On the other hand, high prices for motor fuel compared to world analogues pose a threat to the social stability of the state and the competitiveness of domestic producers. Since the mid-2000s. the antimonopoly authority, defending its position in heated discussions and disputes, has pursued an active policy to curb domestic prices of petroleum products, and since 2009 has been promoting two bills to normalize the price level and to develop competition in domestic markets oil industry. Using statistical methods of data analysis, the authors' position in the discussion on the policy pursued by the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation is substantiated.

For Russia, which positions itself as a state with a socially oriented market economy (Article 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), setting the main goal of state policy in relation to the oil industry should be to achieve two competing goals. On the one hand, this is the economic efficiency of the functioning of the oil companies and the industry themselves; on the other hand, the social responsibility of the state for the implementation of relevant public interests.

It is known that regulation can create distortions in the motivation of economic entities and often requires large costs in terms of its direct implementation. In this regard, a trend has arisen and is developing towards liberalization of basic sectors of the economy in developed countries. However, this does not eliminate the responsibility of the state for the economic development of the country that is effective from the standpoint of the entire society. In the context of liberalization of industry markets, new systems of economic mechanisms and legal rules for regulating economic activity are being developed and implemented.

The current laws of the Russian Federation do not provide for direct state regulation of domestic prices for oil and petroleum products. It was canceled in 1995. Since then, anti-monopoly policy measures have been applied to the industry, the establishment of export duties; stimulation of exchange trading. At the same time, petroleum products are supplied to the domestic market at prices that systematically exceed the parity price level export supplies. From 2004 to the present, the antimonopoly authority has been actively working to limit the increase in domestic prices of petroleum products.

Inflated domestic prices are associated with the way the functioning of industry markets is organized. The structure of these markets is characterized by an oligopoly with the dominance of large vertically integrated oil companies (VIOCs) and a high degree of market concentration in all areas from crude oil production to retail sales of petroleum products. Market participants independent of vertically integrated oil companies face such problems as limited access to oil refining and storage capacities; restriction of the ability to supply petroleum products to individual regions; Availability of administrative resources for vertically integrated oil companies; high initial costs. Since the mid-2000s, there has been a steady upward trend in economic concentration in all vertically related production sectors. Under these conditions, the refusal of vertically integrated oil companies to compete and their maintenance of high prices is typical market behavior of large oligopolists. In addition, vertically integrated oil companies, which have significant monopoly power in the domestic market, are at the same time price-taking competitors in the global market. Therefore, they strive to implement price discrimination of the third degree, which is also expressed in setting higher prices in domestic markets than the prices of export contracts.

The structure of the industry is justified by the fact that most of Russian oil and petroleum products are sold on the world market in competition with transnational oil holdings. Only large domestic vertically integrated oil companies can successfully resist them. At the same time, income from export supplies generated by vertically integrated oil companies is one of the main sources of formation of the Russian Federation budget. In addition, as the analysis of empirical data shows, in countries with developing market economies, vertical integration has a positive effect on economic growth. The advantages of vertically integrated oil companies are the ability to accumulate and flexibly redistribute powerful production resources; economic efficiency due to the positive effect of production scale; relative ease of interaction between executive authorities and a small number of large companies. At the same time, vertically integrated oil companies also have major disadvantages associated with abuse of market power.

The problem of state regulation of domestic prices of petroleum products in the Russian Federation is that, on the one hand, the behavior of vertically integrated oil companies is aimed at maximizing net profit, and this corresponds not only to their commercial interests, but also to the fiscal goals of the state. On the other hand, high prices for motor fuel compared to world analogues pose a threat to the social stability of the state and the competitiveness of domestic producers.

The task of state policy is to ensure the simultaneous achievement of the efficiency of the functioning of vertically integrated oil companies and the satisfaction of domestic demand for petroleum products high quality at prices acceptable to all Russian consumers. The subject of solving this problem in modern Russian economy is the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS RF).

Since the mid-2000s, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation has been pursuing an active policy to limit the monopoly power of vertically integrated oil companies. During this period, the largest oil holdings were repeatedly accused by the antimonopoly authority of collective dominance, collusion and setting monopoly high prices, and were subject to large-scale fines calculated as a percentage of turnover. From 2009 to the present, the FAS RF, defending its position in heated discussions and disputes in political and scientific circles, has been promoting two bills aimed at normalizing the level of domestic prices for petroleum products and developing competition in the industry. The current version of these documents was published on the website of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation in November 2012.

The bill “On market pricing for oil and petroleum products in Russian Federation» a methodology for determining a reasonable level of gasoline prices is proposed, based on the over-the-counter domestic market index, the stock exchange index, as well as export parity. It is believed that arbitration between them will allow prices to be oriented towards a normal level and prevent them from being overstated. The bill “On the Peculiarities of the Turnover of Oil and Petroleum Products in the Russian Federation” formulates a number of structural and behavioral requirements that should contribute to the development of competition in the domestic market. In particular, it is required that independent gas stations purchase fuel on the wholesale market on the same terms as the subsidiary sales companies of vertically integrated oil companies. It is assumed that vertically integrated oil companies that own oil storage facilities whose capacity exceeds the threshold value will be required to provide petroleum product storage services to market participants independent of them on non-discriminatory terms. Requirements have been established for the organizational separation of wholesale and retail sales of motor fuel, as well as for maintaining separate accounting of costs and income for main activities. In addition, the draft law provides for the mandatory publication of information on petroleum product residues in oil storage facilities. Mergers and acquisitions or the allocation of land plots for the construction of gas stations are prohibited to those companies whose share in the regional market already exceeds 35 percent.

The described bills are criticized by opponents. The essence of criticism regarding pricing proposals is the FAS accusation of “creeping regularism”, “drift towards direct regulation” of prices in order to solve pressing social and political problems. It is based on the thesis that direct regulation distorts market incentives and leads to inefficiency in the functioning of firms. From this it is concluded that the only correct way for the development of markets in the oil industry of the Russian Federation is their deregulation and liberalization.

However, the argumentation of FAS opponents focuses on the need to create conditions for increasing the efficiency of functioning exclusively of vertically integrated oil companies, leaving aside other socially significant interests. Since the supply of motor fuel is of great national economic importance, the state is responsible for supplying a certain quantity and quality to all consumers at affordable prices. In our opinion, in the absence of an alternative to the existing organizational structure industry in conditions of the low level of economic development of the country, weakness of market economy institutions and social tension, as well as taking into account the risks associated with Russia’s accession to the WTO, strengthening the position of the state as a regulator of markets is natural, and the initiatives of the FAS are justified. Moreover, both bills complement each other. Structural requirements, taken separately from price controls, may result in the limitation of market concentration they provide being offset by oligopolistic collusion.

Considering tariff regulation, it should be noted that in 2012, unlike most of 2011, duties on light and dark petroleum products were unified and the rate on them was 0.66 of the export duty rate on oil. True, the rate for motor and straight-run gasoline was 0.9. An increased export duty on gasoline was introduced in 2011 to prevent fuel shortages in the domestic market.

Due to unification, the average annual export duty rate on light petroleum products (excluding gasoline) in 2012 was lower than in 2011 by 2.7%. At the same time, the average annual export duty rate on gasoline increased by 6.6% over the year. Due to unification, the average annual export duty rate on dark petroleum products increased by 28.1% over the year.

It was assumed that the unification of rates would make the export of dark petroleum products less profitable, and the export of light petroleum products more profitable and, accordingly, would stimulate oil companies invest more in deepening processing. As mentioned above, the depth of refining in the industry has indeed increased, but the share of fuel oil in the total volume of exports of petroleum products not only did not decrease in 2012, but reached a record value.

Thus, the new formula for calculating the export duty on petroleum products has not yet solved all the tasks assigned to it.

In addition to export duties, in 2012 there was an increase in excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, which amounted to different types fuel from 30% to 60%. Indexation took place in two stages - from January 1 and July 1.

An increase is also planned for 2013. Thus, from January 1 to December 2013, excise tax rates on Euro-3 gasoline will be 9,750 thousand rubles. per ton, which is almost 24% higher than the excise tax in force since July 1, 2012 and amounting to 7,882 thousand rubles per ton.

In 2013, rates for Euro-3 diesel fuel will increase by 36% and amount to RUB 5,860 thousand. per ton. Previously, the rate was 4,300 thousand rubles.

Rates for fuel of the fourth and fifth classes will be indexed from July 1 and they will increase less than the rates for fuel of the third class.

Thus, the rate for Euro-4 gasoline from July 1, 2013 will increase by 4.7% to 8,960 thousand rubles. per ton. The rate for Euro-5 gasoline will increase by 11.8% to RUB 5,750 thousand. per ton.

The excise tax rate on Euro-4 diesel fuel will increase by 3.4% from July 1, 2014 and amount to 5.1 thousand rubles. per ton, for Euro-5 diesel fuel - by 3.8% to 4.5 thousand rubles. per ton.

As indicated in the text of the Energy Strategy of Russia for the period until 2030, approved by the government of the country in November 2009, the main components of the state energy policy of the Russian Federation are subsoil use and management of the state subsoil fund, the development of domestic energy markets, the formation of a rational fuel and energy balance, regional energy policy, innovation and scientific-technical policy in the energy sector, social policy in the energy sector and foreign energy policy.

The main mechanisms for implementing state energy policy are:

Creation of a favorable economic environment for the functioning of the fuel and energy complex (including agreed tariff, tax, customs, antimonopoly regulation and institutional reforms in the fuel and energy complex); introduction of a system of promising technical regulations, national standards and norms that increase controllability and stimulate the implementation of the most important priorities and guidelines for energy development, including increasing the energy efficiency of the economy;

Stimulating and supporting strategic initiatives of business entities in investment, innovation, energy saving, environmental and other priority areas;

Increasing the efficiency of state property management in the energy sector.

Literature:

1. Avdasheva, S. Development and application of antimonopoly legislation in Russia (along the path of achievements and misconceptions) [electronic resource] / S. Avdasheva, N. Dzagurova, P. Kryuchkova, G. Yusupova // Report to the XII International. scientific conf. on problems of economic and social development. HSE ID. Moscow, 2011. - URL: http://www.hse.ru/data/2012/03/27/1263337516/ A_D_K_Yu.pdf

2. Artemyev, I. The task of the FAS of Russia is to use the best world practices of market pricing [electronic resource] / I. Artemyev // Information and analytical portal “Oil of Russia”. - 10/26/2012. - URL: http://www.oilru.com/news/343710/

3. Bogachkova, L.Yu. Improving the management of Russian energy sectors: theoretical background, practice, modeling: monograph [electronic resource]. - Volgograd: Volgograd Scientific Publishing House, 2007. - 427 p. - URL: http://mtas.mtas.ru/search/search_results. php?publication_id=3202 . - P. 391.

4. FAS Russia “On the state of competition in the Russian Federation” (for 2010) // Official website of the FAS RF. Access mode: http://fas.gov.ru/about/list-of-reports/list-of-reports_30042.html.

Currently, state regulation of the construction industry at the federal level is carried out by several federal executive bodies, the main one of which is the Ministry regional development Russian Federation. The development and implementation of state policy by the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia is carried out in three main areas.

The first direction is the sphere of technical regulation in construction. The basic legislative act here is the Federal Law “On Technical Regulation”. In accordance with current legislation, this authority is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. If before the adoption of this federal law, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation had the right to approve territorial construction standards (TCN), containing technical requirements for design, survey and construction and installation work, then after its entry into force, the regions do not have such an opportunity.

The second direction is the regulation of urban planning activities, or urban regulation. The basic legislative act on which state policy in this area is based is the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation. This direction, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, is implemented by three levels of public authority: federal, regional and municipal.

The third direction is estimated rationing and pricing in construction. The basic law here is the Federal Law “On investment activities carried out in the form of capital investments.” This power is exercised by the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Of course, the above division of spheres of activity is to a certain extent conditional. For example, for the construction of a specific facility, it is necessary to resolve issues of urban planning, technical, and cost estimates, and at the level of state regulation, all three areas are closely interconnected, interdependent and complement each other. First of all, this applies to the areas of technical and budget regulation. These areas of regulation are interconnected and interdependent, since they contain similar scope of work, common terminology, and are developed according to a common methodology. In this case, the primary ones are technical standards, on the basis of which estimate standards are developed.

Currently, after the liquidation of Rosstroi, the Ministry of Regional Development is carrying out both the development and implementation of state policy in the construction industry.

Technical regulation. The main task in this area is the development and approval of technical standards, which, on the one hand, when implemented, will ensure the safety of the construction and operation of the building and structure and, on the other hand, will not be an obstacle to the introduction of new technical solutions, the use of new technologies and materials.

It must be admitted that in this area we are lagging behind the real needs of the construction industry. For almost four years from the adoption of the Federal Law “On Technical Regulation” until amendments were made to it last year, no work was carried out in this area. Ministry of Regional Development of Russia or some other federal body The executive branch was not given the authority to update existing technical regulations. In addition, it was not possible to develop technical regulations on the safety of buildings, since the law in the previous version did not take into account the characteristics of construction products.

Slide 1 (Fig. 2) presents the three-level structure of documents in the field of technical regulation, within the framework of which our work is based. The first level of documents is technical regulations. These are the only documents that (after they come into force) will contain mandatory requirements for buildings and structures as objects of technical regulation. The main ones here are two technical regulations: “On the safety of buildings and structures” and “On the safety building materials and products." The first technical regulations have already been developed, passed all the necessary procedures, including public discussion, agreed with the federal executive authorities and submitted to the Government of the Russian Federation. After consideration by the government, it will be included in State Duma. In accordance with the second technical regulations, competitive procedures were carried out, the winner was determined, and a government contract is now being concluded. This technical regulation is adopted in the form of a resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation.

These are not the only regulations that will establish requirements for buildings and structures. The technical regulation “On Fire Safety” has already been adopted, and the technical regulation “On the Safety of Elevators” is being developed. The task of the Ministry of Regional Development is to coordinate this process: when agreeing on such technical regulations, we ensure that their content in relation to buildings and structures does not contradict our technical regulations. It is quite possible that in the future it will become clear that the Ministry of Regional Development will also need to develop additional technical regulations, for example, “On the safety of high-rise buildings.” Time will show.

The second level of documents are documents in the field of standardization, national standards and codes of practice. These are documents of voluntary use that provide evidence of compliance mandatory requirements technical regulations. Voluntary use means that designers, for example, can use them or not. In the first case, the state guarantees that the safety requirements that are laid down in the technical regulations will be ensured and it will exercise control over compliance with the requirements of codes of rules and national standards in the process of state examination, state construction supervision during the commissioning of the facility.

In fact, in the new system of technical regulation, without the development of sets of rules, the provisions of technical regulations will be difficult to implement. If in relation to technical regulations we can say that they establish “what must be ensured”, then in relation to sets of rules we say “how to do it”.

It must be said that the designer has the opportunity not to use sets of rules, but to go, as they say, his own way, but then he will have to prove to government agencies that the safety of construction and operation in design solutions is ensured, which will be problematic.

Codes of rules will contain both their own technical standards and reference standards to third-level documents, that is, to building codes and regulations, PPB, Sanitary Regulations, etc. And this is their close relationship. Speaking about the system of sets of rules, we assume that there will be six priority ones in accordance with the types of safety defined in the technical regulations “On the safety of buildings and structures.” We conventionally call them general sets of rules. Then special sets of rules will be developed, for example, for individual residential buildings, for complex engineering structures, etc.

On slide 2 you can see what a huge amount of work needs to be done to create an evidence base for one technical regulation. And only after this it will be possible to say that the minimum in terms of regulatory regulation has been created that will allow all construction participants to actually design and build objects.

Speaking about updating documents, it must be said that work is currently underway on 11 priority SNiPs, and we think that by the end of the year we will introduce them into new edition. This work is also slow, because... documents are necessarily reviewed one, two or more times by the expert commission of the Ministry of Regional Development; accordingly, there are comments, then they are eliminated, etc. The ministry’s order “On the procedure for developing and agreeing on special technical conditions...” was also issued and registered with the Russian Ministry of Justice. Work has now been organized to review, examine and coordinate them with the order. As of September 1, 2012, materials have been received for 131 objects, special technical conditions have been agreed upon for 57 objects.

Regulation of urban planning activities. In accordance with the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, town planning activities include territorial planning, town planning zoning, territory planning, engineering surveys, design and construction of buildings and structures. This area can be conditionally divided into two blocks: the first is the regulation of the actions of public authorities of all levels in the preparation, coordination, approval and implementation of territorial planning documents, urban zoning and territory planning; the second is the regulation of the activities of economic entities - participants in construction to conduct engineering surveys, design and construction of buildings and structures.

I would like to briefly dwell on the first block. The main difference between this block of urban regulation and the sphere of technical regulation is that the issues included in its composition are regulated by public authorities at all levels. Moreover, the center of gravity here is shifted towards the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments. An important norm that should help ensure that authorities implement the norms of the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation regarding the development of urban planning documentation is, firstly, a mechanism for forcing public authorities to carry out urban planning activities by establishing responsibility for inaction. Thus, in the absence of territorial planning documents, from January 1, 2010, it is not allowed to make decisions on the reservation, withdrawal and transfer from one category to another of land plots owned by private individuals for state or municipal needs. In the absence of land use and development rules, from January 1, 2010, it is not allowed to provide private individuals with land plots for construction allocated from state and municipal lands.

Procedures have also been introduced for the preparation and provision of land plots for housing construction at auctions. Auction procedures should replace procedures for preliminary approval of the locations of construction projects.

In addition, a draft Federal Law “On Amendments to the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts” has now been prepared (adopted in the 1st reading), which introduces auction procedures for all land plots (not only in relation to housing construction projects) .

And finally, the institution of control over urban planning activities was introduced. This control should be exercised by the subjects of the activities of municipalities and the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia - by the activities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. All these measures should improve the situation with the development of urban planning documentation, however, an analysis of activities in this part shows that not everything is in order here, primarily in municipal level. In the coming years, at the regional and local level the tasks of preparing and approving programs for the development of local urban regulation systems (including regional programs); preparation and adoption of land use and development rules; plans for the implementation of master plans, including comprehensive schemes for the development of utility networks, priority projects (in connection with the volumes and timing of financing the construction of priority local facilities).

At the federal level, the following work has been carried out in this regard: appropriate changes have been made to the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation; a resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation was adopted on the procedure for approving territorial planning schemes; forms of urban development plan for the land plot, construction permits, permission to put objects into operation have been approved; a draft model law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation on urban planning activities has been prepared; methodological recommendations have been prepared for the development of land use and development rules; the procedure for approval by the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia of the structure of executive authorities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the field of control over urban planning activities carried out by local governments was approved; a form for reporting on the progress of control by constituent entities of the Russian Federation over urban planning activities carried out by local governments has been approved. Not all issues, of course, have been resolved, not all necessary regulatory legal acts have been adopted. In this case, the main task is to develop territorial planning schemes for the Russian Federation.

Now about regulating the activities of construction participants. Here the main role belongs to the federal level and, first of all, the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia. In order to regulate the issues of engineering surveys, design, and construction, the ministry, together with other federal executive authorities, has done the following work: a government decree on the procedure for conducting engineering surveys for the construction of facilities has been prepared and approved; the procedure for the approval by the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia of regulatory acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation regarding the conduct of engineering surveys on their territories has been approved; it is now being registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia; a government decree on the composition of sections of project documentation and requirements for their content was approved; amendments and additions to decree 87 are now being prepared; two orders of the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia “On the procedure for organizing and carrying out construction” and “On the procedure for mothballing capital construction projects” have been prepared and are being approved by the federal executive authorities; a number of documents necessary for the functioning of the unified state examination of design documentation have been adopted, the main one of which is Resolution No. 145 “On the procedure for conducting state examination of design documentation”; a draft resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation “On the procedure for conducting non-state examination of project documentation” has been prepared and is in the Government of the Russian Federation; A resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation was adopted on the procedure for conducting unified state construction supervision, and in its development a number of regulations were adopted that regulated the issues of state construction supervision. I would like to dwell on one more issue that directly regulates the activities of engineering survey organizations, design and construction organizations - the introduction of self-regulation in construction. Amendments to the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, which came into force on July 25, 2008, introduce this institution, eliminate state licensing of construction activities as an independent form of state regulation, and introduce a transition period from licensing to self-regulation. I would like to note that some provisions of this law were not adopted in the wording on which we insisted, and now there are numerous requests from organizations on precisely those controversial issues: size compensation fund; the minimum number of organizations required to acquire the status of a self-regulatory organization; validity period of previously obtained licenses.

The Ministry of Regional Development of Russia is very careful about forecasts - it is very difficult to say now how this process will go. Will the state, as a result, receive an even more bureaucratic machine represented by non-governmental organizations compared to state licensing, about which there were so many complaints? “In any case, we will monitor this process and, based on the results of law enforcement, we will develop appropriate proposals. In this part, we are currently preparing lists of works in the field of engineering surveys, design and construction that affect the safety of capital construction projects, and perhaps here we will be able to smooth out some aspects of the adopted law,” says the head of the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation Igor Slyunyaev.

Based on the research carried out in the first chapter, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Based on the many definitions considered, it can be argued that the modern Russian construction complex is a set of structures of an institutional, economic and production type, characterized by economic, organizational, technical and technological interaction in obtaining the final result? production of construction products.

The structure of the construction complex includes enterprises in the construction industry, construction organizations, enterprises in the building materials industry, installation and contracting organizations, design and research institutes, and design bureaus.

The system of management methods includes: administrative methods, which include legislative regulation; regulation based on authority; organizational and economic methods.

Recent changes in federal legislation and reforms in the field of construction indicate the relevance of the issue of modernization and development of the construction complex in Russia and indicate its high role in increasing sustainable development states. (APPENDIX A).

The legal basis for the activities of the construction complex is made up of the following legislative and regulatory documents: Federal Law “On Licensing of Certain Types of Activities”, Federal Law “On the Protection of Rights legal entities And individual entrepreneurs in the exercise of state control (supervision) and municipal control", Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation Land Code of the Russian Federation Housing Code of the Russian Federation Federal Law "On Self-Regulatory Organizations", Federal Law "On placing orders for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for state and municipal needs", Federal Law “On technical regulation”, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation “On licensing activities in the field of design and construction”; Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation “On the procedure for organizing and conducting state examination of design documentation and engineering survey results”, etc. The listed documents are intended to have a positive impact on the formation of the external environment of the construction complex

The peculiarities of the functioning of some industries give rise to the need for direct government regulation of their activities. At the same time, the main argument for regulation is the social significance of the industry or product. However, most regulated industries have naturally monopolistic segments.

The tools of the new institutional theory allow us to consider state regulation of firms from two positions: as an erosion of property rights and as a long-term specific contract between the state and a firm engaged in a special type of activity.

Through pricing control for most regulated enterprises, the state unilaterally and compulsorily imposes restrictions on the permissible amount of profit of the company, that is, its right to appropriate residual income is limited. Thus, there is an erosion of property rights, which rearranges the expectations of the economic agent, reduces the value of the resource for him, and changes the terms of exchange. Rregulated firms are forced to develop adaptive behavior patterns that minimize costs or lost profits arising from government regulation. Consequently, government actions to regulate the pricing of private firms cannot meet the efficiency criterion and reduce the level of welfare of society.

However, the criterion of efficiency is not contradicted by the splitting (differentiation) of property rights, which is voluntary and bilateral in nature. The main benefit from the dispersal of powers is seen by property rights theorists in the fact that economic agents have the opportunity to specialize in the implementation of one or another partial power (for example, the right to manage or the right to dispose of the capital value of a resource). Redistribution of rights in accordance with the relative advantages that each of the participants in the economic process has in some type of activity increases the overall efficiency of the economy.

At the same time, economists recognize that in reality it is very difficult to separate the processes of splitting from the processes of erosion of property rights.Therefore, regulation can simultaneously be interpreted as a contract between the state and the company, which is voluntary and meets the interests of both parties. Through such a contract, the state realizes the public interest: and the excess profits that can be obtained in some industries due to the natural conditions of their organization must go to consumers in the form of income from lower prices. And the company, in accordance with the contract, receives access to specific resources or a special type of activity, and most importantly - full or partial protection from competitors.

To study the Russian situation, we adopt the contract theory of regulatory relations. All regulated firms before the country's transition to market relations were state-owned. The transfer of part of the property from the state to private ownership can be considered as one of the terms of the contract in exchange for partial restriction of the right of appropriation of residual income by the new owner.

In this case, problems arise regarding the effectiveness of the contract and monitoring its compliance.Regulated firms in the Russian reality must adapt not only to the costs they incur in connection with regulation, but also to the persistent failure to fulfill the terms of contracts on the part of the state. However, the behavior of regulated firms generally fits into traditional types: unjustified inflation of costs, rent-seeking, and various forms of opportunistic behavior.

Interest group theory also explains the emergence of cross-subsidization in many regulated industries. Cross-subsidization often results in a dominant consumer group gaining an advantage over other groups through regulatory decisions to subsidize. The hypothesis that regulators generate cross-subsidization was tested using statistical data from periods in the history of American electric utility regulation when there were still a few unregulated states. Industrial customers buy larger quantities of electricity than households and are relatively small in number, so they can lobby regulators more effectively. Thus, according to this hypothesis, the ratio of residential tariffs to industrial tariffs should be higher in regulated states, despite the fact that the differences in the costs of providing services to both groups are not significant. Statistical studies confirmed this hypothesis; regulation forced the population to subsidize industrial consumers.

However, the possibility of regulatory capture may be weakened if an industry is regulated by multiple commissions. In this case, pressure from a dominant group on multiple regulatory actors is difficult. The same effect is observed when industry regulation is carried out on different levels, and federal and regional authorities simultaneously. However, in this case, the costs of influence increase along with the scale of regulation.

Regulatory ineffectiveness is reflected in widely varying effects on prices. In a number of studies by American scientists, it has been empirically proven that in industries such as electricity and telecommunications, regulation contributed to setting prices 10-20% lower compared to an unregulated monopoly. But these markets represent a case of sustainable natural monopoly. In contrast, in transport industries where natural monopoly is not sustainable, and where competition has been formally suppressed in the past through entry restrictions and minimum price controls, empirical studies show the opposite results. Regulation in these industries American economy contributed to higher prices. Over the period 1969-1974, regulation, according to T. Keeler, contributed to an increase in the cost of air tickets by an average of 22 - 52%. Annually, this amounted to between $1.4 and $1.8 billion in public losses. The main reasons for these exorbitant tariffs are the various forms of X-inefficiency resulting from unjustified regulation of these industries.

A clear example of regulatory ineffectiveness is a comparison of unregulated intrastate and regulated federal air fares in California and Texas. In 1975, on routes of the same length and connecting the same cities, domestic fares were significantly lower. Airline and cargo deregulation in the late 1970s and early 1980s led to lower prices, mainly due to the emergence of new competitors. For example, airfare in markets served byPeople Expressdecreased by 40 - 50%. Between 1976 and 1983, prices for short- and medium-haul freight transport fell by 12-14%.

However, many of these achievements were subsequently lost. The reason, according to most economists and politicians, was lenient antitrust policies during the Reagan administration, which allowed mergers and unfair competition. Thus, deregulation is welcome only to the extent that it replaces regulation with competition.

Opportunistic behavior . A characteristic feature of regulated firms is the presence of opportunistic behavior in the form of concealing information from the regulatory body; abuse of monopoly position; reduction in the quality of products and services.

Inflated costs are closely related to the desire of regulated firms for information privacy.In the Russian economy, the real state of affairs of monopolists is, as a rule, carefully hidden information; the regulatory body does not always deal with reliable and reliable data. Thus, the difficulties of creating an effective system for regulating socially significant industries in the Russian economy are also aggravated by the opacity of financial flows in regulated industries.

Since in many cases regulated firms turn out to be monopolists in the market, practice reveals many cases of abuse of monopoly position. Almost once a month the Ministry of antimonopoly policy Russia initiates cases of violation of antimonopoly legislation in relation to the Ministry of Railways of Russia, and annually the antimonopoly authorities consider about 200 applications regarding violations of antimonopoly legislation by railways. These statistics have been fairly stable over the past few years. Typical examples include the expansion of the list, approved by the Ministry of Railways and the Ministry of Economy, of works and services paid at negotiated rates. Instead of regulated tariffs, consumers are often imposed unreasonably high contractual tariffs or additional services not provided for in the price list, and the volumes of actual work performed and services provided are often overstated. As a rule, such situations occur in areas where railways are practically the only mode of transport. There is also discrimination against cargo owners who have their own rolling stock. For transportation by their own fleet, even at official prices, they have to pay more than for transportation by the railway fleet.

Another form of opportunistic behavior by regulated firms is a reduction in the quality of products or services produced. In many regulated industries, there are high costs of measuring the quality of the products or services produced, so the regulated firm has the ability to reduce quality in the face of government-set prices.

Contracts between the government and regulated firms are mostly formal. At the same time, implicit contracts are also widely used in this area. Under existing conditions of uncertainty, regulatory contracts cannot be complete.

The Russian situation is characterized by low formalization of contractual relations. This is a source of inconsistency in government regulation. Thus, during the transition to a market, many regulated industries were assigned by the state mutually exclusive roles - to ensure economic recovery and development of the economy and at the same time serve as the main source of income state budget all levels, as well as ensure the fulfillment of social functions . At the same time, the fiscal and social functions turned out to be priorities.

The ineffectiveness of existing contracts between the state and regulatory authorities in Russia is reflected in the presence of cross-subsidization practices. Buyers of regulated enterprises are divided into three groups: the population, budgetary organizations and commercial consumers. As a rule, regulators set the lowest tariffs for the population, often at or even below cost. Tariffs for budgetary organizations higher, but this group of consumers is characterized by extremely low payment discipline. The highest tariffs are for commercial consumers. Thus, in most cases, the problem of income lost at the expense of the first two groups of consumers is solved. But the demand of commercial consumers is the most elastic, they are more active in searching for alternative service providers where possible. Many enterprises build their own electric power generators and water intakes with high production costs, prefer to use cellular communications for long-distance and international calls instead of telecommunications, etc. At the same time, the costs of enterprises turn out to be comparable to regulated tariffs, and the quality of services and reliability of supplies are much higher. Thus, regulated firms lose their most profitable clients, and therefore a significant part of their income. If these trends prove to be stable, then in the near future the main consumers of products and services of regulated companies will remain the poor population and insolvent budgetary organizations.

Particular mention should be made of the debt of budgetary organizations, which constitutes a significant share of the total amount of receivables of regulated firms. After all, it is the state itself, as the owner of these enterprises, that ultimately turns out to be the debtor of the regulated companies. Thus, non-payments by budgetary organizations are a manifestation of a violation of the contract between the state and regulated firms. The reliability of promises and discipline in fulfilling obligations on the part of the state, as an institution that determines the rules of the game as a whole, is of utmost importance for increasing the efficiency of contractual relations.

A peculiarity of the relationship between these parties is the situation when one of the parties to the contract (the state) acts at the same time as an arbiter in resolving controversial issues. Therefore, improving regulatory contracts should be aimed at increasing their formalization, completeness and efficiency.

Improving industry regulation in Russia is associated with the following important areas. It is necessary to clearly define the criteria for the feasibility of regulation for various industries: under what conditions the industry or the production of certain types of products should be subject to regulation and, what is especially important, when and under what conditions deregulation is possible and what is its mechanism. In those cases where regulation is truly necessary, it will be most effective when mechanisms are created to ensure effective contractual relationships between all parties, as well as in an appropriate institutional environment.

The largest Russian multi-product companies OJSC Gazprom, RAO UES of Russia, railways under the control of the Ministry of Railways have a natural monopoly core and, therefore, are subjects of a natural monopoly at the federal level, their activities are subject to direct state regulation. The importance of state regulation of these objects is exacerbated by the macroeconomic effect of their activities.

During the transition from a command economy to market methods economic activity of subjects of natural monopoly at the federal and local levels is the most important factor of both macro- and meso- and microeconomic stability. The lack of an adequate mechanism for sectoral regulation led to a situation in which the tariff and commodity-credit policy of the most important infrastructure sectors became one of the causes of cost inflation, severe financial situation most enterprises. The role of natural monopolies in the formation of “institutional traps” based on the general crisis of non-payments, the side effects of which were the mobility of the ownership of most Russian enterprises, obstacles to the demonopolization of the economy and the development of competition, cannot be overestimated.

There is an implicit contract between a weak state and strong interest groups. The state provides subjects of infrastructure industries with the opportunity to receive monopoly rent in exchange for ensuring a minimum level of social stability in the country and the financial solvency of the state budget and budgetary organizations.

Therefore, artificial containment of tariffs on products and services of natural monopolies cannot solve the problems of the country and the regulated companies themselves. The effectiveness of reforming the economy of natural monopoly structures, the creation of a mechanism for effective state regulation of pricing of natural monopolies, the organization of competition and deregulation of potentially competitive segments of these industries can become the basis for a real reduction in tariffs and create the preconditions for growth in other sectors of Russian industry.

The success of the above actions depends on eliminating the possibility of subjects of natural monopolies receiving natural and monopoly rent and introducing institutions that weaken the influence of industry interest groups. The most realistic way is the formation of a fairly strong coalition of antimonopoly forces represented by large industry not related to the fuel and energy complex and public organizations, representing the interests of small businesses and households.

Kokorev V.R. Institutional reform in the field of infrastructure under conditions of natural monopoly // Questions of Economics. 1998.№4. [v] See “Results of a study by the EBRD and the World Bank indicate familiar relations between the state and enterprises” // Transformation. 1999. December. P.6-9.

According to specialists of these organizations, the level of “capture” of government bodies is determined by the ability of individuals or companies to pay for regulations that correspond to their personal interests. (Ibid., p.6)

Keeler T.E. Deregulation and Scale Economies in the U.S. Trucking Industry: An Econometric Extension of the Survivor Principle // Journal of Law and Economics. 1989. No. 32. P.P. 399 - 424.

Bnieckner J.K. and Spiller P.T. Competition and Mergers in Airline Networks // International Journal of Industrial Organization. 1991. No. 9. P. P. 374 - 382.

INDUSTRIES AND INTER-INDUSTRY COMPLEXES

V.D. Goncharov, S.V. Koteev, V.V. Rau

STATE REGULATION IN INDUSTRIES OF THE FOOD COMPLEX

The article discusses the issues of regulating market processes in the food complex and its individual sectors. Some directions for increasing the efficiency and competitiveness of its functioning in modern conditions.

The global crisis phenomena of recent years have once again confirmed the relevance and need to develop effective mechanisms and models of state regulation of market processes in both the global and national economies, as well as in their largest and most significant sectors. The experience of many developed and developing countries leads to the understanding that in the context of globalization, only a rational and scientifically based combination and complementarity of regulatory and market influences can ensure high and sustainable socio-economic efficiency and competitiveness of modern production.

The system of economic and organizational influence on the food market should include forms and methods of both direct and indirect government regulation, ensure the possibility of independent production commercial activities all links of the agro-industrial complex, increasing their economic activity.

Methods of direct influence involve regulation by the state, in which economic entities are forced to make decisions based not on independent economic choice, but on external regulations. Let us take tax legislation as an example. legal rules in the field of depreciation, budgetary procedures for public investments. Direct methods are often highly effective due to the rapid achievement of economic results. However, they have a serious drawback - creating real obstacles to the market process.

Methods of indirect regulation are manifested in the fact that the state does not directly influence the economic decisions made by subjects. It only creates the prerequisites for the fact that when choosing independently economic decisions subjects gravitated toward those options that corresponded to the goals of state economic policy.

Predominantly, methods of government influence are carried out in relation to industries that are either strategically important or insufficiently effective in the market environment. Such industries, in particular, include agriculture. In other industries, supply and demand are formed primarily by the market, based on the actual situation, state tax policy, and consumer income.

A set of measures to promote the development of the food market and ensure balanced supply and demand should include:

Stimulating the production of domestic products through the use of tax regulators, loans, etc.;

Regulation of prices and tariffs;

Establishing a state order for socially significant food products;

Development of wholesale food markets;

Improving the relationship between agricultural and food enterprises and trade;

Regulation of import and export;

Subsidies and social protection of low-income groups of the population.

An important place in the economic mechanism of state regulation of the food complex is occupied by long- and medium-term forecasting and planning. However, insufficient attention is paid to the issues of strategic planning and forecasting in the agro-industrial complex of the Russian Federation. Previously existing shortcomings of the planning and distribution system are often automatically transferred to modern planning. In the conditions of the formation of a civilized food market, forecasting and planning as functions of management activities not only retain their place in the system of economic mechanism, but also significantly expand the scope of their influence on agro-industrial production. At the same time, changes are taking place at all levels of management of the food complex. What principles should forecasting and planning developments meet in modern conditions? First of all, it is necessary that they be primarily advisory (indicative) in nature in relation to domestic producers. At the same time, the latter should have full right to choose those areas of their activities that are most effective in the specific situation emerging in the food market. As a rule, agreement is achieved within the framework of indicative procedures, in which the state develops and presents a comprehensive forecast of macroeconomic development for the short and long term. Indicative planning has long been successfully used in Japan, France, the Netherlands and a number of other countries, where it is part of state socio-economic policy.

In order to bring it closer to practice, it is necessary that the macroeconomic forecast of the development of the agro-industrial complex, firstly, be a detailed and specific document in which appropriate inter-sectoral and national economic proportions should be recorded, and secondly, become a scientific basis for the development of specific economic agreements between the government and rural producers.

When developing forecasting and analytical justifications, it is advisable to include in them the optimization of the territorial division of labor in the food complex, in which each region, based on the specific natural and economic conditions, produces predominantly the most competitive products intended for sale on regional and world markets. The transition to a regulated economy also raises the need to supplement the content of the forecast for the development and distribution of the food complex with justification for the volumes and dynamics of imports and interregional connections, which will improve the overall efficiency of its functioning in the system national economy countries.

To the regulatory system economic relations The agro-industrial complex includes financial, budgetary, credit, tax and price regulation. An example is France, where a rather strict regime of state price regulation has partially been preserved to this day. Methodological aspect pricing

in developed countries consists in the development by government agencies general principles, methods and standards for setting prices. For example, with government regulation of prices for dairy products in the United States, Congress determines the “fair” level of control prices for milk, butter, and cheese. If market prices fall below this level, the state buys the products and uses them for free breakfasts for schoolchildren, support for the poor, food aid to underdeveloped countries, and export to other countries.

The reduction in food production in the Russian Federation in the 1990s, along with a significant increase in consumer prices, created favorable conditions for the influx of imported goods into the domestic domestic market. It should be noted that the constant rise in prices for domestic products reduces their competitiveness not only in the foreign but also in the domestic market. It would seem logical that under the pressure of competition from foreign producers, prices should decline. But they are mostly growing. As a result, neither the population nor, ultimately, the budget benefits.

The effectiveness of public policy in these conditions depends on a well-founded, flexible and differentiated approach to regulating and supporting the food complex. During the transition period, government support should be selective in nature, not leading to imbalance of market mechanisms.

Thus, the state, with the help of economic levers, has a direct and indirect influence on the formation economic interests subjects of the agro-industrial complex. The general goal of state policy is to create a favorable economic, social, legal environment and organizational support for effective and sustainable development.

Let's consider some issues of government regulation using the example of one of the main areas of the food complex - the food industry.

Despite measures taken in recent years to improve the economy of this industry, its situation remains tense. The share of unprofitable enterprises in the production of food products, including beverages, increased from 19.2% in 1995 to 25.1% in 2008. The profitability of food production decreased over the same period from 16.3 to 10.8%. With regard to capital turnover, a rather difficult situation arose: the uncontrolled growth of imports and a significant reduction in agricultural production led to a significant underutilization of production capacity. For example, in 2005, production capacity for meat production was used only by 45%, whole milk products - by 48, rennet cheeses - by 61, flour - by 44, cereals

By 30, margarine products - by 56, animal oil - by 27% (Table 1).

In recent years, the use of production capacity for a number of types of products has improved somewhat, but there are still significant reserves for increasing the output of food products at existing enterprises.

Against the backdrop of euphoria about the rate of economic growth in 2001-2008. The problem of food imports remains acute for Russia. The lack of a clear mechanism for regulating industrial and agricultural production and problems with product quality lead to the fact that with rising wages, consumer demand often increasingly shifts in favor of imported, more expensive, but high-quality products. And if the cost of imports of food products and agricultural raw materials in 2000 amounted to 7.4 billion dollars, in 2001 -9.2, in 2005 - 17.4, then in 2008 it increased to 35, $2 billion.

Table 1

Use of the average annual capacity of enterprises for the production of certain types of food products, %

Food products 1992 1995 2000 2005 2008

Granulated sugar from sugar beets 86 86 76 86 86

Bread and bakery products 61 44 40 39 41

Confectionery 61 46 50 62 65

Pasta 89 44 46 63 64

Vegetable oils 71 35 61 70 63

Margarine products 61 20 42 56 60

Beer 66 51 79 74 74

Soft drinks 19 17 37 59 54

Canned fruits and vegetables 51 21 32 66 54

Meat (pair weight) 57 32 18 45 58

Sausages 66 54 52 66 67

Canned meat 61 39 40 45 46

Animal oil 67 35 25 27 32

Whole milk products (in terms of milk) 41 24 32 48 54

Rennet cheeses 72 51 49 61 65

Canned milk 55 48 55 61 58

Flour 79 53 45 44 47

Cereals 62 39 24 30 34

Source: .

Imported agricultural products from countries far abroad receives significant government subsidies and in connection with this, actively competes with domestic food products, the increase in production costs of which is catastrophic, and budget subsidies are chronically insufficient. Drawing Russia into import dependence on food is fraught with a further uncontrollable increase in prices.

Russia imports significant volumes of raw sugar, vegetable oil, and corn. Special mention should be made about poultry meat. In some years, more than a million tons of it are imported into the country. And this despite the fact that rich domestic experience has already been accumulated in the production of this type of meat, there are modern poultry farms and, with appropriate state support it would be possible to achieve complete self-sufficiency in the near future (Table 2).

During the years of reforms, imports of raw sugar increased sharply. An increase in the share of processed raw sugar in the total volume of sugar produced in the country, along with the apparent profitability of purchasing imported raw sugar (the production cycle of sugar factories is lengthened), has the following negative consequences. Firstly, Russia becomes economically and food dependent on foreign countries. Secondly, uncontrolled imports of raw sugar, leading to a reduction in the production of granulated sugar from domestic raw materials, entails economic and social losses (a sharp reduction in jobs in beet growing, seed production, processing, trade, etc.). Thirdly, even relatively low prices for raw sugar are a ghostly advantage. If, under conditions of increasing commodity intervention, beet sugar production in the Russian Federation is destroyed, exporting countries will at any time sharply increase prices for granulated sugar and raw sugar.

However, in recent years there have been some positive changes in the country's food industry. A positive fact is, in particular, the improvement in the situation with the raw material base of the oil and fat industry. In the second half of the 90s of the last century, up to a third of the harvest was exported from Russia

sunflower seeds. As a result, of all the leading oilseed exporters, only Russia carried out subsequent massive imports of vegetable oil. The capacity of vegetable oil production enterprises was utilized, for example, by 46% in 1998, and by 48% in 1999. The measures taken by the Government of the Russian Federation have made it possible to significantly reduce the export of oilseeds abroad. For example, in 2008, only 85 thousand tons of sunflower seeds, 48 ​​thousand tons of rapeseed, and 53.3 thousand tons of flax seeds were exported from Russia. At the same time, imports of sunflower oil alone to Russia decreased from 176.3 thousand tons in 2002 to 112 thousand tons in 2008. Consequently, further measures to reduce the export of raw materials and reduce the import of vegetable oil still need to be implemented.

Table 2

Import of basic food products, thousand tons*

Products 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fresh and frozen meat (without poultry) 1153 1340 1411 1489 1710

Fresh and frozen poultry meat 1383 1329 1283 1295 1224

Fresh and frozen fish 464 787 686 870 881

Condensed milk and cream 59.2 146 145 131 160

Butter and other milk fats 140 133 165 123 140

Potatoes 210 103 376 274 574

Tomatoes 182 355 418 560 685

Onions and garlic 454 543 578 658 503

Grapes 100 291 321 381 407

Apples 367 730 838 935 1064

Tea 166 180 173 182 182

Wheat 265 577 1397 465 179

Barley 171 252 188 273 132

Corn 449 201 295 93.5 362

Vegetable oils 1083 1002 848 956 1121

soybean 473 93.6 24.6 36.6 108

sunflower 176 131 100 132 112

palm 318 600 543 576 688

Raw sugar 4453 2893 2629 3413 2418

White sugar 483 625 350 296 165

Cocoa beans 70.7 68.6 68.6 68.6 60.1

Pasta 40.4 79.4 87.8 75.4 65.4

Coffee 25.8 39.7 55.6 64.6 75.5

*According to the Federal Customs Service, taking into account the import of goods from the Republic of Belarus.

Source: .

Along with the sub-sectors that, after 2000, began to focus more on the problems of exporting food products, there are sub-sectors in the food industry that have a pronounced dependence on imports. The classic example is the meat industry. Thus, in 2008, imports of meat and meat products increased to 3.2 million tons compared to 2.3 million tons in 1995. As a result, the share of imports in total resources increased in the industry from 25% in 1995 to 38 % in 2008

Ensuring food security in Russia involves increasing the volume of domestic meat production with simultaneous import substitution of meat products. However, in practice, there is an increase in imports of meat and meat products with an increase in meat production in the country. Consequently, as livestock farming emerges from the crisis in Russia, adequate import substitution does not occur.

Thus, without modernizing the agricultural sector, food and processing industries and increasing the competitiveness of the food industry,

For these goods, the growth in consumer demand may result in changes in the supply structure in favor of imported food products. A clear, financially supported strategy for the development of the country's agro-industrial complex is needed, which would increase food production and improve the standard of living of the population.

The demand for food products, unlike other consumer goods, is not so closely related to the level of income of the population. With the help of market mechanisms alone, it is impossible to maintain the balance of supply and demand for certain types of food products and maintain the stability of the food supply of the population. Therefore on state level The issue of regulating prices for certain types of food products must be resolved, taking into account the current situation in food markets in the regions of the country. In all developed countries there are laws on prices, which for a certain period and for a limited assortment allow the state to effectively regulate them. A second option is also possible: to provide assistance to low-income segments of the population in the form of subsidies. On modern stage This method is also quite logical: the gap in income of different segments of the population is reduced, which should generally help reduce social tension and increase demand for food products.

The most important levers for regulating the food industry and the food sector in general are also loans and taxes. Experiencing a lack of working capital, processing enterprises regularly resort to loans. In general, in the food industry, accounts payable at the end of 2008 amounted to 511.6 billion rubles, and accounts receivable - 350 billion rubles. Overdue accounts payable of food industry enterprises for this period amounted to 22 billion rubles, and overdue accounts receivable - 23 billion rubles. However, only a part of the industry's enterprises are able to reliably repay loans and pay interest on them.

One of the reasons for the unsatisfactory state of the industry's economy is high tax deductions from commodity producers, which do not leave them at their disposal financial resources for the development and improvement of production. The unprofitability of some enterprises in the industry is largely a consequence of the significant tax burden.

The idea of ​​tax cuts has many supporters in countries with economies in transition. Much depends on the specific situation. In the USA, reforming tax system, ensured the transition from moderate taxation to even more moderate. In Russia, we are talking about transferring business entities from conditions of a heavy tax burden to a moderate one. However, in the agricultural sector and food industry, this issue should be approached in a differentiated manner. It is necessary to be guided by the importance of the products produced for feeding the population and the economic situation of the industry. It is unlikely that the production rate of, for example, beer should be increased. At the same time, it is necessary to increase the production of meat and dairy products, cereals, and animal feed. Special mention should be made about compound feeds. Without solving the problem with them, it is impossible to significantly increase the production of meat and dairy products in the near future. Therefore, only by choosing priority areas it is possible to increase the efficiency of the food complex as a whole.

During the transition period, support for enterprises in the agricultural sector and food industry is predominantly selective. The state supports those enterprises that have a higher return on investment

funds. The criterion for selective support is total sales volume, profitability, level of use of material resources.

An important task of state regulation of the agro-industrial complex is also to achieve and maintain parity in exchange relations between agriculture, processing industry and trade. The price disparity that emerged in the 1990s led to severe financial consequences for the majority of rural commodity producers and processing industry enterprises in a number of regions of the country. In this regard, it would be advisable for the bulk of the additional income generated as a result of the liberalization of food prices to move from trade to the production and processing of agricultural products. Currently, the share of the sphere of circulation, for example, for meat and dairy products ranges from 21 to 31.8% of the retail price (Table 3).

Table 3

Structure of retail prices for certain types of meat and dairy products in 2008

(at the end of the year), %

Type of product Cost of raw materials and main materials Production costs, including commercial expenses Total unit cost of production Profit and loss (-) of industrial enterprises Value added tax (VAT), excise duty and other taxes Selling price including VAT and other taxes Payment for delivery of products to customers by the processing enterprise Turnover of the sphere of circulation, including VAT accrued to retail trade organizations

Beef (except boneless meat) 51.7 9.1 60.8 3.1 6.7 70.6 2.5 26.9

Pork (except boneless meat) 50.9 7.0 57.9 3.8 6.2 67.9 0.3 31.8

Premium boiled sausage 45.3 14.7 60.0 7.7 7.9 75.6 0.2 24.2

Poultry meat 46.6 23.6 70.2 0.9 5.0 76.1 0.0 23.9

Pasteurized whole milk 41.4 24.8 66.2 4.3 7.1 77.6 0.5 21.9

Sour cream (15-20% fat) 38.9 23.2 62.1 6.7 7.1 75.9 0.4 23.7

Fat cottage cheese (at least 5% fat content) 39.2 20.2 59.4 7.1 6.7 73.2 0.3 26.5

Low-fat cottage cheese (less than 5% fat) 36.6 209 57.5 6.6 6.3 70.4 0.4 29.2

Butter 60.7 19.3 80.0 -8.4 7.0 78.6 0.2 21.2

Rennet cheeses, hard and soft 42.1 18.6 60.7 2.8 5.8 69.3 0.0 30.7

State and municipal management: lecture notes Kuznetsova Inna Aleksandrovna

2. State regulation in cultural sectors

Law of the Russian Federation of October 9, 1992 No. 3612-1 “Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on culture” connects the concept of culture and creativity with various types cultural activities– activities for the preservation, creation, dissemination and development of cultural values. Under cultural values understands moral and aesthetic ideals, norms and patterns of behavior, languages, dialects and dialects, national traditions and customs, historical toponyms, arts and crafts, works of culture and art, results and methods scientific research cultural activities, buildings, structures, objects and technologies of historical and cultural significance, historically and culturally unique territories and objects. Cultural activity creates cultural benefits– conditions and services provided by organizations, other legal entities and individuals for citizens to satisfy their cultural needs.

Creative activity is the creation of cultural values ​​and their interpretation. The person who creates or interprets these values ​​has an inextricable connection with cultural activity.

In culture, a major role belongs to professional and creative organizations (unions of writers, theater workers, filmmakers, etc.), which unite and direct the creative activities of numerous non-profit cultural and art organizations.

The founder of a cultural organization approves its charter and amendments to it, appoints and dismisses a manager, concludes, changes and terminates contracts with the manager in the manner prescribed by law. Since cultural organizations can be institutions of federal, constituent entities of the Federation or municipal significance, the charters and regulations of cultural organizations are approved by acts of the Government of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation, executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation or municipal authorities local government.

Activities aimed at preserving, creating, distributing and mastering cultural values, providing cultural benefits to the population in various forms and types are the main activities of cultural organizations. Cultural organizations may carry out other activities that do not contradict the law, provided for by their charter (regulations), including entrepreneurial ones, only insofar as this serves the achievement of the goals for which it was created and which corresponds to these goals.

State bodies and local governments do not interfere in the professional and creative activities of cultural organizations, except in cases where such activities lead to the promotion of war, violence and cruelty, racial, national, religious, class and other exclusivity.

The Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications is a federal executive body that carries out the functions of developing state policy and legal regulation in the field of culture, art, historical cultural heritage and cinematography, media and mass communications, archival affairs and issues of interethnic relations. It coordinates and controls the activities of those under its jurisdiction Federal service for monitoring compliance with legislation in the field of mass communications and the protection of cultural heritage, the Federal Archival Agency, the Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography, the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications.

According to the Regulations on the Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 17, 2004 No. 289, the Ministry of Culture of Russia carries out the following functions and powers: submits to the Government of the Russian Federation draft federal laws, regulatory legal acts of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation and others documents that require a decision from the Government of the Russian Federation on issues related to the established area of ​​jurisdiction of the Ministry and the areas of competence of federal agencies subordinate to it, as well as a draft work plan and forecast indicators of the Ministry’s activities, etc.

Structural divisions The Ministry of Culture of Russia are departments in the main areas of activity of the ministry, which include departments. Under the jurisdiction of this ministry and directly subordinate to it are the Federal Archival Agency, the Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography and the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications. The Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation, on the basis of and in pursuance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws, acts of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation, independently carries out legal regulation, and also develops and submits to the Government of the Russian Federation draft federal constitutional laws, federal laws and acts of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation on issues:

1) culture, art, historical and cultural heritage (except for the sphere of protection of cultural heritage), cinematography, publishing, printing activities, archival affairs, copyright and related rights(except for draft regulatory legal acts on control and supervision in the field of copyright and related rights);

2) international cultural and information cooperation.

This text is an introductory fragment. From the book Business Law author Shevchuk Denis Alexandrovich

5. State regulation of monopolistic activities To develop commodity markets and competition, limit monopolistic activities, suppress unfair competition and protect consumer rights, there is the State Committee of the Russian Federation for

From the book State and Municipal Administration: Lecture Notes author Kuznetsova Inna Alexandrovna

1. State regulation of investment activity The concept of investment activity was first legally defined only in 1991. Despite the significant number of documents released to date, not all aspects

From the book Commercial Law: Lecture Notes author Gorbukhov V A

1. State regulation of education and science in the Russian Federation Enshrined in Art. 43 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the right of citizens to education has a very solid legal and organizational basis, expressed by the presence of a fairly broad regulatory framework and

author Gorbukhov V A

LECTURE No. 30. State regulation of the activities of exchanges The main government body regulating the activities of commodity exchanges and exercising control over their activities is the federal executive body in the field of financial markets for

From the book Administrative Law of Russia in Questions and Answers author Konin Nikolai Mikhailovich

From the book Public Administration System author Naumov Sergey Yurievich

3. Antimonopoly government regulation An important condition and necessary prerequisite for the establishment and progressive development of an effective market economy system is the comprehensive development of competition while simultaneously resolutely combating various

From the book Commercial Law author Golovanov Nikolay Mikhailovich

4. State banking and tax regulation Banking regulation is carried out in accordance with Federal law dated December 2, 1990 No. 395-1 “On banks and banking activities” (as amended on April 8, 2008). Banking system of the Russian Federation includes

From the book Business Law. Cheat sheets author Antonov A.P.

Topic 21. State regulation in cultural sectors 1. The concept and types of cultural activities, the legal status of cultural organizations in the system of the Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation Law of the Russian Federation “Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on culture”

From the author's book

2. State regulation of archival affairs An organizationally independent sub-sector of the socio-cultural industry complex is archival affairs, under which, in accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation of July 7, 1993 No. 5341-1 “Fundamentals of Legislation of the Russian Federation

From the author's book

5. State regulation of physical culture, sports and tourism It would seem that the system of the socio-cultural complex, as an organizationally independent branch, should include physical culture, sports and tourism, since the Federal

From the author's book

6.2. State regulation of the economy Economy is the basis that determines all aspects of the life of society and consists in the rational use of resources for the production of goods, the provision of services and meeting the needs of society.

From the author's book

146. State regulation of prices for certain types of goods The principle of freedom of pricing is limited in order to ensure public interests. The fundamentals of the procedure for establishing and applying prices are determined by decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and decrees of the Government

From the author's book

191. State regulation of commercial activities The state regulates commercial activities through: state registration of commercial entities; licensing of certain types of commercial

From the author's book

2. State regulation of legal relations The multilateral activities of commodity producers take place under state regulation. In the process of organizing, carrying out production, at subsequent stages of exchange and industrial consumption

From the author's book

21. State regulation of entrepreneurial activity The basis of all entrepreneurial activity in Russia is the initiative and independence of its participants. These principles are enshrined in current legislation. However, independence

From the author's book

96. State regulation of entrepreneurship in industry The process of production and economic activity is an independent entrepreneurial activity, carried out at one’s own peril and risk, aimed at systematically obtaining profit from