While in the pre default period the minimum value of the indicator had been 49%, the post default maximum sky rocketed to 74%, i.e. the gap amounted to 25%. Post default, some industries reported a complete satisfaction with the number of their personnel, and our surveys registered such a situation in the sectors for electricity, fuel and metallurgy, while the machine engineering and light industry displayed the most modest results over the pe riod in question (74%).
The dynamics of excessiveness of personnel in the industrial sector demonstrates a certain dependence on the size of an enterprise. Large plants have always maintained a greater excessiveness of their personnel vs. medium and small size ones. Even post default the balance of their assessments more often appears positive than negative. Their monopolistic position and a great social significance enabled them both to increase the output and sales volumes at a faster pace pay higher salaries vis a vis medium and small sized companies, and maintain a certain excess of staff (most likely, with acceptable wages), which could be used in the event of demand and production expansion. In the pe RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks riod of the post default “re galvanization” that allowed large enterprises to easily solve their problems with staff and experience a smaller need for employing new personnel. In such a situation, an excess of the workforce on hand can be likened to finished products, the immediate availability of which in the storage allows to promptly meet new (unex pected) customers, for a relatively low wages level in the industrial sector makes the asso ciated costs not a heavy burden for the company.
Medium and small size enterprises faced an absolutely opposite situation. A more intense competition has not and still does not enable them to achieve satisfactory per formance and, accordingly, salaries, which contributed for a faster “washing away” of their personnel. Prior to the default they somehow had been managing to keep “the stock” of workforce to promptly boost their output, but its size rapidly exhausted after 1998. Such enterprise have now experienced a stable shortage of workforce.
% 501-Over -1--1/96 1/97 1/98 1/99 1/00 1/01 1/02 1/03 1/04 1/Fig. 33. Balances of Assessments of Staff Numbers due to the Enterprise’s Size (Balance = Excessive – Insufficient) But ultimately in 2004 the national industrial sector saw zero balance of assessments of the number of employees, with enterprises with a sufficient employment dominating over the sector (Table. 21). As the question on the assessment of employment has been asked to enterprises for 9 years already, while the Russian industrial sector experienced drastic changes in demand over this period of time and the balance of assessment has fluctuated recently over zero value, it can be argued that at the macrolevel the problem of provision of enterprises appears resolved. To equally solve it on the microlevel requires a greater territorial mobility of workforce.
The combination of assessments of sufficiency of the exiting personnel and the question about the shortage of staff as an obstacle to growth in output allows to assess the correlation between different enterprises’ positions from the perspective of staff suffi ciency and possibility for solving the problem with personnel by means of labor market (Fig. 34). As our computations show, the national industrial sector has always been domi nated by the enterprises that assess their personnel as sufficient in relation to expected Section 3.
The real sector changes in demand and consider that staffing do not pose a problem to them, as far as the boosting of their output is concerned. It would be logical to assume that this particular group of enterprises finds itself in the state of static equilibrium between their personnel and expected changes in demand and output. They did not suffer from an excessive em ployment, nor they were in need for additional stuff to boost their output to match the dy namics of demand. Prior to the demand this group comprised on average up to 52% of en terprises, while in 2004 – 58%. In other words, the national industrial sector was anyway dominated by enterprises with a number of employees optimal to ensure their production expansion Table Assessment of Personnel Sufficiency (as%) Year More than enough Enough Insufficient Balance 1996 38 54 8 1997 37 57 6 1998 39 55 6 1999 24 66 10 2000 15 68 17 –2001 13 71 16 –2002 19 68 13 2003 16 70 14 2004 15 70 15 Enough staff, they are not an obstacle to growth Excessive staff, they are not an obstacle to growth Insufficient staff, they are obstacle to growth Insufficient stuff, but they are not an obstacle to growth 1/96 1/97 1/98 1/99 1/00 1/01 1/02 1/03 1/04 1/Fig. 34. The Dynamics of Main Positions of Enterprises on the Labor Market The group of companies with excessive staff but not experiencing problems with per sonnel while boosting their output holds the second position. They have managed to main RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks tain “a qualitative” excess of workforce needed to secure a prompt and painless (from the staffing perspective) production expansion. Indeed, as soon as Russian industrial sector began to boost output in the wake of the default, the proportion of these enterprises started to promptly shrink from 39% (July 1998) to 10% (July 2000), while in 2004 their share accounted on average for 13%. Such an excessiveness and the enterprises policy are, anyway, worth of a positive score, for they allow to keep the most qualified personnel at enterprises, which are ready to immediately take part in the production process, once the respective demand and output grow. These staffing cohorts in a sense can be likened to the industrial sector’s mobilization potential, while the sole fundamental difference be tween them is that the former are intended to meet effective demand, rather than military needs.
The proportion of the enterprises that lack staff, albeit personnel do not pose a prob lem to production expansion appears most stable. The lack of personnel due to envisaged changes in demand speaks of the absence of “competitive stock” of workforce at the en terprises, i.e. such an excess that can be used in production, once the demand for a given enterprise’s output grows. But these enterprises do not believe the lack of staff is an ob stacle to growth in their output. The surveys evidence that the number of such companies in Russia has always been a. 5%. Most likely, they can solve their staffing problems through the labor market. Small proportion of this particular group is explained chiefly by a unique for the country situation, in which an enterprise has managed to fully get rid of the excessive workforce, but at the same time it enjoys the possibility of prompt staff employ ment on the labor market.
The enterprises that as well do not possess a sufficient number of their own staff due to envisaged changes in demand, and this staff shortage constraint their output. It can be assumed that likewise the preceding group, having got rid of the excessive workforce and even after going further beyond that, this group of enterprises found itself incapable to re ceive the lacking workforce from the labor market, either because of the lack of the latter in their respective region, or due to the existence of structural disproportions on that. The dynamics of the sector in question appear quite logical. While prior to the default there were on average 2% of such enterprises in the national industrial sector, after the default their average share grew up to 9%. In 2004, it rose up to 13%.
In conclusion let us results of an assessment of the model that demonstrates which of the available indicators form a situation under which qualified personnel constrain pro duction boom in the national industrial sector. We use the enterprises’ responses to the question as to whether or not the lack of staff forms the factor that constrains the rise in their output as independent variable. It is the dichotomized variable (“forms” – “does not form”). The binary logistical regression enables us to assess the impact independent vari ables have on the probability of positive answer (“the staff shortages constrain the rise in output”). As concerns conceptual indicators, it was assessments of demand on the scale “over norm – normal – below norm” that have the strongest and steadily significant effect on citing in our surveys personnel shortages as an obstacle. Negative coefficients speak that the probability of the constraining effect on output on the part of personnel grows along with the rise of satisfaction with demand. Another assessment – based characteris tics of demand: that is, the assessment of finished products in stock, – began to exert a substantial influence on the emergence of the probability of staffing deficit only in 2004.
This impact was correct: the deficit of reserves and the need to boost output to meet an unforeseen rise in demand were increasing the probability. The dynamics of the demand (growth – no changes – decline) did not have a substantial effect on the probability of re ferring to the obstacle, yet the positive sign of the coefficient appears illogical – staff be Section 3.
The real sector gins to hamper the rise in output against a lowering demand. But the dynamics of output compel enterprises to recall the staffing problems. The impact of this particular variable, as a rule, appears substantial and expected. The enterprises’ intentions to boost their output cause the same reaction: more optimistic production plans raise the probability of staff shortages. However, yet another critical characteristics of the enterprise’s production ac tivity, the capacity loading rate, does not affect the staff shortages, perhaps, because the already loaded capacities have been already staffed. But the prospects for a guaranteed sufficiency with work (orders in months) generate the staffing problem in the national in dustrial sector.
3.2.4. Capacity related constraints to rising output.
Our surveys show that since 2000 some 18–19% on average of Russian industrial companies have believed the shortages of equipment hamper the rise in their output. The only exception was 2002, when demand discontinued its growth, while output growth rates decelerated (Fig. 35). Prior to the default, 6% of enterprises on average referred to equip ment shortages as an impediment to boost in output, while post default their number grew up to 16%, with the peak value of 22% registered in October 2003.
Balance Balance of output Balance of demand % --Equipment shortages -(right axis) --1/93 1/94 1/95 1/96 1/97 1/98 1/99 1/00 1/01 1/02 1/03 1/04 1/Fig. 35. Balances of Changes in Demand and Output, and the Frequency of Reference to Equipment Shortages In the 2nd and 3rd quarters 2004, the same number of enterprises (21%) reported equipment shortages, with the forestry complex reporting it for the second year in line.
Over one third companies of the complex lacked equipment to boost their output in order to meet the growing demand. In 2004, the value of the respective index surged up to 38% – an absolute annual maximum, with very likely prospects for its further rise in the future. The construction materials industry and machine engineering hold the second and third posi tions with the value of the respective indicator accounting for 19% and 18%, respectively.
But these two sectors display different paths, so long as the need in equipment to boost their output is concerned. The machine engineering industry has experienced an annually RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks rising need in equipment – while prior to the default 3% of its enterprises fell short of equipment, after the default their number grew up to 18%. In 2004, it further rose up to 21%, with the shortage being especially acute in power engineering, instrument making sub sectors, as well as production of metal constructions and means of communication.
The construction industry passed its peak shortage of equipment in 2002. At the time, 26% of enterprises reported this problem. In 2004, it hampered just 15% of plants to boost the output of construction materials.
By contrast, the least need in equipment in 2004 was noted in the light industry – only 9% of the respective companies believed they fell short of equipment to ensure their pro duction expansion. Most likely, the reason behind this is a gradual contraction in the re spective demand and output, under which even the existing capacity was idle, rather than a considerable volume of investment in the sector. In 2001, when the sector was still capi talizing on the 1998 devaluation effects and hoped for a restoration of its sales, 16% of en terprises experienced the need in equipment to boost their output.
% Forestry Construction Chemicals and petrochemicals Machine engineering 1/93 1/94 1/95 1/96 1/97 1/98 1/99 1/00 1/01 1/02 1/03 1/04 1/Fig. 36. The Frequency of References to Equipment Shortage as an Obstacle to Production Growth in Some Industries The capacities loading dynamics also evidence the need in increase of equipment procurements to boost output. This particular indicator surged from 57 in early 2003 to 67% in the 3rd quarter 2004 (Fig.37). Such a rapid and long lasting rise in the use of capacities was earlier registered only right after the default. The loading rate grew from 42% to 56% between July 1998 – April 2000, but already in the 4th quarter 2004 the loading rate remained unchanged. This, of course, can be explained by the stagnating industrial output noted both by our surveys and the official statistics.
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.