Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Structural shifts in the modern Russian economy

• Introduction
• 1 Structural shifts and features of their manifestation
• 1.2 BasicsVnew indindicators of structural changes
• 2 Features of structural changes in modern Russia
• 2. 2 Regulating structural changes in modern Russia
• Conclusion
• Applications

Introduction

The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by the following aspects. Modern structural changes in the economies of industrialized countries are systemic in nature and are part of a global macroshift that predetermines the transition from industrial to post-industrial society. These shifts are characterized by a relative decrease in the share of traditional industries and structures (primarily agriculture, mining and manufacturing industries), as well as an increase in the share of the service sector, high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries that accumulate the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress. They are international in nature, reflecting global trends in the development of productive forces. More and more countries and regions are gradually being drawn into the orbit of scientific and technological progress, which leads to new forms of division of labor within the world economy.

At the present stage, the processes of structural changes in the economies of industrialized countries have received significant acceleration. If previously the transition from pre-industrial to industrial society took centuries, then the macro-shift we are experiencing today to a post-industrial (information) formation takes decades. A comparative analysis of changes in the economies of different countries of the world shows that, despite all the national specifics, in the long term these changes are unidirectional. After all, all countries, whether highly or underdeveloped, follow a single path of socio-historical progress, with certain key points of scientific and technical inventions and discoveries.

The globalization of the world economy requires the conjugation of the development trajectories of various civilizations, their voluntary unification, and joint evolution.

Comparison of the current state of the economic structure of Russia and industrialized countries, unfortunately, is not in favor of our country. A significant gap is obvious in the pace and direction of structural changes in the economic systems of Russia, on the one hand, and the advanced countries of the West, on the other. The share of advanced technological structures in the Russian economy has been steadily declining in recent years and is now approaching 10%, while the share of traditional, backward structures is growing and totals more than 50%.

The purpose of this work is to, based on the results of a theoretical and methodological study of the mechanism of structural dynamics of the economy, to identify the impact of structural changes on the speed and direction of economic development of the economy.

Research objectives:

- reveal the essence and concept of structural changes in the economy;

- consider the main indicators of structural changes;

- explore the causes of structural changes in modern Russia;

- consider the regulation of structural changes in modern Russia.

The object of research is the Russian economy.

The subject of the study is structural changes in the modern economy.

The information and empirical base of the study consists of statistical data from the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation and the Rostov Regional Committee of State Statistics. Ministry of Economy of the Russian Federation, expert assessments of independent researchers, as well as materials published in domestic and foreign scientific literature and periodicals. The work analyzes factual data contained in monographs, articles by domestic and foreign economists, periodicals, and monographic surveys. The theoretical basis was the works of such authors as O.S. Sukharev, S.A. Burdeychik, N. Burkova, N. Volovik, S. Zhavoronkov and others.

1 Structural shifts and features of their manifestation

1.1 The essence and concept of structural changes

The economy of any country as an object of research is a complex system, that is, a collection of qualitatively defined elements or subsystems between which there is a natural connection. The leading of these subsystems is production. The system has specific characteristics. The main features of the economy are its integrity, hierarchical structure, exogenous nature and continuity of development.

The relationship, reflecting the relationships and interdependencies between individual parts of the economy in the process of its development, is characterized by the concept of the structure of the economy.

The structure of the economy is of great importance for the balanced development of the national economy, its effective and stable growth. World experience indicates that the economic growth of Western European countries is largely explained by deep structural changes that ensured the introduction of scientific and technological progress, savings, rational use of resources and other positive changes. The rapid growth of production in most countries of Southeast Asia occurred primarily due to the accelerated development on a modern scientific and technical basis of industries such as electronics and mechanical engineering, that is, due to various structural changes.

The structure of the economy is a multifaceted concept that reflects the relationship between various elements of the economic system. Depending on the nature of the elements and content of economic phenomena, the connections between which are displayed in proportions, at the macroeconomic level the following main types of structural relationships are distinguished: reproductive, social, sectoral, regional, foreign economic Ovsienko Yu.V. Institutional shifts in Russia, their social and economic consequences // Economics and mathematical methods. 2008. - P. 25

.

In the structural characteristics of the economy, a special role belongs to the proportions of reconstruction. These proportions reflect the possibilities for economic growth of industrial production and its efficiency. Reproductive proportions characterize the relationship between the production of means of production and the production of consumer goods, between the replacement of used means of production and newly created value, between consumption and accumulation, between production sectors and infrastructure.

The optimal formation of the proportions of reconstruction is an important problem of economic development, which is directly related to its cyclical nature. For a long time in the USSR, the opinion was held that the precondition for expanded reproduction was the predominant growth of the first division. The implementation of this principle led to the fact that the share of production of means of production in the Ukrainian economy reached its maximum level in 1986, but adequate growth of the social product did not occur; on the contrary, there was an overaccumulation of means of production.

In fact, structural changes in the relations between divisions I and II of the economy, as well as between the components of these divisions, occur under the influence of certain historical conditions of the country's development and many other factors. The experience of economic development of the industrial countries of Western Europe, the USA and Southeast Asia indicates that optimal rates of economic development can be achieved through different ratios of individual elements of the social product. This is explained by the interaction of factors related to the achievements of scientific and technological progress, qualitative growth of social needs, labor productivity, limitations of natural resources, environmental problems, international division of labor, specialization of production and other factors.

The main cost proportions that characterize the development of the economy at all stages of the reproduction process include the relationship: between the replacement of used means of production (replacement fund) and newly created value (net production), between accumulation (accumulation fund) and consumption (consumption fund).

The first proportion (between the replacement of used means of production and newly created value) characterizes the ratio of the cost of worn-out means of labor (depreciation) and the cost of objects of labor consumed in production (intermediate product), which together constitute the replacement fund, and the value of newly created value (net production) in a year. The second proportion (between accumulation and consumption) expresses the ratio of the parts of net production that are directed to production accumulation and the creation of reserve funds (in total they constitute the accumulation fund) and the value of material goods used for personal consumption by workers and production consumption by enterprises (in total they constitute consumption fund).

1.2 Main indicators of structural changes

The problem of studying economic dynamics, economic phenomena in their development and interrelation has always attracted the attention of economists. Particularly relevant is the search for new methodological and theoretical approaches, new tools for studying dynamic economic phenomena and processes. Any structural changes can be measured by considering the dynamics of changes in the specific weight and share of the corresponding structural element or indicator over time. At the same time, any change in the economic system can be measured and described using structural changes.

Indicators used in economic research, such as national income, gross national product, accumulation and consumption fund, investment and others, are essentially structural indicators that characterize the economic system, reflecting at the macro level not only narrow technological aspects of reproduction, but also efficiency socio-economic mechanism, the entire system of industrial relations.

Structural changes can be characterized by various qualitative and quantitative indicators, the first of which we would like to introduce the concept of their mass. Whatever economic characteristics the changes in the structure are expressed in: the number of workers, the volume of production or capital, they are always associated with certain economic interests and needs of individual subjects or their groups. Based on this, the mass of a structural shift (M), in our opinion, is expressed by the number of economic entities, bearers of certain economic interests that make up this or that structural shift. At the same time, economic interests are most easily measured in monetary terms. For example, behind shifts in the sectoral structure of GNP production are the interests of commodity producers in each industry: enterprise managers, labor collectives, etc.

The mass of a structural shift can be measured in both absolute and relative quantities (percentages or shares). Measuring the mass of shifts in relative terms is preferable, since it allows one to compare various, sometimes not directly related, shifts in the economic structure. Thus, the mass of a structural shift is the number of economic entities with given interests representing a certain shift, expressed in their relative share in the economic structure in absolute or value terms over a given period of time.

The masses of structural changes are constantly changing as the economic structure develops. Therefore, the next indicator reflecting the dynamics of the economic structure is the index of structural changes, showing the change in the mass of structural changes over a certain period of time, expressed in shares or percentages. In its most general form, it is calculated using the following formula. (1)

I = -----------,

where I is the structural shift index;

Thus, to measure economic dynamics using the index of structural changes, it is necessary to Ovsienko Yu.V. Institutional shifts in Russia, their social and economic consequences // Economics and mathematical methods. 2008. - P. 34

1) select quantitative indicators characterizing this or that structural shift;

2) trace their dynamics over time, i.e. determine the basic and final values ​​of the mass of structural shifts;

3) calculate several indices of structural changes. It must be remembered that the calculation must be made in comparable (or reduced to the basic) indicators (prices, exchange rates, etc.) and only on compatible time periods;

4) build comparable series of indices for different periods of time, or in different economic systems;

5) display the resulting digital series on charts and graphs;

6) conduct an appropriate theoretical analysis (build trends, trace dependencies, correlation, etc.).

Using the proposed method, it is also possible to conduct a comparative analysis of the dynamics of several economic indicators, both interrelated and not directly related to each other, for example: changes in the gross national product and living standards of the population, shifts in the ownership structure and income structure, etc.

At the same time, it becomes possible to characterize many economic phenomena in terms of their dynamic intensity, time lags, and correlation of changes in the structure. All of the above fully applies to both macro and microeconomic processes, to changes occurring at the level of an economic unit: firms, enterprises and their structures, which characterizes the great possibilities and scope of application of the proposed method.

The next indicator directly related to the index of structural changes in the economy is their speed, reflecting the change in the mass of structural changes per unit of time. It is calculated as the ratio of the change in the mass of a structural shift to the time period of its occurrence and shows the change in the structural indicator, for example, over a year.

V = -----------, (2)

where V is the rate of structural shift;

M is the mass of the structural shift in the period under study;

M0 is the mass of the structural shift in the base period.

T is the time of occurrence of a structural shift.

The rate of structural changes can be used to study the dynamics of structural changes over time, as well as to assess the intensity of structural changes, which will be discussed below.

The rate of structural changes, like mass, can be measured both in relative indicators (shares, weights, indices) and in absolute values ​​(for example, in rubles), although this calculation method is correct to use for comparing indicators of the same order. Measuring the rate of shifts in relative values, in addition, makes it possible to compare various structural shifts, establish dichotomy, asynchrony of shifts, study time lags, inertia, etc.

Closely related to the concepts of mass and speed of structural changes in the economy is the indicator of their intensity (E), which represents the interdependence of the totality of interests of economic entities and the rate of their change over time. In general, it is calculated using the formula Burdeichik S.A. The influence of institutional changes on structural changes in the economy//f. The Economist, 2009, No. 5. :

E = M x V, (3)

V is the rate of structural shift.

The intensity of structural changes represents their dynamic characteristic, in contrast to potential, which is inherently static. The concept of economic potential is interpreted quite broadly. On the one hand, this is the ability of economic entities to carry out certain actions, on the other hand, it is the totality of material and intangible resources necessary for such actions. In relation to structural changes, potential (P) can be characterized as a certain number (mass) of economic entities (M) - bearers of certain economic interests, capable of active actions to implement them, and the resources they have in value terms. On the other hand, the potential for structural changes as an opportunity represents the number of subjects - bearers of other (opposite) economic interests, who are capable, as a result of the active actions of the former, to perceive the economic interests they bring (1-M).

In addition to the mass as a certain number of subjects - carriers of economic interests, the potential for structural changes, apparently, should include their strength (F). In this case, the strength of the structural shift is a subjective (psychological) indicator that reflects the desire and ability of the individual to realize his own economic interest and satisfy a certain need. In other words, these are the maximum resources of an economic entity that can be used, if necessary, to realize its economic interests and meet its needs. This indicator fluctuates between the minimum necessary (providing a subsistence level) and the total resources of a certain person or group of people.

The strength of a shift in the structure of the economy is measured both by the amount of money, property and other material goods, the value of intellectual property objects possessed by the subjects of a particular shift, and by the spiritual and physical state of individuals. Thus, in addition to the material objective component (property, money, goods, physical health), the strength of the structural shift includes the intangible subjective component of the subjects of the shift (energy, intelligence, ambitions).

The potential for structural shift represents the maximum resources of a certain set of economic entities that can be used to realize their economic interests and meet their needs, and is expressed by the formula Burdeychik S.A. The influence of institutional changes on structural changes in the economy//f. The Economist, 2009, No. 5. :

where M is the mass of the structural shear;

F - structural shear force

At the elementary level of an individual's interests and needs, the potential for structural changes can be characterized as an active or passive life position, willingness to take risks, freedom or lack of choice. It should be noted that the material and subjective components of the potential for structural changes intensify when the shift affects the vital interests of the subject. An individual is ready to sacrifice a lot if it comes to his survival. In this case, the subject’s marginal resources increase to the maximum possible value.

Based on our definition of potential, we can analyze all possible future structural shifts in a given economic aggregate, as well as model future contradictions, suggest forms and outline ways to resolve them.

As it develops, a structural shift gradually consumes its initial potential. Its energy (mass) moves from a static state of potential to a dynamic state of intensity (P -> E), and the force of structural shift - into its speed and inertia (F -> V). Thus, the higher the potential for structural changes in the economy, the greater will be its intensity in the future; the higher the force of the shift, the greater will be its speed and inertia. Stable characteristics of structural changes in the economy seem to flow into dynamic ones, and vice versa.

The reverse process is the transition of the dynamic stage of structural shift to a stable one and the emergence of the potential for new shifts in the structure of the economy. The easiest way to explain this process is by the example of the interaction of a shift and its opposite anti-shift. Realizing its potential, a structural shift in the economy through intensive development enhances the potential of the anti-shift opposing it, i.e. The shear potential within a relatively closed system flows into the anti-shear potential, and vice versa (P shear -> P anti-shear -> P shear, etc.). This lays the foundation for the structural equilibrium of the economy.

Until now, we have considered mainly quantitative indicators of structural changes. The next characteristic of structural changes is their quality (K) - an indicator reflecting the direction of socio-economic progress. Mathematically, quality is equal to the index of structural shifts in a certain direction (progressive or regressive) in a given set of shifts in the economic structure Burdeychik S.A. The influence of institutional changes on structural changes in the economy//f. The Economist, 2009, No. 5. :

where K is the quality of structural changes;

I - index of structural changes in a certain direction;

N - direction of structural shifts.

A summary table of indicators of structural changes is presented in Appendix 1.

In addition, Russia has accumulated a huge negative potential over many years, giving rise to regressive structural changes. The negative potential is expressed: at the nanolevel - in the population’s disbelief in change, mass impoverishment and criminalization of consciousness; at the micro level - in the technological degradation of enterprises, aging equipment, lack of working capital, non-payments, etc.; at the meso level - in the deterioration of the sectoral and regional economic structure, high monopolization; at the macro level - in the deterioration of macro-proportions (between divisions I and II, savings and consumption funds, industries and regions), the structure of exports and imports, etc. The situation in Russia continues to deteriorate due to the high inertia of the old structure. The potential for progressive changes in the economic structure, as well as their mass, is extremely low to withstand the huge mass of negative changes. But even in such a situation, as we will show below, it is possible to effectively implement progressive structural changes.

In the modern Russian economy, the uncertainty of the direction of structural changes is increasing, and the number of ways for further development of the economic structure is increasing. In eras of fundamental changes, there is no once and for all defined path of structural transformation; there is a whole complex of objective and subjective factors at work, each of which can turn out to be decisive and turn the development in its favor. Moreover, the progressive tendency does not always win; braking and even moving backward are possible.

Thus, any structural change, like any economic phenomenon, goes through several stages in its development: origin, development and attenuation. Now we can describe these stages in the terms and indicators we proposed (see Table 1). As these stages progress, the shift can be characterized as new, progressive (at the inception stage), traditional (at the development stage) and, finally, old, regressive (at the attenuation stage).

Table 1

Life cycle of structural shift in the economy Sukharev O.S. Institutional theory and economic policy: Towards a new theory of the transmission mechanism in macroeconomics. Book I: Institutional theory. Methodological sketch / RAS, Institute of Economics. - M.: Economics, 2007. - P. 45.

The characteristics of the structural shift given in the table should be considered as average. In reality, significant deviations are possible. Thus, in the economy there may be initially regressive structural shifts, or those that have become such as a result of contradictory interaction with other shifts.

Being basic among similar indicators, the category of the structural change multiplier forms the basic concepts and patterns of the multiplication mechanism for both relatively closed and open economic systems. In the latter, each element of the economic structure is interconnected with many other elements. Changing its position in the structure relative to other elements changes the entire structure as a whole. The influence of this element on others is carried out according to one of the scenarios for resolving contradictions described in the second paragraph of the first chapter (see Diagram 6): assimilation, addition and displacement. In turn, the boundary elements, reacting to such a shift in an adequate way, involve in this movement an increasing number of neighboring ones, the interactions between which, like circles on water, diverge in all directions as if from a thrown stone. This mechanism resembles a chain reaction. Its main difference from physical reactions is that the elements of the economic structure involved in the structural shift, being independent economic entities, do not remain simple transmission links. Each of them takes the initiative, introduces its own impulses into the overall development, strengthens or weakens, alters and modifies the structural shift.

Summarizing the above, we will summarize in one table the possible options for the interaction of structural shifts in the economy in similar or opposite directions and describe them in the indicators we propose.

table 2

Indicators of the resulting structural shift Sukharev O.S. Institutional theory and economic policy: Towards a new theory of the transmission mechanism in macroeconomics. Book I: Institutional theory. Methodological sketch / RAS, Institute of Economics. - M.: Economics, 2007. - P. 45.

Index	Directions coincide	Directions are opposite
	Increases M(1)+M(2)	Decreasing
Speed ​​(V)	Increases	Decreasing
Direction (N)	Saved
Index	Directions coincide	Directions are opposite
Quality (K)	Intensifies	Changes towards shear with greater mass
	Increases	Decreasing

Table 2 shows that when the direction of structural shifts in the economy coincides, the mass, speed, and strength of the resulting shift increases, the direction is maintained, and the quality increases. The picture is different in the case when the initial shifts are opposite: the mass, speed and strength of the resulting shift decreases, and the direction and quality change towards these characteristics of the initial shift with greater mass.

Chapter summary:

By the mechanism of structural changes in general we understand the contradictory interaction of elements of the economic structure, with the help of which structural changes are carried out. In relation to the structure of the economy, the mechanism of structural shifts can be defined as a mechanism for coordinating shifts in the structure of production, distribution, exchange and consumption with shifts in the structure of needs.

Like any economic mechanism, the mechanism of structural changes consists of subjects, objects and their interaction. The subjects of structural changes are economic entities at various levels of the economy: individuals, households, enterprises, industries and regions, states and national economies within the framework of world economic relations. The objects of structural changes are various elements of the economic system, including the already mentioned business entities, making up certain economic proportions that have qualitative and quantitative certainty at the macro, meso, micro and nano levels. These can be individual categories of the population with different income levels, elements of supply and demand, production units ranked by ownership, volume of production, industry characteristics, etc.

The task of optimizing the mechanism of structural changes in the economy at the present stage of development cannot be successfully solved without the use of advanced logistics technologies and approaches to this problem. As an applied science, logistics develops new, effective methods for managing material, financial and information flows in the spheres of production and circulation. In domestic and foreign literature one can find a broader interpretation of the concept of logistics, in which the object of management is not limited to the listed material and intangible flows. Today, logistics includes the management of human, energy, transport, financial, information and other flows that take place in economic systems. The term logistics is also used in situations involving clear planning of an agreed sequence of actions.

2. Features of structural changes in modern Russia

2.1 Causes of structural changes

The modern regional economy is an open, nonlinear, dynamic, self-developing system with its inherent targeted and spontaneous, local and system-wide changes. Regional structural shifts represent irreversible changes in the proportions and boundaries of sectors, spheres, segments, industries, territorial production complexes (clusters), districts and zones of the regional economic system. The source of structural changes in the regional economy is the social territorial division of labor, which evolutionarily changes the composition and interconnections of the elements of the economic space of the region. The nature of structural changes is associated with the objective interconnectedness, balance and proportionality of all factors of regional reproduction to ensure the expanded and intensive nature of this process.

The immediate causes of structural changes are contradictions in the mechanism of regional reproduction, signaling the discrepancy between the regional economy and the external environment in terms of competitiveness, sustainability and security. Regional structural changes originate in property relations, intensify in the labor process, reach their apogee in regional production, are reflected in the methods and instruments of state regulation, and are embodied in the diverse economic relations of mesoeconomics subjects.

The basis of structural transformations of mesoeconomics is innovative causality. At the same time, “the depth and effectiveness of transformations in the economy are determined by shifts in its structure, changes in the proportions of the distribution of labor, investments, gross output and GDP, exports and imports between various industries, reproductive sectors, and regions. The nature and changes in the structure of the economy ultimately determine its focus, level of competitiveness and efficiency” Sukharev O.S. Institutional theory and economic policy: Towards a new theory of the transmission mechanism in macroeconomics. Book II: Economic Policy. Problems of theoretical description and practical implementation / RAS, Institute of Economics. - M.: Economics, 2007. - P. 381. .

Structural changes, as a systemic economic process, to one degree or another cover all aspects of the structure of the regional economic system, including reproduction, sectoral, production, innovation, spatial, information, technological, personnel, raw materials, foreign trade (export-import) and other subsystems of the economic structures of the region.

In the regional economy, four main types of structural shifts can be distinguished Kuznets S. Modern economic growth: research results and reflections: Nobel lecture //Nobel laureates in economics: a view from Russia. - St. Petersburg: Humanistics, 2003. - P. 104. :

· technological structural changes that determine the emergence of fundamentally new classes of technical means that become the basis of a new regional economic structure;

· institutional structural changes, the objects of which are local systems of economic institutions and institutions, the sectoral and administrative structure of the region;

· reproductive structural shifts associated with changes in the proportions of sectors, spheres and segments of the regional economy: public and private sectors, spheres of industrial and agricultural production, production and circulation;

· spatial structural shifts that determine the definition and displacement of the boundaries of territorial production complexes (clusters), regions and economic zones.

Thus, the evolution of the economic structure of the region can be represented as a multi-level system of structural shifts, detailed down to changes in the structure of jobs at an individual enterprise. Then the main task of state regulation of structural changes at the regional level is to ensure their balance in institutional, technological, reproductive and spatial aspects.

Changes in the regional economic structure give rise to infrastructural shifts associated with the “catch-up development” of economic entities and institutions that create and maintain the necessary conditions for the functioning of the “structure-forming” elements of the mesoeconomics. With effective public management, infrastructural changes can also be proactive in nature, manifesting themselves, for example, in the forms of creating port zones and transport terminals, business incubators and innovation “platforms”, etc. Infrastructure shifts can also play an important role in the development of the regional investment climate Kuznets S. Modern economic growth: research results and reflections: Nobel lecture //Nobel laureates in economics: a view from Russia. - St. Petersburg: Humanistics, 2003. - P. 104. .

Structural imbalances in the modern Russian economy significantly reduce the efficiency of the economic mechanism, aggravate social contradictions, and slow down the path of sustainable innovative development. The tasks of qualitative strategic transformations of the economic mechanism of modern Russia cannot be solved without implementing a strategy of structural changes on a national scale, taking into account regional specifics. Therefore, further in-depth development of the theoretical and methodological foundations for the formation of the organizational and economic mechanism of structural changes at the mesoregional level is necessary.

2.2 Regulation of structural changes in modern Russia

Regulation of structural changes is carried out using the so-called structural policy.

In the broad sense of the word, the structural policy of the state is the justification of the goals and nature of structural transformations, the definition of a set of measures to support the development of those elements of the economic system that ensure economic growth and solve pressing problems of the present. The conceptual load of the concept of structural policy is so broad that it can be understood as both a general strategy for maximizing economic growth and a set of government measures aimed at implementing priority programs and projects.

In practice, there are two types of structural policies: passive and active. Ultimately, they differ in the degree of government intervention in structural changes.

Passive structural policy is that the state creates a legal basis for the free flow of capital and labor from one industry to another, but does not directly interfere with investment processes in individual industries. The structure changes as a result of changes in profit rates. If in a certain industry demand exceeds supply, then in this industry the rate of profit rises against other industries. Capital from other industries is withdrawn by the owners and invested in industries with higher rates of profit. The production of goods in this industry is increasing and their supply is gradually beginning to exceed demand. At the same time, the rate of profit in this industry first decreases to the average value, and then becomes less than the average. Owners of capital begin to withdraw it from this industry and invest it in another, which provides a rate of profit no less than the average. Consequently, the law of supply and demand, along with other objective laws of a market economy, provides the structure of the economy that is most suitable to the requirements of the market, creates a competitive environment, and increases the efficiency of social production.

Table 3

Calculation table for generalizing structural changes in the elements of final use of the Russian Federation GVA for 2007-2008 Burdeychik S.A. The influence of institutional changes on structural changes in the economy//f. The Economist, 2009, No. 5.

	Index
	KP DH - purchase of goods
	KP DH - purchase of services
	KP DH - receipts in kind
	KP GU collective
	GFCI (including NPV)
	ISMOS + Stat. discrepancy

As a result of calculations for 2006-2009, we obtain a system of chain generalizing indicators of structural changes:

Table 4

Generalizing indicators of structural changes in the used GVA for 2006-2009 (chain) Burdeychik S.A. The influence of institutional changes on structural changes in the economy//f. The Economist, 2009, No. 5.

The calculation results can be checked for correctness using the relationship developed by V.M. Ryabtsev: when the number of observations is more than two, always

I Ryabtseva< K Гатева < I Салаи

The calculation of the Szalai index has a distinctive feature that can be attributed to disadvantages - its value changes greatly with changes in the elements into which the population is divided.

The most preferable from the point of view of economic interpretation is the V.M. index. Ryabtsev, which has a scale of values ​​and does not overestimate structural changes, like the Szalai index.

Calculations of the main indices of structural changes are presented in the Appendix.

Appendix 2 presents a graph of the structural shift index for the share of product by economic sector in GDP and a graph of the mass of structural shift in the share of product by economic sector in GDP.

When using the moving base method, significant fluctuations in the structural break index can be seen. For example, in 1999, the index growth reached 3.5. After this, there was a sharp decline to 0.20. The next increase in the index was observed in 2004 and 2008.

In the mass of structural shifts, the extractive sector has the greatest weight.

The index of structural shift in industrial employment and the effectiveness of structural shift in the share of assets of organizations in economic sectors are presented in Appendix 3.

The moving base method revealed an increase in the index in 2005, then over the course of two years there was a sharp decline in the index from 0.18 to 0.07. There has been slow growth since 2007.

Having analyzed the efficiency of the structural shift, we see that for agriculture this efficiency, although it tends to grow, continues to remain negative.

The moving base method, used by Eurostat to annually calculate the results of comparisons for 15 EU countries, allows for updating the results of comparisons (PPPV, volume index, etc.) for each level of aggregation, up to the level of GDP. The information basis of this method is the complete matrix of group parities for the primary groups obtained during the last basic comparison. This matrix is ​​updated by continuously recording prices in each country, by calculating temporary national price indices, and by obtaining annual estimates of detailed GDP expenditures. Therefore, along with the advantages of this method, which allows one to obtain annual comparisons for each level of aggregation, its main disadvantage is its high labor intensity and the need to attract significant financial resources from national statistical services.

The direction of change in the values ​​of the Gatev coefficient is similar for the period of time under study and shows the same economic content.

Its disadvantages include the lack of a scale of values ​​and economic interpretation of the expression in the denominator.

The Szalai index is characterized by sharp changes in values ​​when moving to a different number of selected elements and therefore can only be used as a complement to analysis using other general indicators.

As a result, we found out that all indicators of structural changes for the period under study show approximately the same value of structural changes occurring in the area of ​​the used GVA. While differing only quantitatively, they reflect the same dynamics of the end-use process.

Chapter summary:

1. Structural changes occurred spontaneously, uncontrollably, and an important circumstance is that these changes occurred to the detriment of the structure of industrial production and in favor of strengthening positions in the economy of the financial sector.

2. The aggregate index of structural shift by economic sector in GDP by product clearly reflects the absence of tangible shifts in the intersectoral structure for the period 2006-2009.

3. The financial and raw materials sectors demonstrate a balanced financial result with a large gap from the “real” sectors of the economy. The financial and mining sectors demonstrate both the greatest efficiency and speed of structural dynamics in GDP, clearly occupying a leading position.

Conclusion

Summarizing the results of the study, it is necessary to draw the following conclusions.

A structural shift is understood as any significant change in the internal structure of a system, the relationships between its elements, the laws of these relationships, leading to a change in the basic (integral) system qualities.

Thus, structural changes in the economy manifest themselves in the form of changes in the position of elements, shares, proportions and quantitative characteristics of the economic system. The content of structural shifts is a change in interstructural and intersystem connections, as well as the main characteristics (system qualities) of the economic system. The basis of any shift in the economic structure is a shift from the system of interests and needs of an economic entity or their groups (state, corporations, enterprise or individual), and the shifts themselves appear in the form of macro, meso, micro and nanoshifts, respectively.

1) The elementary cell of any structural shift in the economy is a nanoshift, i.e. a shift in the economic interests and needs of the individual. The elementary contradiction of structural changes is the contradiction in the economic interests and needs of the individual.

2) Any structural shift is not reducible to a simple sum of its component shifts in the economic structure of a lower order, just as any global macro shift is not equal to the arithmetic sum of its local components. Like any whole, it is greater than the sum of its parts and has a new integral quality inherent in any complex economic system.

3) Shifts in the structure of interests and needs in the long term are a kind of criterion that determines the reversibility or irreversibility of structural changes in the economy. The complex and multifaceted structure of needs is decisive in the structure-forming chain: production - distribution - exchange - consumption.

It can be assumed that in the long term there is an objective economic law of the irreversibility of structural changes. This law is closely related to the law of the steady growth of social needs and expresses significant and necessary, stable and recurring relationships between shifts in the structure of constantly growing social needs and changes in the structure of the economy.

Developing economic interests and the social needs that express them entail structural changes, but cannot be considered as their sufficient condition. The qualitative and quantitative scale of social needs is strictly determined by the method of production and the level of development of science and technology. Another condition for structural change is the resources available and the ability to use them. Limited resources and the increasing difficulty of finding them also force structural changes.

4) Any shift in the economic structure gives rise to a corresponding anti-shift, and the contradiction between them is the main contradiction of structural changes.

5) There are three main forms of resolving the contradictions of structural changes. Firstly, this is assimilation - the absorption of one structural shift by another. The second form of resolving the contradictions of structural shifts is addition, i.e., expansion of the boundaries of the economic structure due to the involvement of indifferent boundary elements by the active part of the shift, or the mutual expansion of the contradictory parts of the structural shift. The third form is the displacement of opposing structural elements. In this case, there is a narrowing of the boundaries of the economic structure, when the increase in the living space of some elements directly leads to a narrowing of it for others and we are talking about their survival. In this case, completely new interests and needs may be born, and the degeneration of conflicting elements of a structural shift may also occur.

6) The mechanism of structural changes is understood as the contradictory interaction of elements of the economic structure, with the help of which structural changes are carried out. In relation to the structure of the economy, the mechanism of structural shifts can be defined as a mechanism for coordinating shifts in the structure of production, distribution, exchange and consumption with shifts in the structure of needs.

Like any economic mechanism, the mechanism of structural changes consists of subjects, objects and their interaction. The subjects of structural changes are any economic entities, from the individual to the state; the objects, along with the already named business entities, their interests and needs, are various economic proportions, qualitative and quantitative characteristics and indicators (for example, standard of living, GNP, etc.) at the macro, meso, micro and nano levels. The mechanism of structural changes covers the basic elements of productive forces and production relations.

The main contradiction in the mechanism of structural changes, in our opinion, is the contradiction between the structure of production (distribution, exchange and consumption) and the structure of social and personal interests and needs.

In the structural changes that are currently taking place in the Russian economy, it is necessary to note the deepening deformation of the reproductive structure, the excessive swelling of the fuel and raw materials sector (primary and intermediate products) to the detriment of the consumer and innovation-investment sectors. The economy turned out to be unable to satisfy the population's needs for food, industrial goods and services and ensure not only expanded, but also simple reproduction and renewal of fixed capital.

Disproportions in the industry structure have increased, the fuel and energy complex, complexes of construction materials and market infrastructure have hypertrophied. At the same time, there is a noticeable drop in the share of agricultural products, production of industrial goods and services, mechanical engineering and construction.

The process of changes in the cost structure of reproduction continues as a result of greatly accelerated redistribution processes, spurred by inflation and uneven price races. The shares of wages and depreciation decreased and the share of profits and taxes unnaturally (in the context of a decline in production and a drop in its efficiency) increased.

Liberalization of foreign trade made it possible, through imports, to provide the economy as a whole and the population with necessary goods and overcome the commodity deficit inherited from the planned economy, limit the arbitrariness of monopoly producers and significantly expand the sale of products in foreign markets for national producers.

The Russian economy is still quite disproportionate and unstable. Therefore, it needs all possible means of foreign trade regulation, including protective (protectionist) measures. But it would be wrong to immediately apply the tools of a strict protectionist policy, because this is fraught with a deterioration in relations with countries that are consumers of Russian export products and their creditors, an increase in domestic prices and quite likely budget losses, and is poorly consistent with the course towards the formation of an open market economy and integration Russia into the world economic system.

In the specific conditions of modern Russia, the “opening” of the national economy should be gradual, based on a well-thought-out structural policy, with a reasonable combination of liberalization and protectionism measures.

List of used literature

1. Innovative economy of Russia: Theoretical and methodological foundations and strategic priorities / Novitsky N.A. - M.: LIBROKOM, 2009. - 328 p.

2. Kuvaldin V.B. Global world: economics, politics, international relations: textbook. manual / Kuvaldin V.B. - M.: Master, 2009. - 207 p.

3. Clark J.B. Distribution of wealth. - M.: Helios ARV, 2008. - P.38-50, 330-365.

4. Kondratyev N.D. Basic problems of economic statics and dynamics: Preliminary sketch. - M.: Nauka, 2008. - P. 298.

5. Kuznets S. Modern economic growth: research results and reflections: Nobel lecture //Nobel laureates in economics: a view from Russia. - St. Petersburg: Humanistics, 2003. - P. 104.

6. National Economy of Russia: Textbook - 3rd ed., revised. and additional /Kudrov V.M. - M.: Delo ANKh, 2008. - 544 p.

7. Ovsienko Yu.V. Institutional shifts in Russia, their social and economic consequences // Economics and mathematical methods. 2008 The Future of Russia. Challenges and projects: Economics. Technique. Innovations - /Malinetsky G.G. - M.: LIBROKOM, 2009. - 344 p.

8. Regional economics of Russia: Textbook (neck) /Kistanov V.V., Kopylov N.V. - M.: FiS, 2009. - 584 p.

9. Sukharev O.S. Institutional theory and economic policy: Towards a new theory of the transmission mechanism in macroeconomics. Book I: Institutional theory. Methodological sketch / RAS, Institute of Economics. - M.: Economics, 2007. - P. 45.

10. Sukharev O.S. Institutional theory and economic policy: Towards a new theory of the transmission mechanism in macroeconomics. Book II: Economic Policy. Problems of theoretical description and practical implementation / RAS, Institute of Economics. - M.: Economics, 2007. - P. 381.

Similar documents

Analysis of the dynamics of structural changes in the regional economy. Sectoral structure of GRP of the economy of the Sughd region from 2005 to 2015. Formula for calculating the intensity, mass and rate of structural shift. Chain quadratic coefficient of structural shifts.

article, added 12/07/2015


course work, added 10/21/2011


The essence, types and models of economic growth, factors of its acceleration, trends and prospects. Its connection with the production function. Concept and theoretical and methodological approaches to determining structural changes in the economy, their classification and functions.

course work, added 03/09/2011


The problem of studying economic dynamics, economic phenomena in their development and interrelation. Research of economic dynamics based on the application of the theory of structural changes. Comparative analysis of the dynamics of several economic indicators.

abstract, added 12/02/2010


Types, factors and indicators of economic growth. Models of economic growth. Economic growth and structure of social production in the Russian Federation of the 21st century: problems and prospects. Trends and features of structural changes in Russia.

course work, added 12/05/2007


The essence and problems of indicative planning as a method of state regulation of the national economy. Selective policy as a mechanism for implementing structural changes in the national economy. Advantages of integration of CIS member countries.

abstract, added 06/27/2011


General characteristics of structural crises, concept and essence, experience in their regulation. Problems of Russia's transition from a planned to a market economy. Structural crisis in Russia at the stage of transition to a market economy. Features of the Russian economy at the beginning of the 21st century.

course work, added 05/04/2011


The essence of structural restructuring of the economy. Main indicators of structural changes. Transformational changes in the economies of European countries (the experience of Slovakia, Romania, the Czech Republic, Hungary). Structural transformation of the national economy of the Republic of Belarus.

course work, added 07/24/2014


Concept, classification, application and definition of indices. Characteristics of individual, general, aggregate, weighted average indices. Features of indicators of the dynamics of average values, variable, constant compositions and structural changes, deflators.

abstract, added 12/19/2010


Formation of an optimal structure of the economic complex for the most efficient use of resources and ensuring progressive structural changes as the goal of the state structural policy of Russia. The impact of globalization on the economies of countries.

The article examines shifts in sectoral structures of employment, fixed production assets and national income, their impact on the dynamics of social labor productivity; shifts in the structure of various groups of enterprises and their impact on the growth of labor productivity in industry are assessed. The features of the economic crisis of 1975–1985 are considered. and analyzes the functioning of labor, capital and product markets. The ways of increasing the structural activity of the economy and accelerating the growth of labor productivity during the transition to market relations are shown.

General characteristics of the dynamics of social labor productivity

Retrospective analysis for 1965-1988. dynamics of social labor productivity revealed that its general trend is a noticeable decrease in growth rates (Table 1).

Table 1. Average annual growth rate of national economic efficiency indicators, %

Index
Labor productivity
Capital productivity
Capital-labor ratio

If we take into account that the growth rate of labor productivity can be represented as the sum of the growth rates of capital-labor ratio and capital productivity, then, as the data in Table 1 show, the trend in the dynamics of social labor productivity was largely determined by the trend in national economic capital productivity, which was characterized by a steady decline. It means that in the national economy there was an accumulation of means of labor of a low technological level, which was aggravated by their ineffective use. For comparison, we note that the dynamics of capital productivity in the United States, despite local downturns during periods of crisis, has a general upward trend. The negative growth rate of national economic capital productivity in our country, in our opinion, can be classified as an indicator of the crisis situation in social production, which especially worsened in 1975-1985. (see table 1).

In addition, from Table 1 it is clear that the growth rate of the capital-labor ratio was constantly decreasing, which was caused by a decrease in the professional and qualification level of the workforce and its untimely training. The above trends predetermined the systematic decline in the growth rate of social labor productivity.

Further analysis of trends in labor productivity dynamics revealed the presence of fairly stable three-year cyclical surges in the rate of its growth (Fig. 1). This indicates the objective nature of the dynamics of social labor productivity, which had a noticeable impact on all economic processes.

The existence of such short-term cycles, in our opinion, is due to the following three reasons: firstly, the three-year cyclical fluctuations in agricultural land productivity; secondly, lags in investment and fund processes and, thirdly, sectoral structural shifts. Let us take a closer look at the impact of structural changes on the dynamics of labor productivity.

Economic markets and macrostructural shifts

Analysis of the sectoral breakdown of the economy allows us to identify two main groups of factors for the growth of social labor productivity: inter-industry and intra-industry.

The group of intersectoral factors characterizes structural changes occurring in the economy as a result of objective unevenness in the scientific and technological development of its elements. The directions of such structural shifts can be different. For example, an increase in labor productivity in an industry under specific economic conditions (demand for the products of a given industry, the supply of raw materials, etc.) leads either to the displacement of employees, thereby causing changes in the industry structure of employment, or to an increase in the scale production, causing shifts in the sectoral structures of national income and fixed production assets. In reality, these shifts occur simultaneously in the economy.

The presence of such three economic markets as the labor market, the capital market and the goods market requires at least an approximate assessment of the effectiveness of the functioning of each market separately and as a whole. It can be obtained indirectly by analyzing shifts in sectoral structures of employment, fixed assets and national income, since changes in each of these structures reflect processes occurring in the corresponding economic markets.

Thus, shifts in the structure of employment show what processes have taken place in the labor market; changes in the structure of fixed production assets characterize the functioning of the capital market, and shifts in the sectoral structure of national income reflect the dynamics of processes in the commodity market.

Of particular interest is the study of the joint influence of changes in the structures of employment, fixed assets and national income on the dynamics of social labor productivity, which in turn makes it possible to establish the nature of the impact of the main economic markets on the efficiency of social production and economic growth.

It should be noted that countries with a market economy are characterized by the presence of a specific mechanism in the form of state institutions such as labor exchanges, commodity and stock exchanges that help regulate the functioning of the relevant economic markets.

To obtain quantitative estimates of the efficiency of the functioning of these economic markets and their impact on the dynamics of social labor productivity, appropriate methods were developed at the Research Institute under the USSR State Planning Committee (see). Their idea is to identify the impact of changes in sectoral shares in the structures of employment, funds and national income on the growth rate of social labor productivity. The estimates obtained in this way have a fairly meaningful interpretation.

Industry shifts and their impact on social labor productivity trends

Estimates of the impact of sectoral structural changes on the growth rate of social labor productivity are given in Table. 2. Period 1966-1970 was characterized by a very high growth in social labor productivity, 5.5% of which was ensured by structural changes (hereinafter, the contribution of structural changes to the increase in labor productivity means the percentage ratio of the values ​​of the structural effect to the rate of increase in labor productivity). The bulk of the structural effect (more than 60%) came from shifts in the employment structure. In the Eighth Five-Year Plan, there was a situation when the level of labor productivity in industry was 1.5 times higher than the national economic level, while the same indicator for agriculture was only about 65% of the level of labor productivity in the national economy. A very intensive redistribution of labor resources from the agricultural sector of the economy to industry and construction over 5 years led to an increase in the share of people employed in industry by more than 2% and a decrease in the share of people employed in agriculture by 4%. This redistribution of labor resources was supported by a corresponding flow of investment: the share of fixed production assets in industry increased by 0.6%, and the share of agricultural assets fell by 1.1%. These trends were intensified by the rapid development of basic industries characterized by less labor intensity, which largely predetermined the accelerated growth of labor productivity in industry.

Rice. 1. Dynamics of the average annual growth rate of social labor productivity (%)

In the Ninth Five-Year Plan, the rate of growth in social labor productivity decreased noticeably, and 3% of the increase was neutralized by labor-consuming structural changes. The decisive reason for the emerging slowdown was the fall in the absolute level of labor productivity in agriculture - the most significant structure-forming sector after industry, which in 1971 accounted for up to 28% of all those employed in material production. During this period, shifts in the structure of employment slowed down, and although in general they were labor-saving in nature (mainly due to the continuing decline in the share of employed agricultural workers and their transfer to the sphere of trade and MTS), they did not have a noticeable impact on the dynamics of social labor productivity. However, this small positive impact of shifts in the employment structure was offset by labor-consuming shifts in the sectoral composition of capital stock. Their main trend was a rather sharp increase in the share of ineffective agricultural funds (by 1%), the capital productivity of which in the period 1971-1975. fell at a record high rate (the annual average was 9%).

In the Tenth Five-Year Plan, the main trends characteristic of the structural changes of 1971-1975 were preserved. The outflow of labor from agriculture continued (its share in the employment structure decreased by 1.8%) into industries and trade, the level of labor productivity of which was higher than the national economic level, which ensured the labor-saving nature of the shifts in the employment structure. Structure of fixed assets in the period 1976-1980. was almost stable, minor changes in it were of a neutral nature. The continuing slowdown in the growth rate of social labor productivity was caused by local declines in the absolute level of labor productivity taking place in transport and agriculture, as well as an accelerated decline in the efficiency of using fixed assets in industry and construction. In total, in the tenth five-year plan, structural changes “extinguished” 2.1% of the increase in social labor productivity.

Period 1981-1985 was characterized by a relative acceleration of the growth rate of labor productivity in agriculture and a significant slowdown in industry, which influenced a further decline in the growth rate of overall social labor productivity and led to a decrease in the share of net industrial products in the created national income by 5.3% and an increase in the share of agriculture by 4.4%. Shifts in the structures of employment and fixed assets occurred in the form of minor fluctuations in industry shares, which were generally labor-saving in nature. The overall positive contribution of structural changes to the increase in social labor productivity in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan amounted to 8.5%.

In 1986-1988 shifts in the sectoral structure of employment had the following trends: the share of those employed in agriculture continued to decrease (by 1.5%), and there was also a significant outflow of personnel from the transport and communications sectors (their share decreased by 1.3%); the released labor resources were redistributed to the construction and trade sectors, the shares of which increased by 1.5 and 0.7%, respectively. In 1987 and 1988 For the first time since 1965, there was an absolute reduction in the number of people employed in material production. The ongoing changes in the structure of employment provided more than 3% increase in social labor productivity.

The release of workers from agriculture went in parallel with a reduction in investment in it; as a result, the share of fixed production assets in agriculture decreased by 0.6%. It is noteworthy that in 1988, due to the increasing rate of labor productivity in agriculture in recent years, there was a shift in the sequence of ranking of sectoral levels of labor productivity: for the first time, agriculture was ahead of construction. These processes led to significant shifts in the sectoral structure of national income, which was reflected in a decrease in the share of industry by 3%, while the shares of agriculture and construction increased by 3.3 and 2.1%, respectively. The total impact of structural changes over 3 years of the Twelfth Five-Year Plan amounted to more than 8.6% of the increase in social labor productivity.

Thus, the main emphasis in 1986-1988. was aimed at increasing the efficiency of agriculture and achieving, on this basis, slightly higher rates of growth in the productivity of social labor. This is the main feature of this stage of economic development. As for the structural restructuring of social production, its contribution to the growth rate of social labor productivity in 1986-1988. was at the same level as in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan.

Thus, the analysis shows that the most progressive structure was the employment structure, the shifts in which were of a stable labor-saving nature throughout the entire period of the study. However, the most powerful and contradictory influence was exerted by shifts in the sectoral structure of national income, the quantitative effect of which further increased as a result of changes in the inter-industry proportions of prices for the final product. The structure of fixed production assets turned out to be the most stagnant, the impact of changes in which was very insignificant and had an almost neutral character.

It must be emphasized that structural changes cannot have a decisive influence on the dynamics of social labor productivity, since in the national economy there are always objective restrictions on the redistribution of labor resources and capital investments associated with the presence of inter-sectoral connections and the needs of the commodity market. The practice of analytical calculations shows that the contribution of structural changes to the growth rate of labor productivity, as a rule, does not exceed 15%. Apparently, this estimate is a threshold value for the impact of macrostructural industry shifts. However, the ongoing progressive changes in the sectoral structure primarily create the preconditions for further accelerated growth of labor productivity in all structural divisions of the economy. In this sense, we can talk about macrostructural effects distributed over time, which accumulate in a group of intra-industry factors.

The speed of structural changes and the functioning of economic markets

From the table 2 shows that in the absence of an organized labor market spontaneous intersectoral migration of labor resources from the point of view of the efficiency of their use turned out to be quite rational. However, the stochastic nature of the functioning of the stock and especially commodity markets did not allow the progressive redistribution of labor to be supported by appropriate investment policies and predetermined, in general, insignificant impact of structural changes on the growth of social labor productivity.

Table 2. Average annual growth rate of social labor productivity under the influence of structural changes, %

	Growth rate
		including due to structural changes (structural effect)	of which due to shifts in the structure
			employment	national income	fixed assets

The absence of well-organized commodity and stock markets affected all structural changes, since it is investment spillovers that induce shifts in the structures of fixed assets, employment and national income. In this sense, shifts in the structure of fixed production assets, which are equivalent to changes in the structure of jobs, are decisive, affecting the direction and speed of movement of labor and thereby regulating the scale of production.

The insufficient mobility of the structure of fixed assets was also caused by the length of construction and investment lags, the insufficiently intensive decommissioning of obsolete equipment, and the gigantic service life of fixed assets, which led to the accumulation of ballast means of production in the national economy, the huge volume of which made the structure of fixed assets insensitive to renewal processes.

It should be noted that the fluctuations characteristic of the dynamics of the average annual growth rate of social labor productivity, according to calculations, were largely caused by structural changes. For example, the trajectory of the growth rate of social labor productivity, “cleared” of structural effects, has a smaller amplitude of fluctuations than the trajectory that accumulates the influence of shifts. This fact indicates the ambiguous impact of structural changes and the chaotic nature of their effects. The disorder of structural effects was caused primarily by the lack of coordinated interaction of labor markets, goods and funds. Note that the impact of structural changes in general was such that it strengthened the cyclical trends in the productivity of social labor.

According to calculations, the degree of differentiation of sectoral levels of labor productivity during 1965-1988. had different trends (Fig. 2). From 1965 to 1969 inclusive, differences in industrial productivity levels increased; in 1970 they decreased sharply, then through 1981 inclusive they increased slightly; Beginning in 1982, there was a clear trend toward leveling out sectoral levels of labor productivity, which continued until 1988. In 1988, the degree of their differentiation decreased by 1.8 times compared to 1965. Such changes can be considered positive, because they indicate the leveling of differences in the technological levels of industries and create objective prerequisites for the equalization of industry wage levels, which in turn facilitates the effective movement of labor resources between industries.

Calculations also showed that the intensity of shifts for the period 1965-1988. in the sectoral structure of national income was 1.8 times higher than in the structure of employment, and 2.7 times higher than the intensity of changes in the sectoral structure of fixed assets; in turn, the activity of shifts in the structure of employment was 1.5 times higher than in the structure of funds. The trajectories of the rate of sectoral structural changes are shown in Fig. 3.

The econometric calculations carried out showed that the intensity of macrostructural changes in general was insignificantly dependent on the degree of differentiation of labor productivity levels in sectors of material production - the correlation coefficient was only 0.38. Moreover, the degree of dependence of the sectoral structure of national income was the highest - the correlation coefficient for it was 0.47; The structure of fixed production assets turned out to be less flexible - the correlation coefficient was 0.21; The employment structure was characterized by an even lesser degree of dependence—the correlation coefficient was only 0.14.

Calculations also revealed that the speed of reaction of sectoral structures of national income and fixed production assets to changes in the levels of dispersion of labor productivity in sectors was equal to 2 years, while for the structure of employment the lag value was 3 years. It is noteworthy that the intensity of shifts in the structure of employment was higher than in the structure of fixed production assets. Nevertheless, the speed of response of the employment structure to intersectoral changes in labor productivity was less than the structure of fixed assets, and the dependence of the employment structure on the degree of differentiation of labor productivity levels in material production sectors was 1.5 times less than the dependence of the structure of funds. This means that the intensive redistribution of labor resources from agriculture to the industrial sector, which took place over 23 years, was caused by reasons not so much economic as social(for example, poorer living conditions in the countryside than in the city).

Economic crisis 1975- 1985 and its features

An economic crisis is usually characterized by the following signs: first, a sharp decline in the growth rate of social labor productivity; secondly, negative growth rates of national economic capital productivity.

These signs were observed in the economy of the USSR, and they manifested themselves most clearly in 1975-1985. (see Table 1), which allows us to talk about the presence of a crisis situation during this period. In addition, in 1971-1980. sectoral structural changes were labor-consuming in nature, i.e., they had a downward impact on the growth of social labor productivity (see Table 2); this fact indicates the presence of a clearly expressed structural disorientation of the economy in the period 1975-1980, which is one of the specific features of the analyzed crisis.

Economic crisis 1975-1985 was caused primarily by the overaccumulation of ineffective fixed capital in material production and structural distortions in the development of its individual elements.

A distinctive feature of the crisis of 1975-1985. is its duration. The official denial of the possibility of crises in our country, the lack of means to prevent it and the absence of an effective economic mechanism that would allow us to quickly overcome the crisis situation, led to the fact that the crisis phase was extended over a 10-year period.

Table 3. Dynamics of changes in the structure of industrial enterprises, %

Enterprise size, people
1001 or more

Table 4. Dynamics of changes in the structure of the number of industrial industrial enterprises, %

Enterprise size, people
1001 or more

Another distinctive feature of the crisis of 1975-1985. - a smooth transition of the economy into its phase and the same exit from it, i.e. blurring of the boundaries of the crisis period. In other words, this crisis was not catastrophic, collapsing in nature, but was prepared for quite a long time by the previous development of the economy, which already carried some features of the crisis.

Analysis and comparison of Fig. 1-3 also allow us to come to the following conclusions.

Firstly, for the study period 1965-1988. There is a trend towards a decrease in the structural activity of the economy.

Secondly, during 1975-1985. there was a sharp decrease in the intensity of structural changes; The slowdown in the rate of sectoral changes in the structures of employment and fixed assets is especially noticeable. This indicates that one of the causes of the crisis was a decrease in the functioning of the capital market and labor market; At the same time, there was increased activity in the commodity market, which, while having a disturbing effect on economic growth, made a major contribution to the process of structural disorientation of the economy. In general, one of the most significant features and causes of the economic crisis of 1975-1985. is decline in the structural activity of the economy during this period in contrast to the crises of Western countries, which are characterized by accelerated economic restructuring.

Thirdly, the decrease in the intensity of structural changes led to a significant increase in the uneven growth of labor productivity in sectors of material production during the crisis, which negatively affected the socio-economic development of the national economy.

Fourthly, periods of increased structural activity outside the crisis period were, as a rule, accompanied (with a certain delay) by higher rates of growth in social labor productivity and economic development.

Trends in consolidation of production facilities and growth in labor productivity in industry

Along with macroeconomic shifts, intra-industry structural changes also occurred. So, for example, in the period 1960-1987, according to census surveys of the USSR State Statistics Committee, there were major shifts in the structure of the number of enterprises of various industrial groups (Table 3), the share of which in all macrostructures was the largest. In general, the structure of industrial enterprises was characterized by a decrease in the share of small enterprises (employing up to 100 people) and an increase in the share of medium-sized (101 - 1000 people) and large (1001 or more people) industrial facilities.

Table 5. Ratio of labor productivity of various groups of enterprises to the industry average, %

Enterprise size, people
1001 or more

Table 6. Average annual growth rate of industrial labor productivity under the influence of shifts in the structure of employment, %

In parallel with the change in the structure of the number of enterprises of various groups, the structure of those employed in industry also changed (Table 4). Such shifts had a decisive influence on the growth rate of labor productivity in industry as a whole, because the labor productivity of the groups of enterprises under consideration was not the same (Table 5). Estimates of the direct impact of shifts in the structure of employment by group of enterprises are given in Table. 6.

From the table 6 it can be seen that in 1961-1968. shifts in the structure of employment in industry were labor-consuming in nature and compensated for about 2% of the total increase in labor productivity in the industry. This is due to the transition to the consolidation of industrial facilities, while the level of labor productivity at large enterprises was only 79% of that of small enterprises. To a certain extent, this situation was caused by the transfer of the national economic burden to the industrial sector of the economy and a significant influx of labor resources into industrial sectors in the 60s, which stimulated shifts in the reproductive structure of funds, initiating the process of expansion of functioning production facilities. An additional impetus for increasing the share of giant enterprises was given by shifts in the structure of industrial subsectors towards an increase in the share of basic industries, which are characterized by a higher level of employment.

In 1969-1972. These structural trends persisted, making an even greater negative contribution to the rate of labor productivity in industry and extinguishing its growth by 5.6%. This was caused by a widening gap in the levels of labor productivity in small and large enterprises: in 1968, this indicator in giant enterprises was only 76% of the level of labor productivity in small enterprises.

Period 1973-1975 was characterized by a sharp decrease in the growth rate of labor productivity in industry compared to the previous 3 years, since it was during this period that the effect of the negative shifts that occurred in 1961-1972 began to affect. Negative contribution of structural changes in 1973-1975. amounted to 4.4%.

Continuing trends of gigantomania in 1976-1979. led to the fact that shifts in the structure of employment offset 10.9% of the increase in industrial labor productivity. The ongoing shifts were caused by fundamentally incorrect structural and investment policies of ministries and departments, which led to an overestimation of the cost-effective capacity of enterprises, a decrease in the level of specialization, a loss of flexibility of industrial production in meeting consumer demand, and ineffective concentration of labor resources at large industrial facilities.

The policy of consolidation of industrial enterprises is largely associated with the erroneous opinion that production efficiency is higher, the larger the size of production units. Here there is an identification of the concepts of technological and economic efficiency. Meanwhile, one has only to include into consideration the costs of transporting raw materials and equipment and reconfiguring equipment in connection with the transition to the production of a new type of product, and the difference between these categories becomes significant. It is characteristic that since 1975 there has been a tendency towards a stable decline in the level of relative labor productivity of small enterprises (see Table 5), which was largely caused by the administrative pressure exerted on them by ministries, departments and banks.

Period 1970-1987 was marked by a radical change in structural policy: the shares of small and medium-sized enterprises, which were characterized by a level of labor productivity above the industry average, grew, and the share of large enterprises decreased. However, the speed of the changes taking place was extremely slow, and their positive contribution to the increase in labor productivity in the industry amounted to only 0.5%. Nevertheless, changes in structural policy could no longer stop the catastrophic decline in industrial productivity growth rates. The main reason for this decline was overaccumulation of means of production, financial and labor resources at low-maneuverability and inefficient large industrial facilities, which occurred over a period of 20 years, from 1960 to 1979; the influence of structural imbalances in the industry was expressed primarily in the slowdown in the pace of scientific and technological progress.

Thus, the analysis showed that shifts in the structure of employment at different hierarchical levels of the national economy had a different nature: at the macro level - labor-saving, at the intra-industry level - mainly labor-consuming. In other words, the calculations carried out allow us to conclude that structural restructuring in the future has large reserves for increasing the productivity of social labor not at the macro level, but at the level of industries.

Exchange mechanism and organizational forms as a means of increasing labor productivity and structural activity of the economy

To achieve a balance in the structures of social production and ensure the labor-saving nature of structural changes, it seems advisable not so much to have a powerful system of centralized planning and regulation, but rather to create and use such economic mechanisms and organizational structures that would increase the speed of response of all parts of the economy to market changes and trends in scientific and technical progress. by intensifying structural changes. Otherwise, the process of accumulating ballast of means of production and labor resources will continue, leading to an irrational structure of the economy, which in turn will negatively affect the acceleration of scientific and technical progress, the rate of social labor productivity and the level of well-being of the population.

One of the most important factors that determined the constant decline in the growth rate of social labor productivity in the USSR is the structural imbalance of the economy, which had already emerged at least in the ninth five-year plan, which in 1975-1985. has acquired the character of a structural crisis. It was during this period that an urgent need arose for structural restructuring of the economy: the rate of social labor productivity dropped sharply and began to lag behind the same indicator in the United States. However, timely measures to eliminate structural conflicts in social production were not taken. And although some positive structural changes occurred in the economy during this period, the lack of free investment exchange and the inertia of the sectoral structures of fixed production assets and employment did not allow a radical change in the structure of social production. One of the reasons for the insufficiently active centralized influence on the process of economic restructuring and preventing the deepening of the structural crisis was the lack of appropriate indicative means.

One such indicator can be the stock exchange, an important function of which is its ability to respond to increased needs during the period of structural restructuring (manifested, in particular, in the trend towards a decrease in the growth rate of social labor productivity) by sharply reducing the exchange rate value of fictitious capital, which helps determine the most promising areas of investment and more or less prompt resolution of structural contradictions. In addition, the stock exchange is one of the most important means of constant intersectoral flow of capital.

To streamline the process of moving labor resources in our country, the creation of a labor exchange is of great importance. Firstly, it makes it possible to more or less rationally staff workplaces with appropriate personnel, while reducing frictional unemployment, which has always existed in the country in a hidden, modified form. Secondly, due to the fact that the exchange accumulates information about the flow of labor supply and demand, it also performs the function of forecasting the demand for labor resources in a professional context, making it possible to anticipate promising changes in the professionally qualified structure of the employed through advance training and retraining of personnel , which is especially important in the current conditions when the quality of the labor force lags behind the needs of social production.

To implement inter-industry investment activity of structural units of the national economy, it is advisable to develop multi-industry diversified associations such as concerns. US experience shows that labor productivity in enterprises owned by multi-industry companies is on average 20% higher than in single-industry associations. Moreover, econometric studies have also revealed a systematic dependence of the rate of profit and labor productivity of US industrial associations (especially in the capital goods industries) on the degree of diversification of their operations: according to these estimates, the transition to increasingly extensive interindustry structures contributes to higher profit rates and growth. labor productivity.

The creation of analogues of multi-industry concerns such as inter-industry scientific and technical complexes in the conditions of the transition period to a market system of economic relations is an important factor in increasing the productivity of social labor and accelerating economic growth, because only large diversified associations can use non-market methods to influence inter-industry investment processes, being channels within which the movement of capital can occur freely; the diversification of associations makes it easier for more profitable enterprises to invest in and modernize the production apparatus of less profitable enterprises within the industry. In addition, diversification of industries is of great importance for the intersectoral redistribution of labor resources without physically moving them and destroying existing organizational structures, which facilitates and accelerates progressive shifts in the sectoral structure of employment.

At the current stage, the need to clearly define promising directions for production development, dictated by the accelerated development of scientific and technological progress, has become more acute. For these purposes, in the United States, it is of great importance to intensify the functioning of venture funds, which, being at the forefront of the flow of material, financial and labor resources, identify, through trial and error, the most promising areas of investment, characterized by higher profitability and labor productivity. Decisions on massive capital investments in the United States are made only on the basis of the results obtained by venture capital, which eliminates unjustified investments in low-productivity industries and leads to savings in social labor. In its research, the US National Science Council notes that the role of the country's small enterprises in the use of innovations, which are the main factor in the growth of labor productivity, is very high and tends to further increase. In modern conditions, the level of use of small innovative firms has become one of the indicators of the susceptibility of national economies to scientific and technical progress.

In Western countries, venture capital firms have become particularly widespread in industries characterized by increased economic risk (robotics, electronics, production of new structural materials and biotechnology), and in industries producing consumer goods, the share of small enterprises reaches 98%.

Global trends in the disaggregation of enterprises are also associated with the emergence in the early 70s of a number of factors acting towards reducing the size of an effective enterprise: the transition to electronic automation; the emergence of technologies characterized by relatively low capital intensity; deepening differentiation of demand and division of labor; a sharp increase in the risk associated with the implementation of large projects; shortening the product life cycle; socio-psychological factors. For example, studies by Western econometricians have revealed a close correlation between the size of enterprises, on the one hand, and the intensity of labor disruptions, the level of staff turnover and other negative phenomena, on the other.

From what has been said, it is clear how destructive the influence of trends in the total enlargement of the size of industrial enterprises is on the acceleration of scientific progress and the growth of labor productivity in our country. In order to intensify efforts to create venture enterprises, it seems advisable to sharply increase centralized credit flows to innovative firms and the creation of special risk capital funds at large industrial enterprises to finance the activities of the created venture objects.

Bibliography

1. Golovin I., Pevzner A. On small enterprises (organization and activities in new economic conditions//Plan. Economy. 1988. No. 10.

2. Profit rate and capital flow. Using the example of the USA. M.: Nauka, 1987.

3. National economy of the USSR. Stat. yearbooks for 1960-1988. M.: Finance and Statistics.

4. Balatsky E. V. Methods for assessing the influence of macroeconomic structural shifts on the dynamics of social labor productivity // Concept of employment in a socially oriented economy. M.: NIEI, 1990.

All estimates of this work were obtained on the basis of information published in, using the methods outlined in.

Balatsky E.V., Bogomolov Yu.P. Labor productivity and structural changes in the economy // “Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Economic series". No. 3, 1991. P.28-39.

INTRODUCTION

The new technological revolution unfolding before our eyes is leading to unprecedented structural changes in the economic system of society. In this situation, the tasks of a comprehensive study of structural changes in the economy come to the fore. This task is especially relevant in the conditions of modern Russia, which needs to make a structural breakthrough into the future and become a full member of the world economic community.

The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by the following aspects. Modern structural changes in the economies of industrialized countries are systemic in nature and are part of a global macroshift that predetermines the transition from industrial to post-industrial society. These shifts are characterized by a relative decrease in the share of traditional industries and structures (primarily agriculture, mining and manufacturing industries), as well as an increase in the share of the service sector, high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries that accumulate the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress. They are international in nature, reflecting global trends in the development of productive forces. More and more countries and regions are gradually being drawn into the orbit of scientific and technological progress, which leads to new forms of division of labor within the world economy.

Comparison of the current state of the economic structure of Russia and industrialized countries, unfortunately, is not in favor of our country. A significant gap is obvious in the pace and direction of structural changes in the economic systems of Russia, on the one hand, and the advanced countries of the West, on the other. The share of advanced technological structures in the Russian economy has been steadily declining in recent years and is now approaching 10%, while the share of traditional, backward structures is growing and totals more than 50%.

The purpose of this course work is to study the phenomenon of structural changes in the modern Russian economy. In accordance with the goal, the following tasks can be distinguished:

Reveal the essence and concept of structural changes;

Classify structural changes according to various characteristics and grounds;

Explore the phenomenon of innovation as the modern basis of economic development;

To study the phenomenon of structural changes in the modern Russian economy based on innovation, evaluate and consider prospects.

The object of study of this course work is the world and Russian economy, the subject is structural shifts in the modern economy.

1. Structural changes as an economic phenomenon

1.1 The essence and concept of structural changes

The structure of the economy is a complex system of interconnected proportions, developing under the influence of the existing technical basis, social mechanisms of distribution and exchange in accordance with social needs and the achieved level of labor productivity. The structure of the economy reflects the existing system of division of labor, which, “often having a technological origin, is essentially economic, mediated by property relations and institutional forms, and realized through exchange relations.”

All this indicates a broad and multidimensional concept of structure. Thus, the economy can be considered both from the production side and from the distribution and consumption side of the product and national income (reproduction structure), from the side of enterprises and industries, as well as from the side of individual structure-forming factors and processes.

All structures, including economic ones, go through the following stages in their development: origin, growth, period of maturity, regressive transformations (crisis) and disappearance or collapse. Emergence and growth can be considered as a process of organization within the framework of the old structure, a process of struggle with conservative parties and elements, a process of changing systemic qualities. The period of maturity characterizes the stationary state of the structure, when the processes of organization and disorganization balance each other. Regressive transformations reflect the process of disorganization of the structure, when it, in turn, gives way to a new structure. Continuity, the formation of new structures in the depths of old ones and on their basis, plays a great importance in the development of structures. There are not and cannot be pure structures of one kind or another; they always contain elements of old and the beginnings of future relationships, in addition, different structures sometimes coexist with each other.

In this regard, we can highlight such basic processes occurring in the depths of each structure as adaptation and transformation. Even K. Marx wrote that “...an organic system as a total whole has its own prerequisites, and its development in the direction of integrity consists precisely in subjugating all the elements of society or creating from it the organs it still lacks.” At this stage, the emerging elements of new structures cannot exist otherwise than by adapting to the old components, integrating into the system of their connections. However, gradually the connections are transformed, a new integrity emerges, and everything repeats itself 1 .

The structure of the economy is characterized by heterogeneity, corresponding hierarchy and proportions between its components. The structural aspect of development is manifested both through quantitative growth and through certain qualitative changes in the economy of society. This interpretation of the structure of the economy is applicable to the study of development problems (the replacement of one structure by another), the center of which is structural shifts.

In general, any change in the economic system is structural in nature, since there is no matter outside the systems, which means there cannot be extra-structural changes. Another thing is that not all shifts lead to significant changes in the economy.

Such universality of structural changes leads to the fact that structural changes in the economy as an independent category have been left out of deep scientific research. Basically, they are considered along with other economic phenomena and processes. There is some confusion between the concepts of structural change and structural shifts. Often these words are used as synonyms. However, the concept of shifts most reflects the nature of the transformation processes occurring in economic structures. L. A. Berkovich defines structural shifts as “a change in the proportions of the economic system that occurs under the influence of all structure-forming factors.”

A structural shift is understood as any significant change in the internal structure of a system, the relationships between its elements, the laws of these relationships, leading to a change in the basic (integral) system qualities. From the definition it follows that structural changes are a type of dynamic processes occurring in the economic system. Along with them, other manifestations of economic dynamics are distinguished: cycles, fluctuations, disturbances.

The fundamental difference between structural shifts and the above processes is the presence of a change in the main system qualities. Thus, disturbances and surface fluctuations in the economic structure do not lead to changes in the integral qualities of the system. Economic cycles, some of which are undoubtedly accompanied by shifts in the economic structure, are rather a system of several structural shifts of different directions.

By basing the recognition of certain dynamic processes as structural shifts on changes in basic system qualities, it is possible to determine the boundaries of the existence of shifts within a certain economic structure. Disturbances in the structure only develop into a structural shift when the integral qualities of the economic system change. This is the “lower limit” of the shift. The “upper limit” of structural shifts is the existence of the economic system itself, when further shifts in the structure lead to its destruction and the formation of a new system unit on its basis.

Structural changes are undoubtedly transformative in nature. However, speaking about the relationship between the concepts of structure and form, it should be noted that they are close in meaning, but not identical. The concept of form is broader. Form is a manifestation of content in general, while structure is one of the aspects of form that characterizes the position and relationships of elements in the system.

Thus, structural changes in the economy manifest themselves in the form of changes in the position of elements, shares, proportions and quantitative characteristics of the economic system. The content of structural shifts is a change in interstructural and intersystem connections, as well as the main characteristics (system qualities) of the economic system.

1.2. Classification of structural changes according to various characteristics and grounds

Structural shifts in the economy are classified according to various criteria and grounds, which not only show all their diversity, but also make it possible to characterize the same structural shift from different sides: proximity in space, length in time, coverage of economic elements 1:

1) Structural shifts can be grouped according to historical characteristics - each stage of history has its own structural shifts in the economy (for example, shifts during the transition from an agricultural society to an industrial one and then to an information society).

2) Based on territorial (geographical) scope, shifts are divided into changes in the structure of the economy of certain regions, regions, countries, and other territorial and administrative entities (be it the great economic depression in the United States or the industrial boom in post-war Germany).

3) Based on the scope of economic elements, global and local, macro, meso, micro and nanoshifts are distinguished. Microshifts are structural changes at the level of the enterprise, its divisions, and the company; meso - at the level of more complex economic systems: corporations, industries. Macroshifts are changes in such economic entities as the national and world economy. Macroshifts lead to changes in basic economic proportions and indicators of economic performance. Many local shifts in the economic structure (for example, renewal of production at a single enterprise) merge into global shifts, changing the entire picture of socio-economic life beyond recognition.

In turn, all local economic structures experience powerful shocks from global macro shifts and are drawn into the process of further structural transformation.

4) Based on the speed, duration, depth and scale of changes, shifts are divided into evolutionary and revolutionary.

Structural changes, on the one hand, are a continuous process, since economic activity is not interrupted for a minute. On the other hand, they are characterized by rather large stages and stages, breaks of gradualness. The evolutionary course of changes in the economic structure is at times interrupted by the turbulent processes of its cardinal (revolutionary) renewal.

5) By nature, all structural shifts can be divided into irreversible and reversible (cyclical) shifts.

From a philosophical point of view, any change in structure is irreversible. It is possible to talk only about relatively reversible phenomena and processes, about movement in a spiral, because any repetition (cycle) is not an exact copy of the previous one.

According to a number of authors (J. Tinbergen, E. Hansen, R. Stone, B. Racine), the reversibility of structural changes is explained by the fact that they are a reflection of cyclical, oscillatory processes in the economy. The irreversible component of structural changes in a constructively developing system is progressive economic growth, or vice versa - economic decline (crisis, disintegration) in destructively developing systems.

6) As an independent group, we can distinguish shifts in the structure of reproduction at all its stages: production, distribution, exchange and consumption.

Changes in macroeconomic reproduction proportions are the general result of the entire set of structural changes. Macroeconomic proportions, as a rule, include the reproductive structure of the total social product, the ratio of compensation funds, consumption and accumulation, costs of living and past labor, and two divisions of social reproduction. The reproductive structure at the macro level is also characterized by the ratio of the most important production resources per annual social product. The indicators of production efficiency used in economic research - labor productivity, capital productivity, the output of the final social product per unit of specific resources - are essentially structural indicators that characterize the economic system. The specific costs of production resources at the macro level obviously reflect not only the narrow technological aspects of reproduction, but also the effectiveness of the socio-economic mechanism, the entire system of production relations.

The country's economy has a certain structure– the relationship between spheres of the economy, its industries, regions and firms. By the beginning of the transition economy (1991), the structure of the Russian economy was extremely deformed: 1) hypertrophy of the defense and mining industries; underdevelopment of the production of consumer goods and services, the presence of excess capacity in the manufacturing industry; 2) the costly nature of the economy, low level of technology and direct losses of resources due to the underdevelopment of production infrastructure; 3) dependence on imports of goods and services with poorly diversified export potential.

The main objectives of structural policy today are:
1) qualitative updating of technologies, creation of sources of long-term growth;
2) redistribution of resources in favor of the development of the consumer sector of the economy.

The goals and mechanisms of structural maneuver for the short-term (3-5 years) and long-term (10-50 years) perspectives are different. In the short term, you can count on more efficient use of existing production capacities and the involvement of additional resources (natural, human) in production. The long-term period solves other problems: a radical update of technology and the transition to an effective knowledge-intensive, low-cost, environmentally friendly type of economic growth; reduction of ineffective capital construction; social reorientation of the economy. In this regard, the following structural changes in the economy should occur:

1) accelerated development of the civilian sector of the economy by reducing the defense sector, or through the so-called conversion;

2) development of a complex of industries that ensure the effective functioning of the country’s scientific and technical potential;

3) creation of a modern production infrastructure - information, energy, transport and warehouse support.

Modern structural changes in the economies of industrialized countries are systemic in nature and are part of a global macroshift that predetermines the transition from industrial to post-industrial society. These shifts are characterized by a relative decrease in the share of traditional industries and structures (primarily agriculture, mining and manufacturing industries), as well as an increase in the share of the service sector, high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries that accumulate the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress. They are international in nature, reflecting global trends in the development of productive forces. More and more countries and regions are gradually being drawn into the orbit of scientific and technological progress, which leads to new forms of division of labor within the world economy.

At the present stage, the processes of structural changes in the economies of industrialized countries have received significant acceleration. If previously the transition from pre-industrial to industrial society took centuries, then the macro-shift we are experiencing today to a post-industrial (information) formation takes decades. A comparative analysis of changes in the economies of different countries of the world shows that, despite all the national specifics, in the long term these changes are unidirectional. After all, all countries, whether highly or underdeveloped, follow a single path of socio-historical progress, with certain key points of scientific and technical inventions and discoveries.

The globalization of the world economy requires the conjugation of the development trajectories of various civilizations, their voluntary unification, and joint evolution.

Comparison of the current state of the economic structure of Russia and industrialized countries, unfortunately, is not in favor of our country. A significant gap is obvious in the pace and direction of structural changes in the economic systems of Russia, on the one hand, and the advanced countries of the West, on the other. The share of advanced technological structures in the Russian economy has been steadily declining in recent years and is now approaching 10%, while the share of traditional, backward structures is growing and totals more than 50%.

In order to solve these problems, it is advisable to develop a market system of economic management. And this means strengthening the dominance of private property based on competition, the market system, prices and openness of the economy. Open economy– an economy involved in foreign economic relations. The degree of openness of an economy is assessed by the share of its international (foreign trade) sector in GDP.

import The bias towards the consumer sector remains. A distinctive feature of the modern period is the reorientation from the import of raw materials for the light and food industries (grain, fabrics, raw cotton) to the import of finished consumer goods with a high level of profitability (primarily food). Such a high degree of dependence on food imports, on the one hand, creates a potential threat to the economic security of the country. On the other hand, one cannot help but see that, as a result of an ill-conceived foreign trade policy, Western manufacturers often dump products on the Russian domestic markets that are quite cheap, but often inferior in quality to domestic ones.

In the commodity structure of the Russian export fuel and raw materials predominate.

Russia's foreign economic policy at the beginning of the third millennium is aimed at ensuring:

1. the best conditions for access of Russian goods, services and labor to world markets;

2. effective protection of the domestic market for goods, services and labor;

3. access to international resources of strategic importance for economic development (such as capital and technology, goods and services, the production of which is absent or limited);

4. favorable balance of payments of the country;

5. the effectiveness of state support for the export of products with high added value;

6. compliance with the principle of reciprocity - a favorable balance of mutual concessions and obligations.

There are many opinions on the issue of Russia's accession to the WTO, both negative and positive. But most importantly, this will allow it to take part in developing decisions for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations, and most importantly, on terms that eliminate discrimination against Russia in foreign markets.

Structural shifts in the economy- these are changes in the structure of the economic system under the influence of various economic and non-economic factors, processes of management of the economic system. Progressive structural changes should be considered those that ultimately lead to an increase in the long-term efficiency of the economic system.

Based on the goal that society seeks to achieve in the process of functioning of the economic structure, the following indicators of its effectiveness can be adopted:

1) the degree of satisfaction of individual and social needs;

2) growth of gross domestic product and national income;

3) formation of optimal sectoral and regional reproduction proportions;

4) increasing the profitability and profitability of enterprises.

The ultimate goal of any structural changes is satisfaction of individual and social needs and implementation of relevant interests. At the same time, the system of needs itself is heterogeneous: its components are material, spiritual, and social needs. In the conditions of commodity-money relations, the degree of satisfaction of needs depends on a whole system of intermediate indicators:

· at the macroeconomic level - this is an increase in the country’s share in the world economy, an increase in the rate of economic growth of GDP and national income, optimization of the structure of its distribution, consumption and accumulation, the formation of an optimal structure of reproduction, basic economic proportions;

· at the meso level - this is the optimization of sectoral and regional structures of the economy in terms of eliminating abnormal imbalances, as well as structural asymmetries that give rise to disintegration processes;

· at the micro level - this is an increase in the profitability and profitability of individual enterprises (firms), optimization of their production, organizational, technological and management structures.

The final and intermediate indicators of the efficiency of the economic structure are in contradictory interaction, since the growth of the physical and monetary volume of the gross domestic product does not always correspond to an improvement in the quality of the economic structure and an adequate improvement in the structure of meeting the needs and realizing the interests of economic entities.

Thus, the concept of the effectiveness of structural changes in the economy is somewhat different from the indicators of the effectiveness of its structure. Reflecting the dynamic component of structural development, it shows how quickly structural changes achieve their goals, i.e. bring the structure of the allocation of production resources in accordance with the structure of changing needs with a minimum of costs for their implementation. Mathematically, this indicator can be represented as:

Es = Ms / I ´ 100%

where Es is the effectiveness of structural changes in the economy;

Ms is the mass of the structural shift in value terms;

I - costs of implementing a structural shift.

Militarization

Militarization- subordination of the economic and social life of the state (states) to the goals of preparation for war; transfer of methods of military organization to the field of civil relations.

Many consider this process detrimental to the development of countries. But military potential, its creation, maintenance and use is inevitable for a humanity still divided along class, racial, religious, economic and many other lines.

The militarization of the economy has a significant impact on social reproduction. Military products participate in the reproduction of production relations.
The militarization of the economy is also accompanied by the seizure of large agricultural areas for military bases, training grounds, airfields and other military facilities. The United States, for example, occupies 31 million acres of land for these purposes in foreign countries alone. In Germany, 4 million hectares of land have been confiscated for military purposes.

The militarization of the economy of capitalist countries leads to a sharp reduction in spending on social needs, an increase in taxation, inflation, and a deterioration in the financial situation of workers, which further aggravates all the economic, social and political contradictions inherent in capitalism. In NATO countries, the scale of funding for militaristic preparations is constantly expanding. NATO countries are increasing military spending by 3% annually in real terms.

As a result of the militarization of the economy, in some industries there is an increase in production, and in a number of commodity markets - an excess of demand over supply, an increase in stock prices, an increase in prices, that is, an improvement in the market situation. However, these trends are characterized by extreme instability. The systematic withdrawal of a significant part of production from the reproduction process leads to a narrowing of the scale of expanded reproduction, the development of inflation and a deterioration in the general economic situation.

If we evaluate the level of militarization of households by the share of GDP spent on the creation of weapons and the maintenance of armed forces, then it remains quite high in leading countries, fluctuating between 1-4% (USA - 3.8%, Japan - 1%). The largest funds for military purposes are spent in the United States - about 300 billion dollars, which is more than 5 times the expenditures of the PRC and seven times the expenditures of France and Germany.