Т С Медведкин - Проблемы развития внешнеэкономических связей и привлечения иностранных инвестиций региональный аспект - страница 62

Страницы:
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115 

7. Межгосударственный статистический комитет стран СНГ [Электронный ресурс] II СНГ. - Режим доступа: http:IIwww.cisstat.comI PEЗЮME

В статье рассматриваются современные тенденции выхода мировой экономики из кризиса, изучено состояние развитых, развивающихся и стран с переходной экономикой, проанализирована динамика производства и экспортно-импортных операций Украины в разрезе географической и товарной структуры, рассмотрены перспективы Украины в контексте вывода экономики страны из кризиса. Ключевые слова: мировая экономика, кризис, экспорт, импорт, промышленное производство.

21б

РЕЗЮМЕ

У статті розглядаються сучасні тенденції виходу світової економіки з кризи, вивчено стан розвинених країн, країн, що розвиваються та країн з перехідною економікою, проаналізовано динаміку виробництва та експортно-імпортних операцій України в розрізі географічної і товарної структури, розглянуто перспективи України в контексті виведення економіки країни з кризи. Ключові слова: світова економіка, криза, експорт, імпорт, промислове виробництво. SUMMARY

The paper reviews current trends in the world economy out of the crisis, have been studied the state of developed, developing and transition countries, studied the dynamics of production and export-import operations in Ukraine in the context of geographical and commodity structure, the prospects of Ukraine in the context of the output of the economy out of crisis have been researched. Keywords: global economy, crisis, exports, imports, industrial production.

GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES

Markovic I., PhD assistant professor Faculty of Economics, Nis, Serbia1

At the time of globalization, the difference between interregional and international cooperation are smaller. In this context, in this paper we analyze the regionalization of Serbia announced. The final victory of neo-liberal concept of development in the globalization process imposed by the escalation of problems of regional development. (Neo)Liberalism is like waves spreading around the world. But as the wave theory there is no law that says that every particle hit by the wave becomes a source of new wave, so it can be said that every country and every region affected by the liberal flow begins to intensify the problem of development between the sub-regions. In each such territorial unit begin to create center-periphery relations similar to those described by the Senegalese economist Samir Amin in his theory of peripheral economies. Periphery tends to be as much as possible and quickly close the center, while their market flows impose greater distance. Practically, the centrifugal force of the market beyond the process of deepening the gap between center and periphery, a regional development policy should be to create a counterweight to the centripetal forces as much as possible and mitigate chaotic processes. There are arguments for one or another option. Economically rational market processes allocate factors of production, increase economic efficiency and contribute more to increasing the rate of economic growth. However, if you look at the problem long term, the market will on the one hand to create highly developed regions, and the other devastated areas. The cost of such long-term trends will be almost incalculable. In large urban centers (capitals and centers of the region) will drastically increase need for additional investment in infrastructure, housing, development of new space to life and livelihood. In underdeveloped regions will remain untapped potential, and there may be other problems, such as demographic nature. If from the standpoint of economic rationality, "the market knows best", it is certain that from the perspective of regional development "market does not know best".

The undeveloped parts of the country and the region will permanently lose any chance to develop when professional staff leave and move to the center. This phenomenon is known in the international economy as a brain drain; however it was amazing and takes place within the region, and even sub-regions. The end effect is that the periphery loses "gray brain" mass and age, and therefore the future. Similar experiences are present in every corner of the globe, and theoretically it has processed the economist Gunnar Myrdal on Latin American countries. But this is not the least favorable option. Even worse is that under the guise of mitigating regional disparities conduct "vulgar" or "quasi" regionalization that will not only conserve, but also deepen regional differences. Before this ordeal and is now Serbia.

Let's first of the causes of regional differences. At the international level such processes rather analyzed. Protection of national interests, protection of borders and customs and non-tariff barriers has allowed a stable growth rate of countries in the center. Economic strength has enabled these countries and to devote sufficient attention to regional development, but were made serious mistakes in dealing with these problems. The most common mistake was to be stereotyped approach, quality projects without sufficient funds for regional development money poured relentlessly into undeveloped areas. This money is usually legal and illegal channels ending in the capitals and other developed urban centers. Maybe it was the best experience of Italy is this approach that sought to reduce the differences between North-South. Huge resources are invested in southern regions like Puglia and Calabria, and the devastation that the process is not slowed, let alone stopped. The most common approach is to develop an infrastructure that requires huge investment, and performers of these works are from developed centers and the money goes back more affluent parts of the region. This one-time assistance in order to create conditions for economic growth is very slow to produce results. Establishment of funds for regional development with enough well-defined mechanisms and under strict control becomes counterproductive. In a way it felt and the European Union.

One of the key issues of particular controversy, and that fits into the context of the economic effects of EU accession of Serbia, and the impact of transnational, supranational and national levels, the future treatment of the region, and define their place and role of the EU territory. When the Treaty of Rome creating the European Union 1957th the first plan was to create a customs union, and to the economic and social differences, the six members did not pay excessive attention (these differences, except for southern Italy were not significant). Although it has been fifty years since this agreement, the problems are not particularly changed. Namely, the main place, relatively speaking, still occupy the structural problems of which the most important problem of regional disparities. This is particularly reflected in the level of output and unemployment in certain regions of the EU. Research some authors have shown that the level of gross domestic product may vary from 25% of the average European GDP in poor areas of Greece and Portugal, to 212% of the average European GDP in Hamburg. A similar gap can be seen in the level of unemployment, which ranges from 6.6% in Austria to 23.6% in Spain. Otherwise, the entry of Central and Eastern Europe in the EU in 2004. and 2007., this gap is further increased. Obviously, though, that creation of integration in the short term through exposure of different degrees of development and differences in living standards may lead to social tensions, migration and, ultimately, political instability.

With the fall of customs barriers between member states to tighten competition in the market, which many enterprises, and often entire industries and regions, can not endure. To prevent this, the EC a few years after the instrument resorted to structural policies, to mitigate the negative impacts of changes caused by the liberalization of economic developments. Structural policies aim to help different sectors, regions, business entities or branches that are assumed to be carriers of technological development.

Detailed analysis of economic and other effects of European integration on the regions of particular member states revealed two opposing, yet complementary processes. The first, which refers to the centralization of competences of Brussels and the transfer of certain responsibilities of nation-states to the exchange, and another that includes decentralization, which gives greater autonomy to the regions (regions, districts or provinces) within these countries. For these reasons, it is justified to question the existence of specific regional policies at EU level where there is already a regional policy of the Member States. In defense of necessity of regional policy at EU level, some authors have suggested the following arguments:

In the interest of the richer member states to improve the economic situation in the poorer Member States. The trade creation effect, free movement of capital and labor, has a strong spillover effect the results from the EU. This practically means that the poor economic performances of a country certainly affect the single market. For this reason, EU regional policy could be justified as a mechanism that would allow a State party to actively stimulate other economic activity. Reducing differences in the degree of development of certain regions, the integration to get the proper spread between regions and Member States.

■ The second reason for the existence of regional policy is its high price for member states. It is known that every country has an equal number of underdeveloped regions. Some of them (such as Greece and Portugal) have very big problems, while others (such as Denmark and the Netherlands) are relatively small. It is obvious that in the less developed EU countries (Serbian perspective) it extremely difficult

© Markovic Ivan, 2013

PErHOHA^BHMH ACITEKT

for their poor regions of the fund, especially if they had to strictly control their public finances, as required by strict convergence criteria for European monetary union. For these reasons, it seems that only at the level of the Union may raise the necessary funds from the richer regions of some Member States (such as Germany and France) and assign the poorest EU regions.

■ These third jobs also promote greater political cohesion and "community spirit", which poor countries and regions do not feel that they are "abandoned". This is important because, although the causes of delays are different, there are well established in the gap "center-periphery" between rich and poor regions. Much of the most backward regions are usually grouped at the periphery, especially in the Mediterranean. This means that these countries are reluctant to continue with further integration, if they knew that he would have to bear the costs. It is evident that with each new expansion of the number of individual states and regions with marked differences in the level of development increased.

■ EU regional policy is important for overcoming the problems caused by a single market and the integration process as a whole (e.g., higher standards require more spending in areas such as environment, communications, eliminating borders can have a negative effect on border regions depend on cross-border trade).

Coordination of all activities aimed at reducing regional disparities can be vital if the end is realized. Acting on the supranational level, the EU has great potential to improve the effectiveness of these efforts. As a supra-national co-coordinator, the EU should also connect:

■ Regional policy with other EU policies (common agricultural policy, social, environmental policy);

■ The objectives of EU regional policy within a Member States with regional policy of the national government;

■ The objectives of regional policies of Member States, especially in cases where the member states of the neighboring countries;

■ regional policy and the Member States initiatives to manage regional and local organizations and authorities

On the other hand, when it comes to special funds, which otherwise can greatly affect the ratio of benefits and costs after the accession of Serbia to the EU, we should point out structural and cohesion funds. There are four Structural Funds of the EU: European Social Fund (EESF), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Agricultural Fund for Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and NUTS - the principle of equitable development policies region that serves as the basis for the use of funds.

The Structural Funds were established with the aim of solving the problem of regional disparities, restructuring industry, reducing unemployment. The Cohesion Fund is primarily aimed to enable all Member States to enter the final stage of monetary union, thereby strengthening social cohesion within the Union. Financial assistance funds would be directed at achieving the following objectives:

- help the regions lagging behind,

- the restructuring of the region who are severely affected by the industrial and global economic crisis,

- the struggle against long-term unemployment, facilitating the integration of youth participation in the labor market and promoting equal opportunities for women and men in the labor market

- adjust the workforce to changes in industry and manufacturing,

- help the restructuring of agriculture and fisheries, and

- promoting the development of backward areas, help sparsely populated regions.

Both of these funds constitute a significant part of the EU budget, and their primary function is to reduce the gap between rich and poor regions and EU member states, as well as encouraging economic and social equality. It should be underlined that 90% of the above-thirds of the EU budget are spent on development of the region, and 10% of the so-called development "Cohesion countries" (Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain).

From the viewpoint of regional development, assistance comes from the Regional Development Fund, the EU creates another serious problem. It was a deepening of the gap in development between the capital and other regions. Experience has shown that targeted assistance to less developed regions in the final instance ends in the capital for several reasons. The largest numbers of banks which, sooner or later collect money from subsidies or assistance to regional development have their headquarters in the capital. Also, much of the industry is concentrated in the capital and the purchase of industrial products money again poured into the capital. If we know that with the growth of living standards for the percentage of food costs in the budget of the family declines, it will be coming to the conclusion that the money directed to less developed regions eventually end up in the capital where the most concentrated the largest industrial facilities. Such an experience of almost all EU member states suggests further complicating the problems of demographic development. Pressure migration to the capital increases, and the under-population of certain regions to further intensify. For example, in Athens, of which more than half the population of Greece. A similar situation exists with other EU countries

Ten percent of the region with the highest GDP per capita is generally the main financial cities in northern Europe (London, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Paris, and Groningen) and the richest regions of southern Germany and northern Italy. Ten percent of the regions are lagging behind regions of Greece (Peloponnesus, Crete, and Northern Greece-Macedonia), the French Overseas Territories, and some regions of Spain (Galicia, Andalusia, and Extremadura), Portugal (Akores) and southern Italy (Calabria, Sicily). The gap between these regions is very large, so that GDP per capita in the richest region is 60% above the EU average, while the poorest 40% below the European average. In other words, the top ten most developed regions, GDP per capita is about two and a half times the GDP of the ten lowest ranked countries. It seems that this gap will continue to exist despite the fact that the average GDP of the poorest regions rose from 55% in 1988. year to 65% in 2002. year. Relatively speaking, however, this is an improvement on the situation in the late eighties and early nineties, when this gap was 4:1.

Among the new Member States, the richest region of the Czech capital of Prague, where households have an income of 14,500 euros per year per family. With these results, Prague was placed just below the average of the whole Union. The standard of living is good and in other capitals of Central and Eastern Europe within the EU: Bratislava, Budapest and Warsaw, while residents of poor, underdeveloped agricultural regions in Poland, Latvia and Slovakia have less than six times less income than the richest EU regions and to is London. In the capital of British income per household amounted to 27,754 euros. Within the EU, per-inhabitant GDP ranges from 28% of the EU-27 average (6500 PPS) in Severozapaden in Bulgaria to 343% (85 800 PPS) in the capital region of Inner London in the UK. Statistics from previous years, however, show that with the enlargement gradually softened differences: in the survey in 1999. the poorest EU member states had income of less than seven times the richest member states.

Some authors doubt these conclusions and believe that, despite the fact that the gap between Member States has decreased, remained at the same time the gap between rich and poor regions and, in some cases it is even deepened (particularly in the UK). For these reasons it is necessary to emphasize the importance of regional policies for the future member states and candidate countries, such as our country. Because, in their opinion, membership of the EU has no clear effect on the poorer member states. Rates of convergence listed in various tables EUROSTAT, only shows that European politics per se do not generate development that would lead to strong convergence. The decisive factor is the manner in which each Member State individually to respond to economic opportunities provided under the EU. The best argument for convergence, such as Ireland, there usually is at a "statistical illusion". Namely, when the calculated effect of the Irish GNP rather than GDP per capita, the figures would be quite different, because of the large revenue that multinational companies have in Ireland, as reflected in GDP, but is omitted in GNP.

The case of Ireland shows that it would be difficult to calculate the individual contribution to regional economic development policy. In fact, a number of factors influenced the performance of Ireland. Sixties of the twentieth century, Ireland began the reform of the education system, introducing new methods and technologies. In the seventies introduced a new information technology and reduce the corporate income tax, thus attracting multinationals from the EU and the U.S. In the late eighties came to Ireland Structural Funds, when the generation that was passed through a reformed education sixties came to a situation that leads to and promotes the Irish economy. However, in one all analysts agree with the official EU documents. It is a fact that is very difficult to calculate the real impact of EU structural policy and isolated from other sources of economic growth and convergence. In the case of Central and Eastern Europe (and especially the Balkan countries and Serbia), it is necessary to take into account political and social changes (democratization of society, the process of institution-building, etc...). As generators of development the importance of regional

IIPOEJiEMIjI PA3BHTHH BHEmHE3KOHOMHHECKHX CBJBEH H IIPHBJiEHEHHJI HHOCTPAHHMX HHBECTHЦHH:

PErHOHAJIbHIjIH ACnEKT

policy in that country well illustrated by the fact that regional policy constitutes one of the three chapters of the acquis communautaire, and the conditio sine qua non for membership. The other two are the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Finance and Budget.

Funds from Regional Development Fund of the European Union are very often disappeared in the distribution channels and underdeveloped regions are the only traces get the assistance they were intended. A similar fate had funds from the EU agricultural budget. Many times to prove that the funds will be invested in underdeveloped regions and countries are not sufficient to significantly change anything in their market niche. On the contrary, not enough to give visible effects of such projects only encourage emigration from underdeveloped countries and regions. Free movement of workers within the European Union, further intensifying the process.

Therefore the problem of regional development should be approached from a completely opposite point of view. There are many examples in the world for the failure of similar projects for the development of underdeveloped areas. If we look for the essence of this lies in the failure of those measures and incompatibility problems that are addressed. In particular, the economic problems were solved by administrative measures. Where will the money be directed, as a rule, scarce funds, which sectors will be placed resources, which will carry out projects and so on are generally taken in the capitals or centers and developed regions. The greatest absurdity is that after the completion of the project is expected to better incorporate these regions into the marketplace. If you rotate the order of questions and analysis start from the periphery toward the center raises the doubt that will bear the economic recovery of underdeveloped areas. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development back in the fifties clearly defined that the main carrier of development of private enterprise. That's why they formed the International Finance Corporation, which was supposed to stimulate private initiative, provides financial assistance to private companies as a basic unit of economic organism. This strategy is deeply rooted in the quest to solve the economic problems of economic measures.

No matter how absurd it may seem the main factor of economic development of scarce capital but knowledge is not primarily about entrepreneurship. Therefore, you should first identify capable entrepreneurs in different regions with the help of state or international organizations developing their own businesses to become leaders of the development of the region. Verification must be made capable entrepreneur market. But it is well known that only 2 to 5% of the population carries an entrepreneurial spirit. So, the question is how exactly they help. This strategy is relatively simple. Various start-up programs should be encouraged to create new companies. As one of the models are imposed and the opening of business incubator that provided financial and technical assistance to start. The more open company, the greater the chance that one of them may be the carriers of the entrepreneurial gene. However, experience says that the first two years of existence will have 50% of newly established companies will be shut down. The most common cause of such movements is not sufficiently capable entrepreneurs who are engaged in the business who can not bear. Their most common error is that the early set as "boss", but company looking for "servant" to 24 hours a day to think about business. Companies that survive this most vulnerable period of existence should be given an additional opportunity to develop further. This assistance is provided any loans given the International Finance Corporation. Successfully implemented a loan guarantee this company is able to survive long in the market and more can decide their own destiny. So, the logic is very clear: small steps in the long run will put the creation of a strong carrier of development of the region to be crossed.

Holders find themselves in the development of underdeveloped regions is only one option. Unfortunately, in countries with sharpened problems of regional development this approach feasible is difficult or even impossible. This requires a proven ability to attract entrepreneurs to the region. Finally we come to the great similarities between solving the problem of regional development and reducing the gap in development between countries. Underdeveloped countries are trying to attract foreign investors. Especially in this process desirable strategic and financial partners, are direct, and portfolio investment. Success in this process has only countries that are economic measures. This refers primarily to increase the profitability of investments. The range of measures is very wide. For example it is reducing and in some cases the temporary abolition of income tax (2 to 5 years). Let's look at what the effects were similar if the measures used in the regional development of Serbia. Suppose that the income tax repeal in several least developed municipalities in Serbia. From the standpoint of government that would be inadmissible at the time of tight fiscal policy because it reduces the budget revenues. But no concrete numbers can not talk about the loss of large or small the budget. How, for example, the state charges on the basis of income tax in the poorest municipality in Serbia (Trgovishte). That income is so insignificant that they will not feel any of the restrictive monetary policy means that the cost is almost zero. And what would be gained? Also what is obtained and the international scale. Such a measure could be the catalyst capable entrepreneurs to open a business or even relocate existing in the municipality in which it does not pay income taxes. Of course, the cost of such a move would give a comparative analysis in future savings from taxes on profits and costs of relocation.

Selective application of tax policy that is not easy to implement, much will be achieved in solving the problems of regional development. Economic measures are addressed economic problems. Most importantly, this solution has long-term effects on solving the problems of regional development and economic sustainability opens the perspective of the region. In the long run, and the budget will be in profit because it will strengthen the economy of the region to re-open the possibility of gradually introducing income tax. Budget revenues obtained by the growth prospects, and otherwise could only be reduced to a complete loss.

At first glance similar, yet fundamentally different is the possibility of opening free trade zones. From the perspective of the state it is certainly easier solution, but less efficiently. The fact that free zone shall be under the complete supervision of the customs, and the fact that the opening and operation of a free zone carries no small cost, idea almost certainly condemned to failure. Also, the survival of the free zone is inextricably linked to a large enough amount of work within it the first year of operation makes it very uncertain. Finally, the free zone must be met and some other conditions such as the presence of important roads, a substantial investment in its opening and operation, etc.

In this context let analyze regionalization of Serbia announced. The public only sees the regionalization of the transfer rights to smaller territorial units (regions), and completely forgotten that it implies the transfer of certain responsibilities and obligations. In this sense, it may very well be counterproductive, especially for the least developed regions. As an example we take the extreme case in which the maximum transfer of rights and responsibilities. Mentioned most common idea is that the funds generated in the region do not go to the capital. The recently adopted law that 80% tax on earnings retained in the place where he realized just legalizes and preserves the gap in development. Of course, the greatest benefit of this will go to Belgrade because most employees in absolute terms are in the capital. However, given the relative figures the problem is even more pronounced. Lowest unemployment rate is also in Belgrade and Novi Sad. Differences in unemployment rates of least developed and most developed municipalities are even 1:10. If this, the parliament adopted measures were accompanied by the transfer of competences to address, for example, social issues, the problem of regional development would be even more pronounced. Percentage fewer employees to solve problems larger percentage of the unemployed would fall at the expense of a smaller percentage of employees. While in the municipality of Novi Beograd 96% of employees solve problems 4% unemployment in the municipality of Kursumlija to 60% of employees solve problems 40% of the unemployed. If we add the difference in average earnings, it is clear that the problem is not solved, but intensifies. Average earnings in the municipality of New Belgrade over 50,000 dinars (500 EUR), and in the municipality of Kursumlija below 20,000 dinars (200 EUR).

If regionalization is not sufficiently implemented thoughtfully can create many more problems. But even without the implementation of regionalization is much to be done to reduce regional disparities. One possibility mentioned the selective tax rates. As can attract foreign direct investments, investors can be directed in some regions. Since the inter-regional differences in Serbia so big, not enough to leave the regions of what they have created. Against severe market movements must be consistently implemented effective policies for regional development that will withstand all legal and illegal attempts to discredit. The point is to provide attractive conditions for investors, staying and coming professionals who will carry the economic recovery and development. In this process must be equally involved and developed and underdeveloped regions. Undeveloped because of their personal interests, and developed to defeat vanity and desire to remain in the center of everything.

Based on a series of examples and data, it is obvious that the impact of structural policies should neither overestimate nor underestimate. What is important to stress related to the objectives to be achieved by keeping a common regional policy. EU structural policy was never supposed to be the only driving force of development, but only support and complement the effects of free markets and economic policies of member states. This practically means that only together with other European and national policies and good response of each member state to economic opportunities offered to them within the EU, it can achieve satisfactory results and increase the positive impact of other policies.

I would particularly emphasize that this concept or policy of the EU in terms of locating the position and role of regions in the EU for the Republic utmost importance. And that, in terms of development and understanding of all the other benefits that such a policy makes the regions and countries within which they are located, and in view of the future concept of adapting our policy and EU regional strategy. Serbia is an open area for cooperation in the framework of programs to improve regional cooperation, even though not an EU member, with the understandable limitations of the countries in transition and a country which still has the position of the third country in cooperation with the EU. The benefits of joining the program, such as the INTERREG program or inter-regional cooperation, is exceptional in all aspects of regional cooperation, as in the current phase relation Serbian-EU, and the next stages of Serbia's European integration.

The above mentioned strategy of the EU, as is evident beyond narrow national, state or provincial borders and opens up the possibility of regions, with or without specific features (the case of Vojvodina), that in the interest of developing and implementing well-being in a state where they are located, but also directly at the European level. Our commitment to integration in the EU imposes on us obligations and execution of the planned structural and regional policy, for faster and more successful integration into the overall system of the Union.

The benefits that would have the Serbian economy from EU funds most dependent on country's ability to create long-term vision and harmonious development and to establish it appropriate programs that will help to overcome bottlenecks and adverse effects of changes (which is the sense of structural policies). It's a job where experience plays a huge role. Even the old EU member states have not used all the means which have been granted, some of them up to third. All this must be borne in mind when discussing whether it is more important as soon as possible to join the EU and thorough preparation is a priority for the integration. What is the issue of regional development complex, there are complex problems caused its non-resolution. Without solving the regional problems will be that the country is more important election for mayor capital than presidential elections and Prime Minister of the state. This absurd situation, of which Serbia is, not far away, can cause long-term far more problems than those that currently exist.

REFERENCES:

1. Artis, M.J. and Lee, N., The Economics of the European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997, second edition, p.190-192,

2. El-Agraa, M. Ali, The European Union, Economics and Policies, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, 2001, Sixth Edition, стр. 388-393.

3. Carney, J., R. Hudson and J. Lewis, Regions in Crisis. N. Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1980.

4. Carl Chiarella and Alfred Steinherr, Marginal Employment Subsidies: An Effective Policy to Generate Employment, London & New York: Rutledge, November 1982.

З.        Jones, R.J.B, "Globalization and change in the global political economy", International Affairs, 1999.

6. Gregory, D. and J. Urry, Social Relations and Spatial Structures. N.Y.: St. Martin's Press. 198З.

7. Ivan Markovic, The European Union - for and against, Faculty of Economics Nis, 2009.

8. Lefebvre, H., The Survival of Capitalism. London: Allison and Busby, 197б.

9. Milos Todorovic, Global Balance, Faculty of Economics, Nis, 2007

10. Smith, N., Uneven Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984

PEЗЮME

В теорії міжнародної торгівлі не є рідкістю випадок, що розвиток міжнародної торгівлі у порівнянні з розвитком регіонального співробітництва. Найвідомішим автором в цій області є шведський економіст Бертіль Олін, яка Теорія точно визначається порівняльний аналіз загальної рівноваги. Подібний підхід може бути проаналізована і економічного розвитку глобальної (фінансовий) криза. Kлючовi слова: регіоналізація, глобалізація, світова економічна криза PEЗЮME

В теории международной торговли не является редкостью случай, что развитие международной торговли по сравнению с развитием регионального сотрудничества. Самым известным автором в этой области является шведский экономист Бертиль Олин, которая Теория точно определяется сравнительный анализ общего равновесия. Подобный подход может быть проанализирована и экономического развития глобальной (финансовый) кризис.

Kлючевые слова: регионализация, глобализация, мировой экономический кризис

SUMMARY

In international trade theory is not uncommon case that development of international trade compared with the development of regional cooperation. The most famous author in this field is a Swedish economist Bertil Ohlin, which theory is exactly defined by a comparative analysis of general equilibrium. Similar approach can be analyzed and economic development of the global (financial) crisis. Key words: regionalization, globalization, the world economic crisis

ИННOBAЦИOННЫE ЭKOИOMИЧECKИE MEXAНИЗMЫ PEГУЛИPOBAИИЯ BЗAИMOДEЙCTBИЯ ПAPTИEPOB B OTPACЛЯX COЦИAЛЬИOГO CEKTOPA ЭKOИOMИKИ УKPAИНЫ

Mартякова E.B., д.э.н., проф., Институт экономики промішленности НАН Украины

Сформулированы модели и основные принципы взаимодействия партнеров в социальных проектах, с целью обеспечения согласования интересов участников взаимодействия для развития и повышения устойчивости и конкурентоспособности экономических систем на разных уровнях иерархии.

Ключевые слова: управление, социальная ответственность, инновации, социальные услуги, партнерство, механизмы, социальный

проект.

Сформульовано моделі та основні принципи взаємодії партнерів у соціальних проектах з метою забезпечення узгодження інтересів учасників взаємодії для розвитку і підвищення стійкості та конкурентоспроможності економічних систем на різних рівнях ієрархії.

Ключові слова: управління, соціальна відповідальність, інновації, соціальні послуги, партнерство, механізми, соціальний проект.

Models and main principles of cooperation between the partners in social projects with the aim to develop and improve the sustainability and competitiveness economic systems at different levels of the hierarchy.

Keywords: management, social responsibility, innovations, social services, partnership, mechanisms, social project.

В настоящее время в мире реализуется переход от патерналистской модели социальной политики к политике социального партнерства. При этом государство остается главным участником этого партнерства и от прямого управления социальным сектором экономики переходит к непрямым - экономическим методам регулирования. То есть создаются условия для проявления социальной ответственности наравне с государством бизнеса и общества; используются новые, инновационные экономические механизмы решения социальных проблем общества, противодействия социальным рискам и инвестирования социальных шансов.

Актуальность данной статьи обусловлена необходимостью формирования и внедрения экономических механизмов регулирования взаимодействия партнеров   при реализации социальных проектов, адекватных современным условиям Украины, с целью решения

© Mартякова E.B., 2013общественно значимых проблем в социальном секторе экономики (социальная защита, образование, здравоохранение, культура, физкультура и спорт) на национальном, региональном и местном уровнях. Такие механизмы, с учетом факторов мирового и национального экономического развития, ориентированы на объединение ресурсов партнеров из разных секторов экономики, с учетом существующих социальных рисков и их роста в условиях мирового кризиса, нерешенных проблем гуманитарного развития, связанных с переходом к экономике знаний и необходимостью приобретения конкурентных преимуществ национальной экономики за счет накопления человеческого и интеллектуального капиталов.

Исходя из системного похода, государственное регулирование отраслей социального сектора экономики должно включать:

актуализацию целей социально-экономического развития, в котором кроме властных структур должны принимать участие представители бизнес-структур и общественных некоммерческих организаций;

сопоставление общенациональных целей с региональными преимуществами по вопросам социогуманитарного развития;

разработку инновационных механизмов и инструментов для осуществления процесса государственного регулирования;

привлечение необходимого объема разнообразных ресурсов и разработку механизмов их использования.

Системный подход позволяет выделить четыре основных направления государственного регулирования в области социального развития: разработка стратегии социального развития; непосредственное регулирование; стимулирование развития; внедрение инновационных механизмов и инструментов регулирования взаимодействия.

Специфика развития социального сектора в современной экономике в значительной мере обусловлена многообразием форм собственности, от чего зависят также и возможности государства по регулированию отраслей социального сектора, а также порядок их финансирования и производства социально значимых услуг. Для снятия противоречия между необходимым объемом социальных услуг и ограниченностью средств бюджета, для решения проблем в секторе социального развития на национальном, региональном и местном уровнях управления инновационным механизмом развития социального сектора должно стать взаимодействие между тремя секторами экономики, а именно государственным, частным и "третьим сектором" - некоммерческими организациями, самой эффективной формой котрого является межсекторное партнерство.

Межсекторное социальное партнерство - это конструктивное, целеустремленное, выгодное участникам и населению взаимодействие государства, бизнеса и общества при решении социогуманитарных задач, которое обеспечивает синергический эффект от объединения потенциалов и ресурсов и распределения рисков между сторонами взаимодействия.

Исходя из этого определения, механизмом межсекторного социального партнерства является разработанная совместно партнерами совокупность правил, способов, технологий и документации по организации, обеспечению ресурсами, реализации социогуманитарных проектов, которая встроена в схему функционирования социального сектора государства и региона, направлена на решение социальных проблем с учетом действующих нормативных и правовых актов и воспроизведена в будущем без участия основателей.

Страницы:
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115 


Похожие статьи

Т С Медведкин - Проблемы развития внешнеэкономических связей и привлечения иностранных инвестиций региональный аспект