusion: Which perspectives for future research on multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas? Int. J. Agric. Res. Gov. Ecol. 2008, vol.7, рр. 429–436. DOI: http://doi10.1504/ IJARGE.2008.020088.
  10. Renting H., Oostindie H., Laurent C., Brunori G., Barjolle D., Jervell A., Granberg L., Heinonen M. Multifunctionality of agricultural activities, changing rural identities and new institutional arrangements. Int. J. Agric. Res. Gov. Ecol. 2008, vol. 7, pp.  361–385. DOI:http://doi10.1504/IJARGE. 2008.020083.
  11. Zasada I. Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture ‒ A Review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy. 2011, vol. 28, рр. 639–648. DOI: http://doi10.1016/j.landusepol. 2011.01.008.
  12. Boncinelli F., Bartolini F., Casini L. Structural factors of labour allocation for farm diversification activities. Land Use Policy. 2018, vol. 71, рр. 204‒212. DOI: http://doi10.1016/j.landusepol. 2017.11.058.
  13. Streifeneder T. Agriculture first: Assessing European policies and scientific typologies to define authentic agritourism and differentiate it from countryside tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2016, vol. 20, рр. 251‒264. DOI: http://doi 10.1016/j.tmp. 2016.10.003.
  14. Satir, L. M., Svinous, І. V. (2015). Satyr L.M., Svynous I.V. Organizacijno-ekonomichni aspekty dyversyfikacii' vyrobnychoi' dijal'nosti sil's'kogospodars'kyh pidpryjemstv. [Organizational and Economic Aspects of Diversification of Production Activities of Agricultural Enterprises]. Visnyk agrarnoi' nauky. [Bulletin of Agrarian Science], no. 8, рр. 66‒70.
  15. Pushkareva, V. M. (2011). Istorija finansovoj mysli i politiki nalogov: ucheb. posobie [The history of financial thought and tax policy]. Finansy i statistika [Finance and Statistics], рр. 120‒121.
  16. Stadnyk, V. V., Mel'nychuk, A. I. (2017). Zelenyj turyzm: umovy rozvytku, partners'ki merezhi ta potencial dyversyfikacii' sil's'kogospodars'kyh pidpryjemstv [Green tourism: conditions of development, partnership networks and potential of diversification of agricultural enterprises]. Visnyk Odes'kogo nacional'nogo universytetu [Bulletin of the Odessa National University]. Ser. Ekonomika. T.22, no. 12, рр. 160‒165.
  17. Mosijuk, S. I.,  Mosijuk, I. P. (2017). Pidpryjemnyc'ka dijal'nist' na seli: zelenyj turyzm [Business activity in the countryside: green tourism]. Problemy innovacijno-investycijnogo rozvytku [Problems of innovation and investment development]. Ser. Ekonomika ta menedzhment, no. 13, рр. 88‒92.
  18. Prokopenko, O. V. (2013). Narodni promysly jak malyj biznes Ukrai'ny [Folk crafts as a small business in Ukraine]. Suchasni problemy arhitektury ta mistobuduvannja [Modern Problems of Architecture and Urban Development], no. 32,
    рр. 270‒277.
  19. Jengel'gardt A. N. (1937). Iz derevni. 12 pisem: 1872-1887 [From the village. 12 letters: 1872-1887]. Moskva: Gos. soc.-jekon. izd-vo. XVI. 491 p.
AttachmentSize
PDF icon byba_v._1-2019.pdf11.38 MB