农户在政策上可行吗?关于乌克兰半自给家庭未来的辩论

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
I. Koblianska, O. Pasko, Mykola Hordiyenko, I. Yarova
{"title":"农户在政策上可行吗?关于乌克兰半自给家庭未来的辩论","authors":"I. Koblianska, O. Pasko, Mykola Hordiyenko, I. Yarova","doi":"10.12775/eec.2020.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper provides an analysis of semi-subsistence farming in Ukraine during the period 2008–2018, with a special focus on policy towards peasant households, and its feasibility. Ukraine currently has several strategic documents that set the vectors for regulating the development of the industry. The current policy on the strategic development of agriculture, rural areas, and support for farming is found to be chaotic and inconsistent. The paper confirms the thesis regarding the low economic efficiency of natural farming, and given the specific weight of households in the production of certain types of food, emphasises that public costs for ensuring the country's food security are thus fairly high. The overall identified trends in the Ukrainian countryside are a) the reduction of land size, naturalisation of economic activity and reduction of market activity (farms, as a rule, keep cattle, poultry and bees, although the safety and quality of livestock products produced in such farms is rather dubious); and b) the enlargement of individual peasant households and their focus on commodity production of agricultural products (mainly crops), with the simultaneous distortion of reported production volumes and, accordingly, tax evasion. Thus, private peasant households (PPHs) appear as economic structures with a special status: on the one hand, they can be considered as full participants in the market of agri-food products (in terms of sales and production), but on the other hand they are not recognised as entrepreneurial structures. This has negative consequences for the local economy as a whole. PPHs are a legalised form of informal employment, an informal entrepreneurial activity. PPHs are, in our opinion, enjoying preferential status in comparison with that of farmers. Furthermore, existing measures (often patchy and haphazard) of political regulation only deepen the problematic functioning of semi-subsistence farms; and taking into account the peculiarities of tax regulation and the obligatory participation of household members in the pension system, in our opinion, they only intensify the crisis in the rural economy and related social problems. We find that PPHs in their present form (we stress the last four words) are manifestly untenable, and policy-wise are not feasible for Ukraine. The long-term strategy of reforming this crucial part of Ukraine's agriculture should not include new innovations, but be wisely tailored to Ukraine's conditions within the EU. PPHs ought to be accommodated within and be part and parcel of the tax system, and then be an element of future balanced and sustainable rural development. To achieve the latter aim, the recalibration of tax and legal regulations, underpinned by solid strategic policy, is desperately needed.","PeriodicalId":42882,"journal":{"name":"Eastern European Countryside","volume":"26 1","pages":"127 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Peasant Households Feasible in Terms of Policy? The Debate on the Future of Semi-Subsistence Households in Ukraine\",\"authors\":\"I. Koblianska, O. Pasko, Mykola Hordiyenko, I. Yarova\",\"doi\":\"10.12775/eec.2020.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The paper provides an analysis of semi-subsistence farming in Ukraine during the period 2008–2018, with a special focus on policy towards peasant households, and its feasibility. Ukraine currently has several strategic documents that set the vectors for regulating the development of the industry. The current policy on the strategic development of agriculture, rural areas, and support for farming is found to be chaotic and inconsistent. The paper confirms the thesis regarding the low economic efficiency of natural farming, and given the specific weight of households in the production of certain types of food, emphasises that public costs for ensuring the country's food security are thus fairly high. The overall identified trends in the Ukrainian countryside are a) the reduction of land size, naturalisation of economic activity and reduction of market activity (farms, as a rule, keep cattle, poultry and bees, although the safety and quality of livestock products produced in such farms is rather dubious); and b) the enlargement of individual peasant households and their focus on commodity production of agricultural products (mainly crops), with the simultaneous distortion of reported production volumes and, accordingly, tax evasion. Thus, private peasant households (PPHs) appear as economic structures with a special status: on the one hand, they can be considered as full participants in the market of agri-food products (in terms of sales and production), but on the other hand they are not recognised as entrepreneurial structures. This has negative consequences for the local economy as a whole. PPHs are a legalised form of informal employment, an informal entrepreneurial activity. PPHs are, in our opinion, enjoying preferential status in comparison with that of farmers. Furthermore, existing measures (often patchy and haphazard) of political regulation only deepen the problematic functioning of semi-subsistence farms; and taking into account the peculiarities of tax regulation and the obligatory participation of household members in the pension system, in our opinion, they only intensify the crisis in the rural economy and related social problems. We find that PPHs in their present form (we stress the last four words) are manifestly untenable, and policy-wise are not feasible for Ukraine. The long-term strategy of reforming this crucial part of Ukraine's agriculture should not include new innovations, but be wisely tailored to Ukraine's conditions within the EU. PPHs ought to be accommodated within and be part and parcel of the tax system, and then be an element of future balanced and sustainable rural development. To achieve the latter aim, the recalibration of tax and legal regulations, underpinned by solid strategic policy, is desperately needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eastern European Countryside\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"127 - 179\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eastern European Countryside\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12775/eec.2020.006\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eastern European Countryside","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/eec.2020.006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要:本文分析了2008-2018年乌克兰的半自给农业,特别关注了针对农户的政策及其可行性。乌克兰目前有几份战略文件,为规范该行业的发展确定了方向。现行“三农”战略发展和支农政策混乱不一致。本文证实了关于自然农业经济效率低的论点,并考虑到家庭在某些类型食品生产中的具体权重,强调确保国家粮食安全的公共成本因此相当高。乌克兰农村总体确定的趋势是a)土地面积减少,经济活动归化和市场活动减少(农场通常饲养牛、家禽和蜜蜂,尽管这些农场生产的牲畜产品的安全和质量相当可疑);b)个体农户的扩大及其对农产品(主要是农作物)商品生产的关注,同时扭曲了报告的产量,从而导致逃税。因此,私人农户(pph)作为一种具有特殊地位的经济结构出现:一方面,他们可以被认为是农产品市场的充分参与者(就销售和生产而言),但另一方面,他们不被认为是企业结构。这对整个当地经济产生了负面影响。私有制企业是一种合法形式的非正式就业,一种非正式的创业活动。我们认为,与农民相比,农民享有更优惠的地位。此外,现有的政治监管措施(通常是不完整和随意的)只会加深半自给农场的功能问题;考虑到税收管制的特殊性和家庭成员必须参加养老金制度,我们认为,它们只会加剧农村经济危机和相关的社会问题。我们发现目前形式的ppp(我们强调最后四个字)显然是站不住脚的,在政策方面对乌克兰来说是不可行的。改革乌克兰农业这一关键部分的长期战略不应包括新的创新,而应明智地根据乌克兰在欧盟内的条件进行调整。基本民生指数应该被纳入税收体系,并成为税收体系的重要组成部分,然后成为未来平衡和可持续农村发展的一个要素。为了实现后一个目标,迫切需要在坚实的战略政策的支持下,重新调整税收和法律法规。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are Peasant Households Feasible in Terms of Policy? The Debate on the Future of Semi-Subsistence Households in Ukraine
Abstract The paper provides an analysis of semi-subsistence farming in Ukraine during the period 2008–2018, with a special focus on policy towards peasant households, and its feasibility. Ukraine currently has several strategic documents that set the vectors for regulating the development of the industry. The current policy on the strategic development of agriculture, rural areas, and support for farming is found to be chaotic and inconsistent. The paper confirms the thesis regarding the low economic efficiency of natural farming, and given the specific weight of households in the production of certain types of food, emphasises that public costs for ensuring the country's food security are thus fairly high. The overall identified trends in the Ukrainian countryside are a) the reduction of land size, naturalisation of economic activity and reduction of market activity (farms, as a rule, keep cattle, poultry and bees, although the safety and quality of livestock products produced in such farms is rather dubious); and b) the enlargement of individual peasant households and their focus on commodity production of agricultural products (mainly crops), with the simultaneous distortion of reported production volumes and, accordingly, tax evasion. Thus, private peasant households (PPHs) appear as economic structures with a special status: on the one hand, they can be considered as full participants in the market of agri-food products (in terms of sales and production), but on the other hand they are not recognised as entrepreneurial structures. This has negative consequences for the local economy as a whole. PPHs are a legalised form of informal employment, an informal entrepreneurial activity. PPHs are, in our opinion, enjoying preferential status in comparison with that of farmers. Furthermore, existing measures (often patchy and haphazard) of political regulation only deepen the problematic functioning of semi-subsistence farms; and taking into account the peculiarities of tax regulation and the obligatory participation of household members in the pension system, in our opinion, they only intensify the crisis in the rural economy and related social problems. We find that PPHs in their present form (we stress the last four words) are manifestly untenable, and policy-wise are not feasible for Ukraine. The long-term strategy of reforming this crucial part of Ukraine's agriculture should not include new innovations, but be wisely tailored to Ukraine's conditions within the EU. PPHs ought to be accommodated within and be part and parcel of the tax system, and then be an element of future balanced and sustainable rural development. To achieve the latter aim, the recalibration of tax and legal regulations, underpinned by solid strategic policy, is desperately needed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信