WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 13 | 14 || 16 | 17 |   ...   | 39 |

0.0868

0.2930

0.0727

0.1130

0.0772

0.2533

0.0668

7/98

163.8651

156

0.3172

-0.1800

0.0854

0.3508

0.0741

0.3275

0.0760

0.3458

0.0745

10/98

145.3716

156

0.7184

-0.3629

0.0818

0.5083

0.0740

0.1416

0.0773

0.2267

0.0730

1/99

143.9276

156

0.7466

-0.1979

0.0810

0.1743

0.0687

0.2173

0.0748

0.2216

0.0697

4/99

143.7626

156

0.7498

-0.2093

0.0838

0.4091

0.0733

0.0253

0.0777

0.1827

0.0634

7/99

173.4077

156

0.1615

-0.4028

0.0876

0.4336

0.0774

0.2585

0.0784

0.3037

0.0713

10/99

167.7357

156

0.2464

-0.2743

0.0869

0.3301

0.0712

0.1952

0.0758

0.2965

0.0693

1/00

155.4751

156

0.4968

-0.3998

0.0839

0.3613

0.0688

0.2031

0.0693

0.2471

0.0632

4/00

224.5139

156

0.0003

-0.0811

0.0767

0.2569

0.0635

0.1708

0.0694

0.1494

0.0577

7/00

177.9549

156

0.1100

-0.2807

0.0898

0.4029

0.0765

0.1714

0.0885

0.3377

0.0777

10/00

175.9442

156

0.1310

-0.2579

0.0881

0.3296

0.0735

0.2678

0.0837

0.2408

0.0692

1/01

187.4343

156

0.0437

-0.2890

0.0772

0.2858

0.0650

0.2992

0.0722

0.1791

0.0664

4/01

168.4937

156

0.2337

-0.1967

0.0808

0.2513

0.0649

0.1282

0.0711

0.2726

0.0628

7/01

177.8322

156

0.1112

-0.2154

0.0847

0.1569

0.0667

0.3565

0.0839

0.3515

0.0703

10/01

161.0161

156

0.3750

-0.3493

0.1026

0.3069

0.0734

0.3604

0.0878

0.2913

0.0763

Note. This table presents: G2 -probability ratio; df - degrees of freedom; Sig - observed significancelevel; coefficients estimating the linear connection (association) of theranges of each factor with the actual changes of finished stock volumes, andstandard errors (SE).

The future changes of demand and costs willhave a stronger and predictable by theory influence on the changes of finishedstock. If in the next period of time (quarter in this case) Russian industrialenterprises expect the demand or costs to grow, they increase their finishedstock. This is quite a market-oriented attitude.

To further pursue the question of whichfactors are decisive for any changes of finished stock volumes it seemsfeasible to study a model where output is also included as an independentvariable. Since current changes of costs do not influence the changes offinished stock the production changes will be applied instead. It would belogical to assume that this variable must have a positive influence over thedependent variable. But the most interesting conclusion might result from thecomparison between the absolute strengths of the influences of the twofollowing factors: output and demand. Under the conditions of economies intransition the influence of demand and output on finished stock characterizesthe conditions of reproduction. A stronger (and, naturally, positive) influenceof the output changes on stock would mean that warehouses are being filled withproducts for which there is no demand. If the influence of demand in absolutevalues exceeds the influence of output then there emerges a tendency that ispositive in terms of economies in transition: the products are met by demand,and warehouses perform the role of a buffer. Besides, production falls behinddemand and cannot restore the initial stock – if, of course, the enterprisesreally need it.

The fitting quality of the model withcurrent changes of costs replaced by current changes of output in most casesturned out to be acceptable (see Table 20). The observed significance level wasbelow the 5% threshold only in 4 of 18 cases, its average value being 0.30. Themodel’s coefficientshad the necessary signs and were statistically significant more often than inthe previous model. The coefficients of current changes of demand werestatistically significant in 17 cases while previously – only in 8. The coefficients ofthe current changes of output were always significant. The ratio of thecoefficients of demand and output was found to be truly interesting. Before the1998 default the influence of the output dynamics on the finished stock volumeswas persistently higher. The stock acted rather as a buffer for surplusproduction than a buffer for smoothing sudden changes in demand. But since theeffective demand coefficients were negative and also statistically significantthe stock was also a buffer for demand. After August 1998 the situation hasstarted to change. In the first quarter of 1999 the ratio for the first timebegan to favor demand: the sales out of stock exceeded the stock replenishmentfrom the output. In the second quarter of 1999 due to high output growth rates(more rapid than the growth of demand) the ratio again began to favorproduction, but in the second half of the year the situation to a certainextent straightened out - the leading role of production in replenishing thestocks was preserved but became less obvious than before. In the year2000 the situation was repeated: in the first quarter the sales were reducingthe stock volume at a higher rate than the restocking by production, then laterthe effect of output increased, but by the end of the year it again dropped. In2001 the prevalence of output was registered only in the second quarter; in thesecond half of the year the stock volumes were allowing Russian enterprises tosatisfy the effective demand at the expense of their accumulated stock. Thusthe manufacturers, encouraged by the sufficiently long period of growth of theeffective demand took the risk and brought their finished stock volumes in2001 to such a level that allowed to apply these stocks to quench the salesfluctuations and not only to use them as a settling tank for surplus output.

2.3.Investment processes inthe real sector
of theeconomy

Investment trends

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 13 | 14 || 16 | 17 |   ...   | 39 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .