DOI: 10.12731/wsd-2014-9.1-5 UDC 330
ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS OF MATERIAL RESOURCES ALLOCATION AT TERRITORIAL PRODUCTION COMPLEXES AT THE MESO-LEVEL OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM
Matevosyan M.H.
The article looks at resources allocation and intersectoral economic ties at the economy ' meso-level and provides their model (Pic.1). It analyzes the allocation of investment goods at the economy's meso-level in the Soviet epoch and at present. The article studies short-term and long-term consequences of investment goods allocation through sales and purchase under existing double standards of prices:
a) understated ex-factory prices for intermediary companies, which are actually owned by the enterprise's top-management;
b) considerably higher prices for end-consumers.
As the result many enterprises face a deficiency of money resources for purchasing vital investment goods.
Allocation of resources is studied both through analyzing intersectoral economic ties and within the framework of meso-structures - large multi-sectoral corporations (LMSCs) and territorial-production complexes (TPCs). The article analyzes main characteristics of resources allocation within large multi-
sectoral corporations and territorial-production complexes. The author presumes that a territorial-production complex is by its essence a modification of a large multi-sectoral corporation, associated with a particular territory. The main peculiarity of resources allocation within a territorial-production complex is that unlike multi-sectoral corporations, a TPC due to the need of sustaining the country's economic integrity may not benefit from various types and forms of resources allocation, which are legal and ethical in the case of LMSCs. Namely, a territorial-production complex cannot let the region's residents own its enterprises or organizations, neither can it be transformed into a joint-stock company. In case some of the region's enterprises or organizations go public, become private or merge there emerges a territorial multi-sectoral corporation, which is different from a territorial-production complex.
Key words: mesoeconomics, resources allocation, investment goods, multi-sectoral corporations, production complexes, capital circulation, reproduction process.
ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННЫЕ ФОРМЫ ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЯ МАТЕРИАЛЬНЫМИ РЕСУРСАМИ ПРОИЗВОДСТВЕННЫХ КОМПЛЕКСОВ МЕЗОУРОВНЯ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЙ СИСТЕМЫ
Матевосян М.Г.
Распределение исследовано в процессе межотраслевых экономических связей - на мезоуровне экономики, с построением соответствующей модели (рис. 1). Просле-
жены и определены особенности процесса распределения средств производства на мезоуровне экономики в советский период и в настоящее время. Обращено внимание как на непосредственные, так и отдаленные последствия ситуации с распределением средств производства в настоящее время посредством их купли-продажи в условиях двух уровней цен на них:
а) заниженного уровня при продаже фирмам-посредникам, принадлежащим фактически руководству предприятия;
б) значительно более высокого уровня цен для конечного потребления.
В итоге у многих предприятий возникает острый дефицит денежных средств для приобретения жизненно необходимым им средств производства.
Помимо осуществления распределения посредством межотраслевых экономических связей, оно исследовано в работе также в рамках мезоструктур - крупных многоотраслевых корпораций (КМК) и территориальных производственно-хозяйственных комплексов (ТПХК). Выделены и определены существенные особенности распределения в рамках КМК и ТПХК. При этом автор исходил из того положения, что территориальный производственно-хозяйственный комплекс (ТПХК), в своей экономической сущности, представляет из себя модификацию крупной многоотраслевой корпорации, привязанной к определенной территории. Главная особенность распределения в ТПХК, в отличие от распределения в рамках КМК, состоит
в том, что территориальный производственно-хозяйственный комплекс, в силу необходимости сохранения единого экономического пространства на территории всей страны, не может позволить себе многих видов, форм и методов распределения, которые вполне допустимы с правовой и этической точки зрения в рамках КМК. В частности, в рамках ТПХК недопустимо распределение объектов его собственности между жителями региона, не может иметь места его акционирование. Если же часть предприятий и организаций региона акционируется, при этом приватизируется, объединяясь в единое целое, то возникает территориальная многоотраслевая корпорация, которую нельзя отождествлять с ТПХК.
Ключевые слова: мезоэкономика, распределение, средства производства, многоотраслевые корпорации, хозяйственные комплексы, кругооборот капитала, воспроизводственный процесс.
In mesoeconomics as an intermediary between micro- and macroeconomics resources allocation can only exist as a process, with the result seen at micro or macro levels or at both levels as resources allocation at the micro level often impacts the process at the macro level and vice versa.
However, the role of meso level is not limited to intermediary functions (those of an intermediate link) between micro and macro levels. At the meso level there appear mesoeconomic structures in the form of multi-sectoral corporations or territorial production complexes, which always embrace a number of sectors.
These multi-sectoral structures operate as economic entities, which occupy an intermediary position between micro and macro levels. On the one hand, meso-level structure acts as an integrated economic entity, which is larger and more powerful than a separate enterprise, but is nevertheless referred to the economic micro-level. On the other hand, in respect of its enterprises and organizations the meso-level structure performs managerial functions - regulation, allocation of resources, protection, i.e. the functions, which state macro-level structures normally perform in relation to the country's enterprises and organizations.
The structure is presented in pic. 1.
Pic. 1. Distribution at the Economy's Meso-Level
The efficiency and consistency of inter-sectoral economic ties determines the allocation of investment goods at the initial stage of the capital turnover at every particular enterprise. The resources allocation is continuous and dynamic as raw materials, semi-manufactured goods, electric energy, etc. have to be supplied to the enterprise nonstop and should preferably comply with its production cycle. These supplies are the main function of mesoeconomics. The following example illustrates the importance of distributive function of meso-economics.
In the Soviet epoch, in the 60s the scale of production started increasing, intersectoral economic links were becoming more complex and the nomenclature of manufactured goods exceeded 28 mln. items. However, materials and machinery supply system was too bulky and slow and could not efficiently handle intersectoral supply in the country. The enterprises did not stop when they lacked some raw materials or supplies only because at the lower ranks of their structure there existed shadow 'procurement committees', that included hords of procurement agents who managed to obtain production equipment, raw materials and supplies, etc. for their enterprises through brides and connections. Such shadow supplies only prevented the collapse of the country. If it had not been for them, the country's production would have stopped as the result of disorganized production supplies, as the centralized system of the State Committee for Material Supplies was inefficient and could no longer manage production supplies in the economy, whose scale and intersectoral complexity had grown by an order of magnitude as compared to the 50s.
Another sign of absolutely inefficient system of intersectoral economic ties was the distorted working rhythm. On average, production output measured in ten-days periods within a month looked like this:
1st ten-day period - 15% goods;
2nd ten-day period - 20% goods;
3rd ten-day period - 65% goods.
Such uneven production rhythm was the result of month-based state production schedules, when state enterprises had to supply raw materials and semi-finished goods during the last ten days of every month, which, logically, made them the busiest in terms of production volumes.
If the enterprises had kept the same pace of production during the first and the second ten-day periods as they did in the third, total production volume in the country could have increased by 1.5 times with the same production facilities and work force. However, if material supplies had been better organized, such growth in production would have been inexpedient, as only 30%, but not 50% growth would be enough. Why?
The reason is that considerable production volumes during the 3rd ten-day period of the month were the result of working in a rush mode, which considerably affected quality and reliability of the goods. In those days experienced consumers always looked at the date in the technical certificate and avoided buying products (fridges, washing machines, etc.), which were manufactured during the 3rd ten-day period. Therefore, with the same production facilities and work force it was only possible to increase production volume by 30% without losing in quality on condition of uninterrupted supplies. A more considerable growth would have required better production facilities and personnel training.
This example illustrates that allocation of production resources does not only depend on their structure in terms of end-consumers,
but reflects the dynamic character of the whole production scheduling process. This resources allocation schedule should comply with production schedule. The mismatch between the schedules can result in excessive stock of goods at production enterprises' warehouses, which was typical of the Soviet economy.
At the same time in the Soviet economy goods were mostly stored at the enterprises' warehouses, while in the USA - at specialized lar
Для дальнейшего прочтения статьи необходимо приобрести полный текст. Статьи высылаются в формате PDF на указанную при оплате почту. Время доставки составляет менее 10 минут. Стоимость одной статьи — 150 рублей.