|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
On the diversity of the effects of the state support for agriculture
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2019-4-59-73
Abstract
In this paper, we assess the effects of agricultural state support of corporate farms on their revenues from agricultural production sales in 14 Russian regions that differ in technology, environment and institutional conditions. In addition to the direct effect of the state support, the indirect effects via labor and capital are revealed. For this purpose, we identify production functions and statistical models of production factors for each of these regions separately. We find out diverse effects of the state support on revenues among the regions. Positive effects prevail. Negative effects are mainly caused by labor reductions that follow subsidy inflows. Another cause of negative effects is the soft budget constraints phenomenon.
About the Authors
Nikolai M. Svetlov
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
Renata G. Yanbykh
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
Dariya A. Loginova
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Aleksandrova L. A. (2016). The experience and directions of untied crop support improvement: Regional variety. In: S. V. Kiselev (ed.). The system of Russian agricultural state support in conditions of membership in WTO. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University, economic faculty, pp. 162—168. (In Russian).
2. Altukhov A. I. (2017). Improvement of territorial-sectoral division of labor in agricultural production of the country. Ekonomika Selskokhozyaystvennykh i Pererabatyvayushchikh Predpriyatiy, No. 11, pp. 2—9. (In Russian).
3. Anichin V. L., Elfimov A. D. (2014). Estimation of the effectiveness of subsidies to agricultural producers. Nauchnye Vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta: Seriya: Istoriya. Politologiya. Ekonomika. Informatika, No. 1, pp. 22—25. (In Russian).
4. Bershitskiy Yu., Safetdinov A. (2017). The directions of increasing the efficiency of beef cattle breeding in Krasnodar Krai. Ekonomika Selskogo Khozyaystva Rossii, No. 5, pp. 54—59. (In Russian).
5. Dudnik A. V., Neganova V. P., Koryukina N. V. (2017). Topical direction in the improvement of the state support to agro-industrial complex. Problemy Sovremennoy Ekonomiki, No. 1, pp. 197—202. (In Russian)
6. Zubarevich N. V. (2010). Regional development and institutes: Russian specifics. Regionalnye Issledovaniya, No. 2 (28), pp. 3—14. (In Russian).
7. Nefedova T. G. (2013). Transformation of Russian agriculture: Mythology and reality . Mir Rossii: Sotsiologiya i Etnologiya, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 29—60. (In Russian).
8. Pechenkin V. G. (2010). The methodical aspects of the assessment of the government subsidization efficiency. Izvestiya IGEA, No. 2, pp. 21—23. (In Russian).
9. Savchenko E. S. (2013). We continue to steadily move forward. Ekonomika Selskogo Khozyaystva Rossii, No. 3, pp. 17—20. (In Russian).
10. Siptits S. O., Gataulina E. A. (2014). Influence of factors on formation of agrarian structure. Ekonomika Selskogo Khozyaystva Rossii, No. 1, pp. 44—49. (In Russian).
11. Uzun V. Ya. (2015). Principles of forming and spending the agrarian budget in Russia, USA, Canada and EU. Ekonomika Selskokhozyaystvennykh i Pererabatyvayushchikh Predpriyatiy, No. 2, pp. 32—41. (In Russian).
12. Uzun V. Ya., Gataulina E. A., Muratova L. G. (2011). Efficiency of using regional agrarian budgets. Moscow: VIAPI im. A. A. Nikonova. (In Russian).
13. Shagayda N. I., Uzun V. Ya. (2017). Tendencies of development and main challenges in Russian agrarian sector: Analytical report. Moscow: CSR and RANERA. (In Russian). https://www.csr.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Doklad_selskoe_hozyai-stvo_veb.pdf
14. Yanbykh R. G. (2017). Agriculture subsidizing: Regional comparisons. Ekonomika Selskokhozyaystvennykh i Pererabatyvayushchikh Predpriyatiy, No. 8. pp. 2—9. (In Russian).
15. Anderson K., Rausser G., Swinnen J. (2014). Political economy of public policies: Insights from distortions to agricultural and food markets. Washington, DC: World Bank.
16. Bokusheva R., Čechura L. (2017). Evaluating dynamics, sources and drivers of productivity growth at the farm level. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 106.
17. Henning C. (2008). Determinants of agricultural protection from an international perspective: The role of political institutions. IFPRI Discussion Papers, No. 00805.
18. Mittelhammer R., Cardell N., Marsh T. (2013). The data-constrained general maximum entropy estimator of the GLM: Asymptotic theory and inference. Entropy, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 1756—1775.
19. Persson T., Taballini G. (2000). Political economics: Explaining economic policy. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
20. Rizov M., Pokrivcak J., Ciaian P. (2013). CAP subsidies and productivity of the EU farms. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 537—557.
21. Tyers R., Anderson K. (1992). Disarray in world food markets: A quantitative assessment. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Review
For citations:
Svetlov N.M., Yanbykh R.G., Loginova D.A. On the diversity of the effects of the state support for agriculture. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2019;(4):59-73. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2019-4-59-73
Views:
1564
Email this article 
