Сировинна орієнтація аграрного сектору та її соціально-економічні наслідки для України

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The purpose of the articles is to determine the socio-economic consequences of the raw material orientation of the agricultural sector of the domestic economy and to outline the priority areas of regulatory nature aimed at mitigating risks in the field of employment and the labor market in rural areas. Research methods. The research was based on general scientific and economic methods, the work of Ukrainian and foreign scientists on foreign trade, regulations, data from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, electronic resources and other sources. Monographic and systematic approaches are used to analyze the structure of foreign trade in agri-food products. The principle of systems thinking helped to clarify the socio-economic consequences in the field of employment, labor market and rural migration. A number of techniques of abstract-logical tools made it possible to formulate intermediate final conclusions and determine conceptual ways of solving the problems raised. Research results. Considered from critical positions the commodity structure of Ukraine's foreign trade by groups 1-24 UCG FEA for 2000-2020. It was found that the main factors for increasing the export of raw materials were: liberalization of foreign trade relations, the termination of cooperative ties between agricultural production and processing enterprises and the creation of protectionist conditions for investment in agriculture. This was successfully used by the owners of speculative, financial, shadow, including foreign capital in the form of agricultural holdings with offshore jurisdictions. Thanks to the favorable situation in the global commodity markets, these organizations have significantly increased the production and export of grain crops, seeds and fruits of oilseeds and sunflower oil over two decades. During the same period, the export of finished food products has been reduced. If in 2000. The negative trade balance of the mentioned subgroup of goods amounted to 65 million, then according to the results of 2020 it increased to 392.2 million US dollars, or more than 6 times. Structural imbalances have led to the formation of a rental economic model in Ukraine, which has limited potential for further growth in added value. Ultimately, this negatively affects the well-being of households, social and labor relations, which have become especially aggravated in the field of employment, the labor market and population migration. In 2020, there were 1,783 thousand informally employed in rural areas, which amounted to 44.7% of the total in the economy and 36.2% of the total rural population aged 15-70. This is almost 4 times more than all employees in agriculture. Among the priority measures it is proposed: to revise the regulatory policy in the field of foreign trade in raw materials of this subgroup of goods; promoting the export of end-use products; stimulation of vertical and horizontal integration of agricultural producers, processors of raw materials and trade on mutually beneficial terms; creation of territorial production clusters; reanimation of all types of cooperation in rural areas from the standpoint of reducing risks to the balanced development of the agricultural sector and the country's economy. Scientific novelty. A comprehensive vision of the negative socio-economic consequences of the dominance of an archaic model of the economy, which in the conditions of a market turnover of rights to land plots, can become aggravated, has received further development. In contrast to the existing raw material exploitation of the agrarian sector and the rural population, the increase in the export of final consumption goods will contribute to the well-being of households and balanced rural development. Practical significance. Positioning the agricultural and food sector of Ukraine as a world leader in the export of end-use goods will contribute to solving the socio-economic problems of the rural population and balanced rural development. Tabl.: 2. Figs.: 2. Refs.: 26.