PDF-файл статьи

Научная статья

Original article

УДК 338.24:338.43

doi: 10.55186/2413046X_2022_7_4_241

РЕВИЗИЯ ИНСТРУМЕНТОВ СТАБИЛИЗАЦИИ ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННОГО ПРОДОВОЛЬСТВЕННОГО РЫНКА

REVIEW OF INSTRUMENTS FOR STABILIZING THE DOMESTIC MARKETS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Семенова Елена Васильевна, д.э.н., профессор кафедры финансов и бухгалтерского учёта, ФГБОУ ВО «Великолукская государственная сельскохозяйственная академия», E-mail: steel@vsha.ru

Комшанов Дмитрий Сергеевич, д.э.н., профессор экономики, менеджмента и торгового дела, ФГБОУ ВО «Великолукская государственная сельскохозяйственная академия», E-mail: kdsO000@rambler.ru

Петрова Ольга Геннадьевна, к.э.н., доцент кафедры финансов и бухгалтерского учёта, ФГБОУ ВО «Великолукская государственная сельскохозяйственная академия», E-mail: umu@vgsa.ru

Антонов Глеб Викторович, к.э.н., доцент кафедры менеджмента и торгового дела ФГБОУ ВО «Великолукская государственная сельскохозяйственная академия», E-mail: lovati4@yandex.ru

Павлова Анна Васильевна, аспирант, ФГБОУ ВО «Великолукская государственная сельскохозяйственная академия», E-mail: panitta@mail.ru

Semenova Elena Vasil’evna, Doctor of Economics, Professor of the Department of Finance and accounting, State Agricultural Academy, E-mail: steel@vsha.ru

Komshanov Dmitrij Sergeevich, Doctor of Economics, Professor of the Department of Economics, Management and Trade, State Agricultural Academy, E-mail: kdsO000@rambler.ru

Petrova Ol’ga Gennad’evna, candidate of economics, associate professor, Department of Finance and accounting, State Agricultural Academy, E-mail: umu@vgsa.ru

Antonov Gleb Viktorovich, candidate of economics, associate professor, Department of Economics, Management and Trade, State Agricultural Academy, E-mail: lovati4@yandex.ru

Pavlova Anna Vasil’evna, postgraduate student (applicant), State Agricultural Academy, E-mail: panitta@mail.ru

Аннотация. В статье обсуждается современная российская и зарубежная практика регулирования аграрных и продовольственных рынков. Показано, что после 2014 года для поддержки аграрного комплекса в Российской Федерации активизировалось использование федеральных целевых программ, подпрограмм, приоритетных проектов, субсидирование сельхозпредприятий для достижения дифференцированных целевых ориентиров и индикаторов производства. Однако, в связи с появлением новых факторов дестабилизации продовольственных рынков возникла необходимость ревизии инструментов стабилизации отечественного продовольственного рынка и расширения способов его поддержания. Предлагается использоваться средства более тонкой настройки: таможенные преференции, квотирование, введение норм гуманитарной помощи и государственных гарантий иностранным государствам на закупку исключительно переработанной российской сельхозпродукции и т.д. В данной научной статье исследованы современные методы стимулирования и дестимулирования рынка продовольствия, выявлены некоторые парадоксы и тенденции по объёмам государственной поддержки. Рассмотрены используемые инструменты поддержки отечественного продовольственного рынка. Проанализированы инструменты чрезвычайного ответа при нарастании разбалансировки и паники на продовольственных рынках.

Abstract. The article discusses the modern Russian and foreign practices of regulation of agricultural and food markets. It is shown that after 2014, to support the agriculture in the Russian Federation, the use of federal target programs, subprograms, priority projects, subsidies for agricultural enterprises has expanded to achieve differentiated targets and production indicators. However, due to the emergence of new factors destabilizing the markets for agricultural products, it became necessary to update the instruments for stabilizing the domestic market and expand the ways to maintain its stability. It is proposed to use more fine-tuning tools: customs preferences, quotas, the introduction of humanitarian aid norms and state guarantees to foreign countries for the purchase of exclusively Russian processed agricultural products, etc. This article explores modern methods of stimulating and destimulation the agricultural markets, identifies some paradoxes and trends in the amount of state financial support. The tools used to support the domestic market are considered.

Ключевые слова: практика регулирования аграрных рынков, федеральные целевые программы, подпрограммы, приоритетные проекты, субсидирование, дестабилизация продовольственных рынков, инструменты стабилизации, таможенные преференции, квотирование, нормы гумпомощи

Keywords: The practice of regulating agricultural markets, federal targeted programs, subprograms, priority projects, subsidies, destabilization of food markets, stabilization instruments, customs preferences, quotas, norms of humanitarian aid

 Issues of state influence on agricultural production are always a priority and the agriculture “is one of the most difficult areas in public administration, which is associated with its position in the system of economic relations” [1]. To regulate the market for agricultural products (raw materials and food), various mechanisms are used, including financing under federal target programs, subprograms, priority projects, government procurement and commodity interventions, customs quotas and preferences, targets and indicators for subsidies, etc. ensuring the implementation of the main aims of agricultural policy [2]. Since 2014 restrictions have also been applied on the import of certain goods from countries implementing sanctions against the Russian Federation. In addition, the economic situation deteriorated due to old and new factors, including the coronavirus pandemic, transformation of the situation in the export of the key items of Russian goods, and the continuation of sanctions applied to the economy of the Russian Federation. All this has led to increased fluctuations in food markets and the need to analyze the tools for implementing agricultural policy, conditions and procedures for their implementation, as well as their modification.

The traditional instruments for regulating agricultural markets in the Russian Federation are mechanisms for subsidizing costs and / or interest rates on borrowed money, and in some cases direct investment.

An analysis of the amount of federal and regional financial support for the agriculture under the state program for the development of agriculture and regulation of markets for agricultural products, raw materials and food for 2013-2020 in the form of subsidies in seven areas showed their decline. For example, the total state support in 2020 was equal to 70.6% of its amount in 2015 (table).

The volume of state support for the agriculture in 2021 is not taken into account to determine trends. This is due to the rise in inflation due to additional emergency circumstances related to the COVID-19 epidemic.

Taking into account the expected rate of annual inflation (12.2% in 2015 and 3% in 2020 according to the laws on the corresponding federal budgets), the real financial support was even less. In addition, the costs for agricultural producers and processors are volatile depending on the prices of gas, seeds, fertilizers, machinery and other production components.

Markets, which are heavily dependent on the exchange rate of the national currency, are subject to significant fluctuations. On January 1st 2015, the value of the dollar was 56.23 rubles. Over the past 5 years, the exchange rate has changed a lot and on January 1st 2021 the value of dollar reached 73.87 rubles, i.e. devaluation was 31.37% [4].

Overall, we can state an actual decline in total state financial support over a five-year period by at least 40%, and in dollar value by at least  2.4 times.

However, the current economic situation is characterized by an even higher level of uncertainty. The events of 2020, caused by the pandemic, fluctuations in energy demand and the devaluation of the ruble, had an impact on the country’s economy. Measures to combat the epidemic led to a significant contraction of the economy and contributed to an increase in unemployment and poverty. Measures to support business and the population during this period have led to an increase in inflation and fluctuations in food prices in both domestic and international markets. The deteriorating economy contributed to the transformation of the conditions for the export of Russian goods. All this makes it logical to increase financial support for the agricultural sector and to expand the instruments for regulating agricultural markets, and this also underscores the issues of developing mechanisms of stabilizing prices, supply and demand for agricultural products.

The aforementioned co-financing of costs is not the only way to regulate agricultural markets. Similar measures of state support are used in most countries to support and grow priority sectors and sub-sectors of agriculture. In the United States alone, there are more than ninety such measures: compensation for capital costs, per hectare support, payments per liter of milk, subsidies for means of production, sowing, soft loans, leasing, a card system to support demand for food and much more.

The instruments and principles for regulating agriculture differ in countries depending on the stability of their national currency and the maturity of agricultural markets. For example, in countries with developed market economies (USA, Canada, the European Union), in the event of a fall in food prices on world markets and low domestic prices, the state begins to support its exporters in order to compensate for the losses for farmers in foreign markets. This, on the one hand, restrains the re-export pressure on the home market and keeps domestic prices at a level acceptable to both producers and consumers. On the other hand, producers of agricultural products for export, receiving reimbursement from the state, compensating their costs, losses, lost profits, maintaining production until the economic outlook improves.

At the same time, these tools are rather cumbersome and, most importantly, not very adaptive to market challenges. They are more suitable for regulating food markets with long production cycle. In addition, this mechanism requires detailed administration and control.

A more flexible instrument for regulating the food market is the card mechanism for maintaining and increasing demand. In the USA this instrument is implemented by issuing cards for the poor for about $ 170 a month to pay only for food [5]. Such measure of state support in the United States is important, it makes up about three quarters of all funds supporting agriculture. In the United States to protect income of farmers from falling prices below acceptable level state purchases of agricultural products at a guaranteed price can also be made. This maintains the profitability of the farmers.

When world food prices fluctuate, customs regulation instruments are also used to protect national markets or their individual participants.

The European Union, while lowering export prices, uses interventions. The mechanism for creating reserves of agricultural products has been known in Europe since the 1960s. As part of the implementation of the common agricultural policy of the European Union, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) was established, which consisted of a Safeguards Section and a Guidance Section. The funds under the first section were used to regulate agricultural markets: purchasing products from farmers at guaranteed prices, storing reserves of agricultural products, and subsidizing exports. The funds under the second section were intended for solving structural problems in agriculture [6].

For a long time, the EU spent 50-60 billion euros annually on interventions from funds intended to support the agriculture [7]. Also, the European Union, in times of a decline in world agricultural prices, subsidized the export of agricultural products. Thus, exporters did not lose money and kept their market share afterwards. But more often Europe introduces protective import duties. This tool also protects European market from cheap products. Poor people also receive additional payments and this indirectly supports the demand for agricultural products.

Before the transition to the new agricultural policy, quotas were widely used in the EU in order to eliminate overproduction. For example, quotas for the production of milk, vegetable oil and sugar were distributed among the EU countries. And exceeding the allowed production limits was punishable by an extra tax.

The reason for the revision of the quota policy in the EU was the so-called sugar catastrophe in 2005. At the time the EU was implementing another reform of agriculture aimed at lowering prices. With the help of quotas and a reduction in subsidies for beet growers, sugar prices were reduced by a third. As a result, in four years the production of sugar beet was curtailed in ten EU countries, 89 sugar factories were closed. Since then, Europe has remained mainly an importer of sugar, since world prices are usually lower than the domestic ones [8].

Among the instruments for regulating agricultural markets in the Russian Federation product cards are not often used. In Russia duties are more often applied. This can be illustrated by attempts to regulate agricultural markets in the past and present. In 2020 during the rising wave of the pandemic and out of good intentions to create grain reserves for the period of economic downturn, duties were increased on grain export to countries, which were not members of the Customs Union. World markets reacted to this decision and world grain prices went up. Following this development, Russian exporters reoriented to world markets despite the protective duties. The Russian Government continued to regulate the domestic agricultural market using traditional methods. At the end of December 2020, a set of measures was announced in conjunction with the rise in food prices in Russia. In particular, for the period from February 15 to June 30, 2021, a quota was set for the export of wheat, rye, barley and corn equal to 17.5 million tons. It turned out that the first stage in the regulation of grain prices created a problem (the rise in market prices), and the second stage (quotas) was aimed at solving this problem.

Similar price fluctuations are observed in other markets: sunflower, sugar, soybeans. Regarding sunflower, the government has entered into agreements with major market players to fix wholesale prices for sunflower oil at 95 rubles and fix retail prices at 110 rubles until June 2021. In exchange, the government will allocate five billion rubles to sunflower oil producers to reimburse part of the costs due to price fixing, which according to government are up to ten rubles per liter. Once again the market prices rise sometimes due to government action, then the market is stabilized with the help of various instruments by the government.

But in general, measures to regulate exports are complemented by a more active policy of forming and managing reserves of agricultural products (grain, sugar, milk powder, and so on). This helps to avoid big price fluctuations, similar to those observed in the sugar market, since, firstly, the domestic prices do not fall too much during overproduction and then do not go up too much during a subsequent decrease in supply, and secondly, reserves of agricultural products allow government to influence domestic prices more effectively.

Thus, the review of the mechanisms for support of agricultural markets indicated the availability of a wide range of instruments. The mechanisms of intervention are modified and improved/

The choice of adequate instruments of state regulation is now important also because at the end of 2020 Russian government received the right to limit the growth of prices for all socially significant food products, the list of which is wide: from meat to onions and even salt. This means that government interventions are now possible in almost all agricultural markets, and especially for those associated with exports. By far the widest area of government regulation is export markets. But one should keep in mind the possibility of regulating the domestic markets as well, supply and demand on it. To do this, government can use more subtle, indirect tools, such as food cards for population.

The project of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the distribution of food cards to low-income Russians was first made public in 2015 and was derailed due to its high cost (200-300 billion rubles). However, according to the Russian Export Center, financial support for the exports of agricultural products even in 2019 was several times higher than the price tag for the card project. The card-based method of regulating agricultural markets can increase the demand for the products of Russian companies. It will not only stimulate production, but it will also save jobs and improve the financial stability of the produces and sellers of agricultural products.

All possible regulatory instruments should be used to stabilize the domestic agricultural market.

Список источников

1. Комшанов Д С 2019 Сельское хозяйство в системе экономических отношений. Материалы международной научно-практической конференции «Традиции и инновации в развитии АПК» Великие Луки, 17-18 апреля. 389- 397 с.
2. Семенова Е В 2021 Расширение инструментов регулирования аграрных рынков в России. Материалы V региональной научно-технической конференции «Современные тенденции развития экономики и образования региона» Великие Луки 4 мая. 417 – 423.
3. Информационный справочник о мерах и направлениях государственной поддержки агропромышленного комплекса Российской Федерации Министерства сельского хозяйств Retrieved from: http://www.gp.specagro.ru/region/rf/.
4. Справочная информация курсы доллара США и евро, установленные Центральным банком Российской Федерации 2014, 2020 (Moscow: Central Bank of the Russian Federation).
5. Bird E J, Hagstrom P and Wild R. Credit Cards and the Poor Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23741702_Credit_Cards_and_the_Poor.
6. Буторина О В и Кавешникова Н Ю 2018 Европейская интеграция. Учебник для вузов (Москва: Аспект Пресс). – C. 260.
7. WTO Secretariat calculations, based on Eurostat online database. 2017 Viewed at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database [may, 2017]. https://www.hse.ru/data/2017/08/04/1173599803/S357.pdf.
8. The Impact of EU Sugar Policy Reform on Developing Countries. Department for International Development (DFID) UK. Research and analysis to inform your business decisions. February 2012 / https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a8be5274a31e000066a/LMC-ODI_SugarReportPublicVersion_Final_.pdfReferences.

References

1. Komshanov D S 2019 Agriculture in the system of economic relations. Materials of the international scientific conference “Traditions and innovations in the development of the agro-industrial complex” Velikiye Luki, April 17-18. 389- 397 p.
2. Semenova E V 2021 Expansion of instruments for regulating agricultural markets in Russia. Materials of the V regional scientific conference “Modern trends in the development of the economy and education of the region” Velikiye Luki May 4. 417 – 423.
3. Information guide on measures and directions of state support for the agro-industrial complex of the Russian Federation of the Ministry of Agriculture Retrieved from: http://www.gp.specagro.ru/region/rf/
4. Background information US dollar and euro rates set by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 2014, 2020 (Moscow: Central Bank of the Russian Federation)
5. Bird E J, Hagstrom P and Wild R. Credit Cards and the Poor Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23741702_Credit_Cards_and_the_Poor
6. Butorina OV and Kaveshnikova NJ 2018 European Integration. Textbook for universities (Moscow: Aspect Press). – P. 260.
7. WTO Secretariat calculations, based on Eurostat online database. 2017 Viewed at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database [may, 2017]. https://www.hse.ru/data/2017/08/04/1173599803/S357.pdf
8. The Impact of EU Sugar Policy Reform on Developing Countries. Department for International Development (DFID) UK. Research and analysis to inform your business decisions. February 2012 / https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a8be5274a31e000066a/LMC-ODI_SugarReportPublicVersion_Final_.pdf

Для цитирования: Семенова Е.В., Комшанов Д.С., Петрова О.Г., Антонов Г.О., Павлова А.В. Ревизия инструментов стабилизации отечественного продовольственного рынка // Московский экономический журнал. 2022. № 4. URL: https://qje.su/ekonomicheskaya-teoriya/moskovskij-ekonomicheskij-zhurnal-4-2022-43/

© Семенова Е.В., Комшанов Д.С., Петрова О.Г., Антонов Г.О., Павлова А.В., 2022. Московский экономический журнал, 2022, № 4.