You are here

Functions and value of personal self-employed agriculture in social and economic development of rural Ukrainian areas

It was established that the market transformation of property relations in agriculture led to the formation of a complex economy, the development of small-scale production, which is organically combined and successfully complements large and medium forms of management.
It is proved that the social significance of personal country farms manifests itself in counteracting unemployment, creating opportunities for income growth, improving the quality of life, social security, self-organization of rural residents. The social aspect of OSG's activity is particularly important in times of economic crisis, when in agriculture and most other sectors massive job cuts are applied.
It is generalized that in view of the diversity and diversity of the OSG functions, in order to achieve a deeper understanding of the essence of the investigated category, the classification of functions of rural households on the orientational basis of interaction with various spheres of social activity was conducted. It is substantiated that this characteristic corresponds to the essence of the OSG to the greatest extent, since it allows us to comprehensively characterize the research object as a complex category, which is an organic and inalienable component of several different socioeconomic systems different in its nature.
The typical functions of a personal country economy are systematized, taking into account the requirements of three components of social life: social, economic, organizational. It is concluded that the functions of OSG population in their essential content are similar to the functions of agrarian entrepreneurship subjects.
It is proved that personal country farms, despite the low marketability, carry out a number of socially important functions now, is an additional reserve for ensuring the growth of agricultural output, which the rural population perceives as a need for survival. It was emphasized that the development of OSG is closely linked with the provision of food security of the country, which led to the idea of ​​strengthening their role and importance in the formation of commodity supply and sustainable development of rural areas. It is envisioned that in case of non-dilution of the OSG value in the development of agriculture in the country, the conversion of a country farmer into an ordinary hired worker may lead to negative consequences for the whole society, such as the settlement of the rural population, the loss of their sense of ownership on their land and motivation to work, rural lifestyle and ultimately the domestic country traditions and culture.
Key words: personal country economy, function, rural population, rural territories, rural households.
.
doi: 10.33245/2310-9262-2019-148-1-121-132
  1. Kropivko, M. M. (2013). Klasyfikacija gospodarstv naselennja jak formy malogo sil's'kogospodars'kogo pidpryjemnyctva. [Classification of households as a form of small agricultural entrepreneurship]. Zbirnyk naukovyh prac' Tavrijs'kogo derzhavnogo agrotehnologichnogo universytetu (ekonomichni nauky) [Collection of scientific works of the Tavria State Agrotechnological University] (ekonomіchnі nauki). No 2(2). рр. 135‒142.
  2. Svinous, І. V., Mikitjuk, D. M. (2013). Konceptual'nі zasadi funkcіonuvannja osobistih seljans'kih gospodarstv [Conceptual principles of the functioning of personal peasant farms]. Produktivnіst' agropromislovogo virobnictva [Productivity of agro-industrial production]. Ekonomіchnі nauki. no.23. рр. 37‒41.
  3. Murazaev, A. A. (2000). Transformacija LPH v krest'janskoe podvor'e. Ot LPH – k krest'janskomu podvor'ju, domohozjajstvu [Transformation of private farms in the peasant farmstead. From LPH – to the farmstead, household]. Mezhregional'naja akademija agrozemel'nogo menedzhmenta i krest'janskoj politiki. Krasnodar, рр. 91‒94.
  4. Kal'chenko, S. V. (2014). Optymizacija klasyfikacii' gospodarstv naselennja [Optimization of classification of households]. Zbirnyk naukovyh prac' Tavrijs'kogo derzhavnogo agrotehnologichnogo universytetu [Collection of scientific works of the Tavria State Agrotechnological University]. Еkonomichni nauky. no.1. рр. 126‒129.
  5. Demchak, I. M. (2014). Social'no-ekonomichna sutnist' kategorii' «osobyste seljans'ke gospodarstvo» [Socio-economic essence of the category «personal peasant economy»]. Ekonomika ta upravlinnja APK [Economics and management of agro-industrial complex]. no.1. рр. 92‒99.
  6. Zbars'kyj, V. K. (2008). Kanins'kyj M. P. Osobysti seljans'ki gospodarstva: misce i rol' u prodovol'chomu zabezpechenni krai'ny [Personal peasant farms: place and role in the food supply of the country]. Agroinkom [Agroincom]. no. 1‒2. рр. 27‒32.
  7. Józef, St. Zegar, Mariola, Kwasek, Edyta, Gajos, Mariola, Kwasek, Wioletta, Wrzaszcz. From the research on socially-sustainable agriculture. Warsaw. 2016. 110 p. Available at: https://depot.ceon.pl/bitstream/handle/123456789/15418/ PW%2036.1.pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
  8. Uthes S., Li F., Kelly E. Does EU rural expenditure correspond to regional development needs? Land Use Policy. 2017. Vol. 60, рр. 267‒280.
  9. Koshe, H. (2018). Gospodarstva naselennja: znykajuchyj perezhytok mynulogo chy shljah u majbutnje [Households: the disappearing relic of the past or the way to the future]. Ekonomika APK [Economy of agroindustrial complex]. no.4. рр. 79‒87.
  10.  Pargaru I., Stancioiu F., Ladaru R.G., Teodor C. Sustainable development in agriculture at the level of Romania and the European Union. 2019. Vol. 20, Issue S2, рр. 446‒450.
  11.  Lampiris G., Karelakis C., Loizou E. Evaluation of the impacts of CAP policy measures on a local economy: The case of a Greek region. Land Use Policy. 2018. Vol. 77, рр. 745‒751.
  12.  Mazur, A. G., Dmytryk, O. V. (2016). Gospodarstva naselennja jak ekonomichna kategorija ta sub’jekt oblashtuvannja sil's'kyh terytorij [Economy of the population as an economic category and the subject of the arrangement of rural territories]. Ekonomika. Finansy. Menedzhment: aktual'ni pytannja nauky i praktyky [Economy. Finances. Management: topical issues of science and practice]. no.11. рр. 7‒20.
  13. Bretagnolle V., Berthet E., Gross N., Gauffre B., Plumejeaud C., Houte S., Badenhausser I., Monceau K., Allier F., Monestiez P., Gaba S. Towards sustainable and multifunctional agriculture in farmland landscapes: Lessons from the integrative approach of a French LTSER platform. Science of the Total Environment. 2018. Vol. 627, рр. 822‒834.
  14.  Makarenko Ju. P. (2013). Gospodarstva naselennja: i'h klasyfikacija ta perspektyvy rozvytku [Households: their classification and prospects of development]. Agrosvit [AgroSvit]. no.5. рр. 27‒30.
  15.  Spagnoli L., Mundula L. The family farming: A traditional model to foster the agriculture innovation. BSGLg. 2017. Vol. 69, рр. 17‒28.
  16.  Kropyvko, M. (2016). Osobysti seljans'ki gospodarstva: fenomen chy ob’jektyvni obstavyny? [Personal peasant farms: a phenomenon or objective circumstances?]. Ekonomichnyj dyskurs [Economic discourse]. no.1. рр. 11‒21.
  17. Reshyt'ko, T. V. (2014). Osoblyvosti zajnjatosti ta dohodiv naselennja v osobystyh seljans'kyh gospodarstvah [Features of employment and income of the population in private peasant farms]. Naukovi praci Kirovograds'kogo nacional'nogo tehnichnogo universytetu [Scientific works of the Kirovohrad National Technical University]. Ekonomichni nauky. no.25. рр. 78‒84.
AttachmentSize
PDF icon ishchenko_a._1-2019.pdf9.27 MB