WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 6 | 7 || 9 | 10 |   ...   | 17 |

Lipetskregion

111

129

Tatarstan

157

213

Saratovregion

191

390

Perm’ region

96

144

Kemerovoregion

64

231

Primorskiregion

115

188

Source: Social Economic Situation ofRussia, P.241-242, 259-260.

Just as during the preceding years, theState fixed,the minimal guaranteed purchase prices for the main rural economyproducts. The level of these prices was fixed by the agreements between thethree Ministries (rural economy and food; economy; and finance) based on theforecast inflation and the market conjuncture. The guaranteed prices are usedonly for the supplies to the governmental funds (mandatory for the federal fundand recommended for the regional funds); their mechanism does not suppose thegovernmental intervention in the markets. For almost all the time from theirintroduction, their level was lower than that of the formed market prices.Under such conditions, the local administrations are interested in thenon-economic coercion of the producers to make supplies to the regional funds;further on, such produce is to be sold in the Russian market at the marketprices.

Last autumn, due to the sharp and unforecastdrop of the inflation, the guaranteed prices became higher than the marketones. At the same time, the decision was made, according to which, with thelack of money in the State Budget, the rural producers with the indebtednessesfor the commodity credits were obliged to cover their debts by supplying theirproduce to the Armed Forces. For this, the natural volumes of supplies werecalculated at the guaranteed prices; as a result, the Armed Forces had topurchase the produce for the actually overestimated prices.

Fig. 2.15

Dynamics of purchase prices for food funds,thousand mt

Source: current data ofGoscomstat

Hence, the mechanism of the guaranteedminimal prices leads to the negative consequences both when they exceed themarket ones and when they are lower than the market ones; however, in thelatter event, it has no intervention effect on the market. The relationsbetween the 1996 market and guaranteed prices for wheat are shown inFig.2.16.

Fig. 2.16

Minimal guaranteed and actual purchaseprices for wheat, 1996, Rbl.thous/mt

Source: Protocol of Coordination for theguaranteed purchase prices for the rural produce purchased in the Federal Fundfrom 1July1996.

The end market of the food showed the further reduction ofthe governmental trade form: in 1996, the volume of the governmental trade was9% against the 13% of 1995.

In 1996, the turnover of the food reduced by2%. However, the sale of the meat, poultry, sausages, fish, eggs, and sugargrew. At the same time, the growth of the food sale outside the tradingentities (i.e., municipal and small wholesale markets) should be noted; at thesame time, the relevant sales by the trading entities are shrinking. E.g., in1996, the share of the small wholesale markets in the aggregate volume ofpurchases by population was 30% for the meat and poultry.

Financial situation of ruralproducers

The financial situation of the ruralproducers remains the gravest among all the sectors of the national economy.Despite the 1995 write-off of the debts, the credit indebtedness of the ruraleconomy to banks continues growing. The credit indebtedness exceeds in a greatextent the debit one. The labor payment in the rural economy is one of thelowest in all the sectors of the national economy; nevertheless, the arrearshere exceed the mean level for the national economy (seeTable2.18).

Table 2.18

Main financial indexes in rural economy.January to November 1996.

ruraleconomy

industry

average for nationaleconomy

Excess of credit indebtedness overdebit indebtedness, % to the debit indebtedness

258

49

38

Aggregate indebtedness for laborpayment, % of the monthly accrued labor payment fund, as of23December

327

268

272

Arrears for bank credits and loans,% of the total indebtedness of the kind

27

17

19

Average monthly accrued wages,Rbl.thous.

350

904

786

Source: Social Economic Situation ofRussia. P. 157.161. 164. 191-192.

In the structure of the outstanding creditindebtedness of the rural economy the share of the debt to the Budget is almost2‑fold lower than forthe national economy in whole; this is due to the low level of thegovernment-imposed tax on the rural producers. It is known that they do not paythe tax on profit from the rural economy activities and the activities relativeto the processing of their own produce; the private farmers are exempt from thetax on land.

The conjuncture poll by the IET of thefourth quarter of 1996 showed that the most critical situation is that of thesmall and medium size economies, while the large size ones are better beingfrom the finance viewpoint. The better financial stability of the grain andsugar-beet producers is also characteristic.

Despite the crucial financial situation ofthe rural economies, the incomes of the rural population are higher than theseof the cities dwellers. The center for the economic conjuncture, the KielUniversity, and the IET have performed two joint budget studies in threeRussian regions. These were based on the budget panel by the Goscomstat adaptedfor the purposes of the study. In addition to the monetary incomes, the incomesfrom the part-time farms of the families were assessed. The latter wererecalculated in the retail prices effective as of the moments of the studies inthe relevant regions. The results are shown in Table2.19.

The IET and the Agrarian Institute of theRussian Academy for Sciences jointly studied the sources of financing for62rural economy entities and 39private farms in 9districts of the Rostov,Pskov, and Orel regions. The analysis of the results has shown that the ruraleconomy entities used, mainly their own assets for both the current financingand investments (practically absent). The bank loans were used only in thecases when the interest rates were partly covered by the local administrations(e.g., the Orel region)./ The governmental money against goods credit neverexceeded 8% of the total financing volume. The governmental grants formed anegligible share in the total financing volume; moreover, the payments camewith constant delays (in average, 80% of the subsidies came with the over3‑month delays). Thecommercial commodity credits (it is becoming more and more important) does not,yet, play any significant role in the entities financing. The studies byregions have shown a somehow higher financial stability for the entities of thesouthern Russia; this seems quite logical. The conclusion may be made that theRostov region has relied rather on its own resources, while the Orel region hastried to use the subsidized bank loans, and the Pskov region has used all thesources of financing, including the governmental grants andsubsidies.

Table 2.19

Incomes of population*

Orel

Pskov

Rostov

Average

Per capitamonthly income, Rbl.thous.

Regional center

275

319

255

282

City

237

206

220

218

Township

230

-

-

230

Rurallocality

360

262

340

319

Average

293

254

267

271

Familymonthly income, Rbl.thous.

Regional center

803

774

745

778

City

658

500

621

581

Township

819

-

-

819

Rurallocality

1125

708

1017

941

Average

894

644

778

772

* Incl. wages, income from part-time farms,land plots, gardens, etc.; social pays and benefits.
Source: Preliminary results of the IET, Kiel University and Centerfor economic conjuncture study

Food industry

In 1996, the yield of the main foodproducts did not exceed the relevant volume of 1992 (see Table2.20), except the oil extraction and sugarproduction where the reduction compared with 1992 was not so sharp; moreover,in 1996, a certain production growth was observed. The greatest recession in1996 was seen for the grain processing sector; this is rather due to the poorsupply of the feedstock resulting from the extremely low harvest of1995.

Table 2.20.

Financing sources for the productionactivities of rural economy entities

Source

Share ofentities using the source

Average sum,Rbl.mn

Share ofsource in total volume of crediting, %

Rostov

Pskov

Orel

Rostov

Pskov

Orel

Rostov

Pskov

Orel

Income from sale

100

100

100

3686

2271

1794

90

82

88

Governmental grants

50

99

n/a

200

222

n/a

0.02

8

n/a

Bank credits

12

43

100

189

212

250

0.05

4.5

12

Governmental commoditycredit

76

99

n/a

344

158

n/a

6

5.5

n/a

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 6 | 7 || 9 | 10 |   ...   | 17 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .