XIII Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2021

Introduction

Solving the problem of modernizing the Russian agro-industrial complex by the overwhelming majority of scientific and the expert community is seen in the acceleration of the implementation of research achievements in agricultural production, in other words, in its "innovative" development. Necessity improving the overall technological level of food production, combined with requirements of its ecological and organic purity is mediated not only by requests consumer market, but also meets the needs of sustainable development, formulated in a number of goal-setting documents of the Russian state [Korabelnikov, 2013; Shepitko, Korabelnikov, 2012]. This postulate is recognized by all without exception - researchers, public figures and the population of the country. However, with regard to conceptual views on the methodology for solving the above problem, the opinions of experts and scientists are very ambiguous. So, at a meeting of the Presidium of the Economic Council under the President of the Russian Federation, which took place on May 25, 2016, and at the subsequent St. Petersburg Economic Forum, two conceptual directions for further modernization of the Russian economy and, in particular, its agricultural sector, were identified. The first direction - moderately liberal, which is based on the economic primacy of consumerism in the context of globalization, and the second - paternalistic, control by the state. At the same time, representatives of both concepts agreed with the possibility, and in some cases the need for state intervention in socio-economic processes. The methodological approaches of adherents of one or another development concept also turned out to be different: from massive state funding of targeted programs for scientific and technological growth, expanding grant support innovations, the creation of state-owned innovative enterprises in the agricultural sector to complete refusal from state funding and attracting private (including foreign) investors, the introduction of venture investment, the organization of public-private partnerships for the implementation of high-tech projects, etc. Strategy for innovative development of the Russian agro-industrial complex.

The question of optimizing the channels for transferring scientific and technological innovations to real agricultural production remains open. In this regard, the conceptual the choice of priorities in the distribution of the level of innovative content between various organizational and economic forms of agro-industrial production is gaining importance. [Popova, Lata, 2015]. From our point of view, the efforts of large agricultural enterprises alone to bring domestic agriculture to a qualitatively new level scientific and technological development is not enough. The obvious trend of the last decade the growth of the share of small commodity producers in the volume of agricultural production. According to the results of statistical observation in 2015, small forms management (MFH) produced at least half of the Russian gross volume agricultural products. Despite the approximate parity of large and small agricultural enterprises in gross production, the volume of products produced using technological innovations in small farms is an order of magnitude lower than in agricultural organizations (AO) and their associations [Popova, Rygin, Sharakhova, 2016; Smotrova, 2015; Popova, Popov, Shaposhnikova, Shashkova, 2015]. It is obvious that in unlocking the potential of small forms of agricultural production lies the main reserve for accelerating the pace of innovation. development of the agrarian sector of the Russian economy.

Regional aspect

At the regional level, the prevalence of small forms of agricultural production is the most obviously in subjects with a developed agricultural component of the economy. This is primarily the South Russia, Bashkortostan, Astrakhan, Volgograd, Saratov, Belgorod regionsetc. In the Volgograd region, small forms of farming provide for the maintenance of more than 85% of the total number of cattle, including 88.7% of cows, 65.6% pigs, 84.8% sheep and goats. In total, they produce 64% of meat, more than 92% of milk, 63.1% of wool, 49.9% of eggs. The share of small businesses in the structure of crop production in the region is for various crops from 72% up to 96%. Volgograd Region is one of the Russian regions where economic farmers' positions are traditionally strong. Despite the relative scarcity farms, their share in the gross regional agricultural production is more than 10%, which is significantly higher than the all-Russian level.

At the same time, it should be noted that the use of the potential of small agricultural producers in the interests of the innovative development of the regional agro-industrial complex is in most cases, episodic and unsystematic [Kantserov, Gediev, 2012; Kerashev, Mokrushin, 2015]. The full disclosure of the innovative possibilities of the MFH both objective and subjective factors hinder. The former include the high cost of credit resources; underdeveloped rural logistics infrastructure; absence (or significant remoteness) of sales markets; obsolete or extremely worn out equipment; inadequate government support to IFHs; inconsistency of normative legal regulation, etc. [Shkolnikova, Kantserov, Izhaeva, 2010]. Subjective factors include peasants' disbelief in technical innovations, inertia of thinking, psychological dependence on stereotypes, etc.

Indicators of the innovation potential of IFCsTo get a realistic view of the innovative possibilities of smallagricultural producers, it is necessary to determine such indicators with the help of which it would be possible to characterize with a sufficient degree of objectivity the innovative potential of peasant farms, personal subsidiary plots, as well as their associations represented in the regional agrarian structure by agricultural consumer cooperatives [Mitrofanova, Kuzmina, 2011; Korobov, 2016].

In our opinion, such innovative indicators of MFH activities are a) the level of qualifications of members of peasant (farmer) households (hereinafter - K (F)X) and personal subsidiary plots (hereinafter referred to as private household plots), as well as their employees; b) degree computerization of the activities of peasant farms and their use of IT tools; c) provision of peasant farms with agricultural machinery (including service life less than 5 years); d) the use of modern growing technologies farm animals and plants; e) level of innovation susceptibility to technological innovations. To assess the quantitative and qualitative indicators of the susceptibility of small farms to agricultural innovations and to identify the innovative potential of small of agricultural formations, the authors of this study in 2014-2015 conducted a combined telephone and Internet survey of the heads of farm and personal subsidiary farms of the Volgograd region. Despite the lack of representativeness and limited opportunities for this kind of sociological research, the data obtained during the survey, may well be used to analyze indicators of innovative development of MFH. To universalize the results with previous scientific research, the survey was conducted taking into account the soil and climatic zoning of the Volgograd region. The soil and climatic division is traditional for the region. the territory of the region into five zones with their own specialization and concentration agricultural production: steppe zone of chernozem soils; dry steppe zone dark chestnut soils; Volga-Akhtubinskaya floodplain; dry steppe zone of chestnut soils; semi-desert zone of light chestnut soils. The survey showed that for most of the chapters of K (F) X, the main place of work is their own farm (94%). At the same time, for the overwhelming majority of citizens who run their own subsidiary plots, such an activity is secondary. Only 19% of the interviewed heads of private household plots reported that they had no other sources of income. 88% of the interviewed chapters of K (F) X have vocational education, of which 51% - higher, 37% - secondary. The professional differentiation of the interviewed heads of private household plots is as follows: more than 27% are workers and employees; 25% of the respondents are social workers; about 20% - by employees of junior service personnel; 16% are unemployed. 82% of the interviewed heads of private household plots have professional education. 39% of the respondents have higher and incomplete higher education; 32% - secondary vocational and 11% - primary and general vocational education.

The provision of farms with modern computer technology, according to survey, reaches 70%, but access to the Internet has a little more than half respondents - 52% of those surveyed. Use by subjects of small businesses information technologies for solving problems in the field of agro-industrial production, unfortunately, it remains at an extremely low level. Currently in the Vologda region only 20 of the existing 4.4 thousand farms use automated accounting system "1C-Enterprise". Users of online versions of legal reference systems such as ConsultantPlus and Garant are about 26% of those surveyed; about 7% of the respondents use Internet services of information and consulting services; 2% are registered users of the "Gosuslugi" portal. Farmers also underestimated the possibility of making payments and making purchases of agricultural machinery, planting material, young stock, breeding animals, etc. via the Internet. And the potential of the worldwide network for the sale of finished products, their branding and promotion on regional and federal markets today is practically unclaimed The survey showed the dependence of the degree of technical equipment of farms on their agricultural specialization. So, for example, in the steppe zone of chernozem soils, which has mainly plant growing specialization, the largest amount of equipment is concentrated. The surveyed respondents use 1945 tractors (6 units per one farm), 736 combines (2.5 units per farm), 925 trucks (3 units for one farm), 527 passenger cars (1.7 units per farm). Farms of the population of the dry steppe zone of dark chestnut soils use 141 tractors, 15 combines, 54 trucks and 180 cars, 120 motor-blocks, motor-cultivators with interchangeable implements. More than 86% of all types of equipment and transport are owned by the heads of private household plots. On average, one region of the analyzed zone accounts for 23.5 tractors, 2 combines, 9 trucks and 30 cars, 20 motor-blocks, motor-cultivators with interchangeable implements. The largest amount of equipment is concentrated in the Zhirnovsky region (178 units or 35%), the smallest - in Kletsky (45 units or 9%).

One of the central aspects of the study of the innovative potential of regional IFH has become the problem of the rational use of agricultural innovations. For this purpose, a block of questions was drawn up that were asked to farmers to determine not only the potential for the introduction of innovative technologies into their activities, but also aimed at identifying the agricultural innovations they already use: innovative methods of labor organization, the use of environmentally friendly, organic and waste-free technologies, modern methods of processing, storage and transportation of agricultural products, etc. As a result, it was found that, despite on an unfavorable external economic background, an unstable rate of the domestic currency and other negative factors, the farmers of the Volgograd region are introducing innovations practically in all branches of agro-industrial production: crop production, animal husbandry, vegetable growing, as well as all areas of agricultural activity: land reclamation, cultivation, storage and transportation of agricultural products, economics, management and organization of labor, etc.

Conclusion

The most important factor in the sustainable development of agriculture is its innovative component, which implies a deep renewal of the scientific and material-technical base of agricultural production, the introduction of innovative methods organization of labor and professional development of personnel, cultivation of new highly productive species of farm animals and plants, the use of ecologically

clean, organic and waste-free technologies for processing, transportation and storage agricultural products. Obviously, it will be extremely difficult to achieve the tasks set for the Russian agro-industrial complex without increasing the innovative activity of small businesses. This conclusion is dictated by needs the outstripping development of the domestic agro-industrial complex, showing a significant technological lag in a number of indicators. It should also be remembered that in the conditions of action restrictive measures imposed by the Russian Federation in response to the sanctions, innovative modernization of agriculture is becoming a key factor in ensuring food independence of the Russian Federation and maintaining the stability of the domestic market.

Evaluating the results of the study of the innovative potential of small agricultural formations, we note that, despite the relatively low representativeness caused by territorial restrictions and the specifics of the subject composition of respondents, the results of this study generally fit into the general scientific framework and are consistent with the conceptual conclusions and theoretical generalizations of agro-economic science in the field of regional stratification of the subjects of the agrarian structure. At the same time, there are also fundamentally new results, the analysis of which is important from the point of view of updating the scientific problems of innovative development small forms of management, depending on their natural and economic zoning. In particular, the analysis of indicators of innovative potential shows that the most The preferred organizational and economic form of innovative development of small agricultural producers are farms. About it indicates a greater number of competencies in the field of using modern technologies for the production, storage and processing of agricultural products, the production of environmentally friendly or organic products, compared to other types of MFHetc. The tendency of the dominance of K (F) X in the innovation sphere is most clearly manifested in those natural and economic zones where the most favorable climatic, soil, demographic, transport and logistics, research and production and social conditions.

Список литературы

Попова Л.В., Лата М.С., Митрофанова И.А. Инновационный потенциал малых форм хозяйствования в агропромышленном комплексе // Экономика: вчера, сегодня, завтра. 2016. № 8. С. 353-364.

Канцеров Р.А., Гедиев К.Т. Методы оценки потенциала малых предприятий // Дайджестфинансы. 2012. № 5. С. 36-41.

Керашев А.А., Мокрушин А.А. Потенциал корпоративной интеграции в развитии межотраслевого взаимодействия в АПК России // Вестник Адыгейского государственного университета. Серия 5: Экономика. 2015. № 2(160). С. 170-178.

Корабельников И.С. Инвестиции как базовая составляющая инновационного развития сельского хозяйства // Международная научно-практическая конференция Актуальные проблемы современной науки: в 4 ч. Уфа: РИЦ БашГУ, 2013. Ч. 2. С. 173-177.

Коробов С.А. Стратегические направления развития малого и среднего предпринимательства в Волгоградской области // Региональная экономика. Юг России. 2016. № 2(12). С. 71-78.

Мелихов П.А. Правовые аспекты распространения общедоступной информации в сети «Интернет» // Международная научно-практическая конференция, посвящённая 70-летию Победы в Великой Отечественной Войне 1941-1945 гг. Стратегическое развитие АПК и сельских территорий РФ в современных международных условиях. Волгоград: Нива, 2015. С. 60-64.

Мелихов П.А. Правовые основы формирования информационного общества в России // Международной научно-практической конференции, посвящённой 70-летию образования ВолГАУ Научные основы стратегии развития АПК и сельских территорий в условиях ВТО. Волгоград: Нива, 2014. С. 203-206.

Мелихов П.А., Лю Цзиньюй. Правовые проблемы реализации сельскохозяйственной продукции посредством сети Интернет // Сигитова Т.М. (ред.) Развитие современной науки: теоретические и прикладные аспекты. Пермь: ИП Т.М. Сигитов, 2016. С. 158-159.

Митрофанова И.В., Кузьмина Т.С. Модернизация управления агропромышленным производством // Экономика устойчивого развития. 2011. № 5. С. 65-73.

Попова Л.В., Лата М.С. Анализ управления инновационным риском при реализации аграрных новаций // Научное обозрение. Серия 1. Экономика и право. 2015. № 6. С. 57-65.

Попова Л.В., Попов Д.Н., Шапошникова Н.В., Шашкова Г.М. Управление финансовыми рисками на коммерческих предприятиях // Международная научно-практическая конференция Экономическая безопасность России и стратегии развития ее регионов в современных условиях. Волгоград, 2015. С. 165-168.

Попова Л.В., Рыгин С.В., Шарахова А.В. Инновационная направленность организационноэкономических преобразований агропродовольственного комплекса // Экономика и предпринимательство. 2016. № 1-1(66-1). С. 77-81.

Смотрова Е.Е. Анализ и перспективы развития аграрного сектора региона в условиях импортозамещения // Экономика и социум. 2015. № 3-2(16). С. 808-811.

Шепитько Р.С., Корабельников И.С. Инновационный потенциал сельского хозяйства: методологический аспект // Известия нижневолжского агроуниверситетского комплекса: наука и высшее профессиональное образование. 2012. № 3(27). Ч. 2. С. 228-232.

Школьникова Н.Н., Канцеров Р.А., Ижаева Р.М. Определение отраслевых «точек роста» региональной экономики на основе SWOT-анализа // Региональная экономика. ЮгРоссии. 2010. № 11. С. 330-341. 15. Wilson P., Harper N., Darling R. Explaining variation in farm and farm business performance in respect to farmer behavioural segmentation analysis: implications for land use policies // Land Use Policy. – 2013. – Т. 30. – № . 1. – С. 147-156.

http://www.publishing-vak.ru/file/archive-economy-2016-9/31-popova-lata-mitrofanova.pdf

Код для цитирования: Скопировать