STATE SUPPORT OF AN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGICAL PLATFORM OF EEU MEMBER COUNTRIES

2017 ◽  
pp. 81-85
Author(s):  
V.I. Nechayev
Keyword(s):  
State Support ◽  
Technological Platform

What kind of Russian firms get state support? The analysis of changes in priorities under crisis conditions

2020 ◽  
pp. 47-62
Author(s):  
Andrei A. Yakovlev ◽  
Nina V. Ershova ◽  
Olga M. Uvarova
Keyword(s):  
Social Development ◽  
Organizational Support ◽  
Manufacturing Firms ◽  
Business Associations ◽  
State Support ◽  
Support Provision ◽  
Manufacturing Enterprises ◽  
State Participation ◽  
Crisis Conditions ◽  
Different Levels

The paper analyzes the shifts in government priorities in terms of support of big and medium manufacturing enterprises amid 2008—2009 and 2014—2015 crises. Based on the data of 2009, 2014 and 2018 surveys of Russian manufacturing firms, using logit regressions we identify factors that affect the receipt of financial and organizational support at different levels of government. The analysis shows that in 2012—2013 the share of manufacturing firms that received state support shrank significantly as compared to 2007—2008; moreover, the support concentrated on enterprises that had access to lobbying resource (such as state participation in the ownership or business associations membership). In 2016—2017 the scale of state support coverage recovered. However, the support at all levels of government was provided to firms that carried out investment and provided assistance to regional or local authorities in social development of the region, while the factor of state participation in the ownership became insignificant. The paper provides possible explanation for these shifts in the criteria of state support provision in Russia.

Assessing the size of agricultural holdings

2020 ◽  
pp. 105-116
Author(s):  
N. I. Shagaida
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Vertical Integration ◽  
Total Revenue ◽  
Large Share ◽  
State Support ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Agricultural Organizations ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
To Receive

The article clarifies the concept of “agricultural holding”, using an approach to assessing the size on the basis of the total revenue of all agricultural organizations within the agricultural holding. It has been revealed that only 100 of the total number of agricultural holdings that were identified can be attributed to large business entities. They comprise about 3% of agricultural organizations in the country, while their share in the proceeds is about 37%. A large share of agricultural holdings — large business subjects under the control of Russian entities operate in one, and under the control of foreign legal entities — in three or more regions of the Russian Federation. Vertical integration within the framework of large agricultural holdings with different schemes for including the stages of processing and sale of products produced in their agricultural organizations allows them to receive advantages. Strengthening the role of large business entities in agriculture puts on the agenda the issue of differentiating approaches to taxation and state support in agriculture, depending on the size of the companies’ agricultural businesses.

On the diversity of the effects of the state support for agriculture

2019 ◽  
pp. 59-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolai M. Svetlov ◽  
Renata G. Yanbykh ◽  
Dariya A. Loginova
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Production ◽  
The State ◽  
Russian Regions ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
State Support ◽  
Soft Budget Constraints ◽  
Institutional Conditions ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Production Factors ◽  
Corporate Farms

In this paper, we assess the effects of agricultural state support of corporate farms on their revenues from agricultural production sales in 14 Russian regions that differ in technology, environment and institutional conditions. In addition to the direct effect of the state support, the indirect effects via labor and capital are revealed. For this purpose, we identify production functions and statistical models of production factors for each of these regions separately. We find out diverse effects of the state support on revenues among the regions. Positive effects prevail. Negative effects are mainly caused by labor reductions that follow subsidy inflows. Another cause of negative effects is the soft budget constraints phenomenon.

Motivating Growth in Low-tech Manufacturing Industries

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi HERTZ
Keyword(s):  
Value Chain ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ◽  
Manufacturing Plants ◽  
Footwear Industry ◽  
Technological Platform ◽  
Qualitative Methodologies ◽  
Developed World ◽  
Depth Interviews

Intensive manual labor enterprises in the developed world face challenges competing with products imported from countries where manufacturing costs are low. This reduces the volume of domestic production and leads to rapid loss of knowledge and experience in production processes. This study focuses on the Israeli footwear industry as a case study. Qualitative methodologies were applied, including in-depth interviews and field observations. A literature review on previous research, and contemporary trends was conducted. The field research examines challenges along the value chain in small factories. It finds that mass production paradigms impose a decentralized process between designers and manufacturers and therefore do not leverage local potential into a sustainable competitive advantage for small factories. The proposed solution is a digital and technological platform for small manufacturing plants. The platform mediates and designs the connections between production, technology, and design and enables the creation of a joint R&D system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document