Entrepreneurship and business in the Russian economy. Entrepreneurship in the economy of the Russian Federation, state and problems. Ways to Solve Entrepreneurship Problems
Entrepreneurship and Marketing
UDC (470 + 571)
N.I. Novikov, D.V. Podyapolsky, G.V. Novikova
ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE MODERN RUSSIAN ECONOMY: ASSESSMENTS, TRENDS, THE ROLE OF THE STATE
N.I. Novikov, D.V. Podyapolskii, G.V. Novikova
BUSINESS IN MODERN RUSSIAN ECONOMY: EVALUATION AND TRENDS, THE ROLE OF THE STATE
The role and importance of small and medium-sized businesses for the domestic economy are shown. The conditions, social and economic environment, which are necessary for the successful functioning of small and medium-sized businesses in Russia, are characterized. Proposals are stated, the implementation of which will positively change the situation in small and medium-sized businesses.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP; SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESSES; DEVELOPMENT; SUPPORT FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP; INNOVATION; TAX POLICY.
The article shows the role and importance of small and medium business for the domestic economy. Described conditions, social and economic environment, which are necessary for the successful operation of small and medium-sized businesses in Russia. Set out proposals that will certainly positively change the situation in the small and medium business.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP; SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT; SUPPORT FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP; INNOVATION; TAX POLICY.
Entrepreneurship, both small and medium, in the Russian economy, in our opinion, has not yet acquired any complete format, has not revealed huge potential opportunities. Historically, in socio-economic systems, the importance of small and medium-sized businesses is by no means limited only to economic characteristics. Both political and social motives are important to society. As practice shows, the middle class, “generated” in many respects by small and medium-sized businesses, is a pillar of social stability. Social polarization inevitably gives rise to "class" antagonisms, sharply limits, in our opinion, the power's ability to control social processes using the classical methods of "carrot and stick": too different reactions of different
strata of the population for the same measures taken by the state in the economy.
In the research materials, we will focus on the economic aspects of entrepreneurship. Basic questions are the role of entrepreneurship, the attitude of the state towards it.
Even at the stage of perestroika, the USSR Law "On Individual Labor Activity" (November 19, 1986) and the Law "On Cooperation in the USSR" (May 26, 1988) were adopted, which put an end to the monopoly of state ownership of the means of production. Subsequently, the RF Law "On Enterprises and Entrepreneurial Activity" (December 25, 1990) was adopted, which opened up new opportunities for relations between employers and employees. This law allowed
engage in entrepreneurship both individually (the current Civil Code of the Russian Federation calls citizens engaged in entrepreneurial activities without the formation of a legal entity, individual entrepreneurs - individual entrepreneurs), and with the use of hired labor.
A lot of time has passed since then, during which authoritative public and state structures for supporting small and medium-sized businesses have been created. Among them: the Russian Agency for the Support of Small and Medium Business, created in the form of a closed joint-stock company in 1992 at the initiative of the Government of the Russian Federation and with the assistance of the Know-How Fund of the Government of Great Britain; All-Russian public organization of small and medium-sized businesses "Support of Russia" (2002); Council for the Support of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses under the Chairman of the Federation Council since 2004; a special commission under the Government of the Russian Federation on small business support, chaired by the first deputy prime minister since 2008, and other institutions. However, domestic small and medium-sized businesses do not feel themselves sufficiently protected, free from "unfriendly", sometimes unexpected measures from the state.
Let's analyze the situation using the simplest quantitative characteristics of small and medium-sized businesses - its scale, dynamics and industry structure. According to the comprehensive federal statistical observation of the activities of small and medium-sized businesses conducted in 2011 by Rosstat in 2010, there were 4.6 million business entities in Russia, of which 2.9 million are individual entrepreneurs and almost 1.7 million are legal entities. Employment of small and medium-sized businesses in wholesale and retail trade ~ 40%, in real estate and lease transactions - 21.1%, in construction - 11.1% (small legal entities), mining and manufacturing - 10 , 7% (small business).
The department estimates the number of people employed in the domestic small business at 25.2% of all workers. The proceeds from the sale of goods, works and services are about 28.5%. Fixed capital investments -
about 10%, the cost of fixed assets at the end of 2010 amounted to 5.9% of the total value of fixed assets in the economy. According to the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy, Innovative Development and Entrepreneurship, dated May 2013, there are six million small and medium-sized businesses operating in the field of small and medium-sized businesses, employing more than 17 million people, including individual entrepreneurs. At the same time, 18 million people. work in the shadow sector.
It follows from this that the scale of small business in Russia is still incomparable with similar indicators in many other countries. Its share in Russian GDP is about 20%, while in the USA, EU, developed Asian countries, this figure is in the range of 40-70%. The share of employed in small and medium-sized companies in the European Union, the USA, and Japan is on average about 50-70% of the total economically active population, in Russia - less than 25%.
The reasons for the relatively weak development of small and medium-sized businesses in Russia are multifaceted and multifaceted. One of the most obvious is its initial stage. At the same time, the insufficient attention of the state for a long time already in the post-Soviet period to the needs of small business, however paradoxical it may sound, is precisely due to the fact that it is “small”. It is one thing when several hundred large organizations, relying mainly on the Soviet economic foundation, provide the overwhelming part of budget revenues, and another thing when revenues from millions of firms make up a meager part of the state treasury. At the same time, these millions, starting a business, as a rule, with a clean slate, require vigilant attention and support from the state.
The advantages of small businesses over others are favorably distinguished by their greater flexibility and adaptability to changing conditions, including crisis ones. We mean, first of all, pricing and assortment policy, as well as logistics. The main thing, in our opinion, is that small business is "closer to the people", provides their urgent needs and requirements, employment of the population, their income
without any special efforts on the part of the state, it forms a “spirit of initiative and enterprise” among citizens.
The potential of small business, in our opinion, can be revealed in the interests of society, the state, the budget in the presence of certain conditions, which are largely formed by the state and financial structures. These include: political and socio-economic stability, protection of private property, positive relationships between business and government, a developed legal environment, including the necessary information and communication infrastructure, the absence of administrative barriers, de-bureaucracy, a sparing and selective tax policy, access to financial resources , the possibility of acquiring initial capital, special support measures, protection from crime. Their absence or incompleteness is a constraining factor in the development of small businesses.
One of the most important problems in the development of Russian entrepreneurship is the attitude of society towards entrepreneurs. For young people, when choosing a business, profession, image plays an important role. It may seem strange, but even in 2013, when almost a quarter of a century passed after the change in the social system in Russia, the majority of Russians still do not believe that one can honestly earn "big"
money even on condition of creativity, initiative, ingenuity, dedication. This opinion is shared by 73% of respondents according to the results of a survey by the Levada Center. The survey was conducted on April 19-22, 2013 among 1.6 thousand people. in 45 regions of the Russian Federation, the survey error does not exceed 3.4%. The survey results are shown in Fig. 1.
Despite all the difficulties in the development of entrepreneurship in Russia, which we will discuss further, the first years of market relations in the country, even with a negative "image", are characterized by an obvious development of entrepreneurship. Some characteristics of this period are shown in Fig. 2.
As for the sharp reduction in individual entrepreneurs (without the formation of a legal entity) in 2005 relative to 2004, then, most likely, this is due to their re-registration, which took place in 2004, a change in the accounting system, when it began to be kept according to information about records, entered in the Unified State Register of Individual Entrepreneurs.
Let's turn to the latest trends in the development of small and medium-sized businesses. In the rating of the favorable business environment "Doing Business-2012", which is annually compiled by the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), at the end of 2011 Russia ranked 120th, a year earlier - 123rd place.
Do you think it is possible to honestly earn millions of rubles in Russia?
All respondents Those who have enough for groceries Those who only have enough for groceries
Those who have enough money for food and clothing
Those who can afford durable goods
Those who can afford a car
Yes ■ No _ Don't know
Rice. 1. Survey data from VTsIOM and Levada Center Source: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2198867
Rice. 2. Some characteristics of entrepreneurship development
Source: vseup.ru/static/files/Burov_Maloe_predprinimateГstvo_(monografiya).doc,
deloros-ural.ru/attachments/article/350/1_kvartal_2011.doc
The results of the rating confirm that Russia is not a leader in creating favorable conditions for doing business. Moreover, the assessment of international experts largely coincides with the opinion of the domestic business community. VTsIOM prepared a 2012 report “On the state of the business climate in Russia” for the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. The survey participants (companies - members of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs) were asked to assess the business climate in Russia, the level of protection of private property, the relationship between business and government, to assess the tax burden for 2012. As for relations with the government, 45.6% (58% in 2011) entrepreneurs believe that the authorities treat business as a "wallet", 28.4% (36%) - as a junior partner and 24.3% (22%) - as a breeding ground for corruption. Assessing the tax burden on business, the majority of respondents (49.7%) note that it has grown over the year.
The place of small business in Russia today is incomparable with its potential opportunities, and is associated, in our opinion, with the inconsistent policy of the state towards it, changes from time to time
time of a conceptual look at its role in society and economy. It is believed that since the beginning of the 90s. of the past century, the government's interest in small and medium-sized businesses has renewed and intensified. This refers to attempts to reduce administrative pressure (reducing the number of inspections, simplifying procedures and schemes for setting up a small business, obtaining a license, facilitating entry to the market), creating special tax regimes, introducing various benefits, including for lending, simplifying access to financial resources, creation of special measures of budgetary support, etc.
All these actions, of course, create a new, more favorable atmosphere for entrepreneurship. Although the business community most often assesses the effectiveness of measures taken by the government as insufficient, and the measures themselves are superficial.
The modern cycle of far from unambiguous initiatives of the state in relation to entrepreneurship begins, in our opinion, from 2011. The most significant are the following. In mid-2012, the authorities announced that for the implementation of measures for state support of small and medium
entrepreneurship is planned to be directed in the form of subsidies to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in 2013, 21.8 billion rubles, in 2014 and 2015. - 23 billion rubles each. These funds should go, in particular, to subsidize the costs of leasing equipment and innovative projects, to support residents of private parks (subsidies for the purchase of real estate or covering the cost of renting park premises where the entrepreneur's production activities are carried out).
Since January 2014, the law on the Federal Contract System came into force, giving small businesses certain preferences in terms of public procurement. With rare exceptions regarding the country's defense and national security, customers are required to place in the system of small and medium-sized businesses, as well as socially oriented non-profit organizations, at least 15% of the total annual volume of orders (the upper threshold is not specified), the initial contract price should not exceed 20 million rubles Under the terms of the current 94-FZ, the volume of orders is limited by quotas of 10-20%, and NMCK - 15 million rubles. ...
In May 2013, the President of the Russian Federation signed the Law on Ombudsmen for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs in Russia. According to this law, the main tasks of the commissioner, appointed for five years, provide for the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of entrepreneurs, control over the observance of their rights by state and local authorities, assistance in the development of public institutions focused on protecting the rights of entrepreneurs and interaction with the business community, as well as participation in the formation and implementation of state policy in this area. According to the document, the orders of the federal ombudsman to suspend the non-normative acts of local authorities are subject to immediate execution. The Commissioner is also given the right to send motivated proposals to the President of Russia on the abolition of decisions and orders of the Government of the Russian Federation. The Ombudsman is given the opportunity to appeal against judicial acts of arbitration courts. An opportunity is envisaged to protect the rights and legitimate interests of Russian entrepreneurs abroad.
Earlier, in January 2011, amendments to the Law on Insurance Contributions came into force, according to which, instead of a unified social tax, organizations are required to pay insurance contributions to state non-budgetary funds (Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation , Federal Compulsory Health Insurance Fund and Territorial Compulsory Health Insurance Funds). As a result, the general rate of insurance premiums increased from 26 to 34% for organizations applying the general taxation system. For small businesses applying a simplified taxation system or a taxation system in the form of UTII, since 2011 the rate of insurance premiums has increased from 14 to 34%, i.e., 2.4 times.
Benefits are provided only for the following business entities:
Small innovative enterprises, organizations in the field of information and communication technologies and residents of technology-innovative special economic zones for the period 2011-2019;
Organizations and individual entrepreneurs operating in the field of mass media;
Small businesses applying a simplified taxation system and working in 36 types of activities designated by law for a certain period.
According to experts, the above benefits affect a small number of small businesses. For the overwhelming majority, the law is in effect in its original version, and since January 1, 2011, contributions have increased by a factor of 2.4 at a time.
Subsequently, from the beginning of 2013, insurance premiums for individual entrepreneurs were increased from 17 to 36 thousand rubles. As a result, almost 412 thousand individual entrepreneurs, or 10% of their total number as of December 1, 2012, were deregistered from December 2012 to February 2013 inclusive due to an increase in social taxes (dynamics is shown in Fig. 3). The number of small businesses after the tax increase decreased by 350 thousand.
01.2010 Ü 1.2011 01.2012 12.2012 03.2013 Fig. 3. Dynamics of the number of individual entrepreneurs
According to a social survey conducted at the beginning of 2013, the majority of entrepreneurs (60.8%) believe that the increased rate of social contributions hinders or does not allow them to function at all. The Federation Council of the Russian Federation proposes to introduce a transitional period to increase payments for pension and health insurance. Senators propose to cancel the two-fold increase in social taxes introduced in 2013, and introduce it in stages: in 2014 - one and a half rates, from 2015 - two rates.
As for the innovativeness of small business, the following solution has been proposed for this orientation: the Ministry of Economic Development has developed a draft law, in accordance with which restrictions on the participation of foreigners in the authorized capital when creating joint enterprises of small and medium-sized businesses in Russia are lifted. The Government of the Russian Federation believes that the removal of these restrictions will create attractive conditions for doing business by foreign investors in Russia, as well as provide an influx of new technologies and modern technology to small and medium-sized businesses from abroad.
In conclusion, the following should be emphasized:
Measures taken by government agencies to enhance the role of small and medium-sized businesses in the domestic economy are ineffective;
The tax policy in relation to small and medium-sized businesses should be carried out in a differentiated manner (preferential taxation should be applied for newly created enterprises in their first 3-4 years in business conducting economic activities in the Far East, in the regions of the Far North and regions equated to them, as well as for engaged in industrial and social activities);
Apply concessional lending to enterprises and organizations of small and medium-sized businesses;
To improve the image and social status of entrepreneurs of all levels;
Increase the demand from regional and local authorities and control over their activities in organizing practical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses in the localities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Small and medium-sized businesses in Russia are almost 40% employed in trade // Economics. Prime. 17 oct. 2012. URL: http://news.mail.ru/economics/ 10627037 /
2. Rudensky I. The future of our country depends on the development of small medium-sized businesses // Parliamentary newspaper. 2013.24 May. URL: http: //www.pnp.
ru / news / detail / 20816
3. "Citizens of Russia do not believe that you can earn honestly ..." // Newsland. 2013.28 May. URL: http: // newsland.com/news/detail/id/1184892
5. VTsIOM and the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs assessed the business climate in Russia / Press Center "Small and Medium Business of the Krasnodar Territory". March 22, 2013 URL: http://www.mbkuban.ru/news_fed/item-7350.html
6. "Money for Growth" // Russian newspaper "RG.RU". 2012.21 May. URL: http://rg.ru/2013/05/21/ biznes.html
7. On the Commissioners for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs in the Russian Federation: Feder. Law of the Russian Federation No. 78-FZ of 05/07/2013 // Russian newspaper "RG.RU". Feder. issue No. 6075. 2013. May 13.
8. Business in a ring of growing costs / Tamb. region bargaining-prom. chamber // Business Tambov. 2011. No. 1. URL: http://old.totpp.ru/business-tambov/archive/jan-2011/846-article13
9. Day of Russian Entrepreneurship // RiaNovosti. 2013.26 May. URL: http://m.ria.ru /spravka/20130526/939199152.html
10. "412 thousand individual entrepreneurs refused licenses due to the increase in social taxes ..." // RiaNovosti. 2013.10 apr. URL: http://ria.ru/economy/20130410/ 939/931972176. html
1. Malyi i srednii biznes v Rossii pochti na 40% zaniat v sfere torgovli. Ekonomika. Praim. 17 okt. 2012. URL: http://news.mail.ru/economics/10627037/ (rus)
2. Rudenskii I. Ot razvitiia malogo srednego biznesa zavisit budushchee nashei strany. Parlamentskaia gazeta. 2013.24 maia. URL: http://www.pnp.ru/news/detail/ 20816 (rus)
3. "Grazhdane Rossii ne veriat, chto mozhno zarabatyvat" chestno ... ". Newsland. 2013.28 maia. URL: http: // newsland.com/news/detail/id/1184892 (rus)
4. "Rossiia podnialas" v delovom reitinge Vsemirnogo banka. Newsland. 2011.20 noiabria. URL: http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/806366/ (rus)
5. VTslOM i RSPP otsenili delovoi klimat v Rossii. Press-tsentr "Maloe i srednee predprinimatel" stvo Krasnodarskogo kraia ". 22 March 2013. URL: http://www.mbkuban.ru/news_fed/item-7350.html (rus)
6. "Den" gi na vyrost. Rossiiskaia gazeta "RG.RU".
2012.21 maia. URL: http://rg.ru/2013/05/21/biznes.html (rus)
7.Ob upolnomochennykh po zashchite prav predprinimatelei v Rossiiskoi Federatsii: Feder. zakon RF No. 78-FZ ot 07.05.2013 g. Rossiiskaia gazeta "RG.RU". Feder. vypusk No. 6075. 2013.13 maia. (rus)
8. Biznes v kol "tse rastushchikh raskhodov. Tamb. Obl. Torg.-prom. Palata. Delovoi Tambov. 2011. No. 1. URL: http://old.totpp.ru/business-tambov/archive/jan-2011 / 846-article13 (rus)
9. Den "rossiiskogo predprinimatel" stva. RiaNovosti.
2013.26 maia. URL: http: //rn.ria.ra/spravka/20130526 /939199152.html (rus)
10. "412 tysiach IP otkazalis" ot litsenzii v sviazi s uvelicheniem sotsnalogov ... ". RiaNovosti. 2013.10 apr. URL: http://ria.ru/economy/20130410/939/931972176. Html (rus)
NOVIKOV Nikolai Inokentievich - Doctor of Economics, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Economics, Novokuznetsk Institute (branch) of Kemerovo State University. 654079, st. Metallurgov, 19, Novokuznetsk, Russia. Email: [email protected]
NOVIKOV Nikolai I. - Novokuznetsk Institute (branch) of Kemerovo State University. 654079. Metallurgists str. 19. Novokuznetsk. Russia. Email: [email protected]
PODYAPOLSKY Dmitry Vasilievich - applicant for the degree of candidate of economic sciences of the Novokuznetsk Institute (branch) of the Kemerovo State University. 654079, st. Metallurgov, 19, Novokuznetsk, Russia. Email: [email protected]
PODYAPOLSKII Dmitrii V. - Novokuznetsk Institute (branch) of Kemerovo State University. 654079. Metallurgists str. 19. Novokuznetsk. Russia. Email: [email protected]
NOVIKOVA Galina Vasilievna - Associate Professor of the Department of Economics of the Novokuznetsk Institute (branch) of the Kemerovo State University.
654079, st. Metallurgov, 19, Novokuznetsk, Russia. Email: [email protected]
NOVIKOVA Galina V. - Novokuznetsk Institute (branch) of Kemerovo State University. 654079. Metallurgists str. 19. Novokuznetsk. Russia. Email: [email protected]
© Saint Petersburg State Polytechnic University, 2014
Entrepreneurship in Russia dates back to ancient times, from Kievan Rus. The first entrepreneurs were small traders and merchants. Since the time of Peter I, manufactories began to be created, such industries as mining, weapons, cloth, linen began to develop. After the reform of 1861, the construction of railways began, heavy industry was reorganized, and joint stock activity was revived. In the 90s of the XIX century. the industrial base of entrepreneurship is being formed. At the beginning of the XX century. entrepreneurship in Russia is becoming a mass phenomenon, the entrepreneur is being formed as an owner. The development of entrepreneurship has given an impetus to the development of the Russian economy and an increase in its prestige at the world level. Foreign experts predicted a tremendous rise in Russian industry, which has been compared to the colossal shifts in the US economy in the last third of the 19th century.
Later, the development of the Russian economy was interrupted by wars and revolutions (February and October). The country was in a state of economic ruin.
The entrepreneurial movement after 1917 was virtually interrupted.
In the history of recent decades, researchers distinguish three main stages: the period of "war communism", NEP and several decades of the administrative-command economy.
The first period was characterized by the nationalization of enterprises in large, medium and partly small industry, transport, trade, all banking and credit institutions, commodity and stock exchanges. The other side of this period was the confiscation of all landlord estates and a significant part of the land belonging to the kulaks, which led to a reduction in the number of cattle, sheep, and pigs. To this it should be added that a food dictatorship was established, food appropriation was introduced, all agricultural products were confiscated for consumption by the urban population.
After several difficult years of survival, they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to find that degree of combination of private interest, private commercial interest, verification and control by the state, the degree of subordination to its common interests, which previously constituted a stumbling block for many socialists. All this resulted in a new economic policy.
In 1928-1929. in the country there is a change of political course, which led to the curtailment of the NEP and the transition to a command-administrative system of the economy. There was a violent breakdown of the existing industrial relations, the elimination of all types of property, including cooperative, the nationalization of agriculture and dispossession of kulaks.
There was a discrepancy between the growth of labor productivity and wages, a breakdown in the monetary system began, and a shortage of goods began to be felt. In the 30s, the card system was introduced. In the further development of the country, the branches of the I division were significantly ahead of the industries of the II division, the structure of the economy lagged behind the developed countries of the world by about 50 years.
The situation in which the country found itself after the events of the 90s of the twentieth century led to the need to revive market relations, market actors, first of all - entrepreneurship. Thus, the development of Russian entrepreneurship should be based on the following prerequisites:
- no other country in the world has such sharp geographic, economic and social contrasts in regional development as Russia;
- integration into the world economic system as a full partner is possible only on the basis of a developed industrial potential, competitive with industrially developed countries;
- economic growth is possible only when relying on one's own strengths and capabilities, since, having in mind the competitive principles in the world market economy, it is hardly possible to wait for large-scale international assistance to restore the lost potential and its increase.
The state of small business and its development in modern conditions
In the Program of Socio-Economic Development for the Medium Term (2006-2008), one of the priority tasks of the Government of the Russian Federation is the development of small business as a market institution that ensures the formation of a competitive environment, self-employment of the population and the stability of tax revenues (Fig. 1).
Picture 1.
The number of small businesses is one of the main indicators of the quality of the economic environment. As of January 1, 2006, 979 thousand legal entities were registered - small businesses.
Small businesses account for 44% of 2.2 million registered legal entities, which is more than 2 times less than in developed countries.
For the period from 1999 to 2005 the number of small businesses increased by 100 thousand units or 11.2%. However, from 1999 to 2001, there was a negative trend - the number of small businesses decreased by 3% annually (25 thousand companies were liquidated annually). The trend of gradual growth was outlined only by 2002, and only in 2003 was it possible to return to the number of enterprises operating in 1999.
The change in dynamics, according to our estimates, is due to the general favorable macroeconomic situation and the measures taken by the Government of the Russian Federation in 2002-2004:
Simplification of the registration procedure for legal entities using the "one window" principle;
Introduction of special tax regimes;
Establishment of a 3-year moratorium on control and supervisory activities in relation to established small businesses.
Noting the positive annual growth of 25 thousand small businesses, we understand that in absolute terms it is clearly not sufficient. In Poland, about 80 thousand companies appear annually, in France - 220 thousand, and the average indicator of developed countries is the annual creation of from 10% to 20% of new enterprises. The same number of companies are being liquidated. This ensures a quick flow of resources to more competitive areas of the economy.
An important indicator of the development of entrepreneurship is the indicator of the "density" of small enterprises in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (per 100 thousand population).
According to this indicator, the regions can be divided into three groups:
Low level - "density" of small enterprises - from 0 to 300 - 19% of regions;
The middle level is the "density" of small businesses - from 301 to 700 - 67% of the regions;
High level - "density" of small enterprises - from 701 and more - 14% of regions.
Moscow and St. Petersburg (2.0 thousand and 2.3 thousand enterprises per 100 thousand inhabitants, respectively) are as close as possible to the average European indicators (3000 small enterprises per 100 thousand inhabitants). And the gap between the leading region (St. Petersburg) and the outsider regions reaches tens and hundreds of times.
Of course, such imbalances are largely a consequence of the structure of the economy that has developed over the decades in the regions.
At the same time, this requires more active measures from regional governments to eliminate differences in the level of development of small businesses.
The structure of small business has not changed for 11 years. The largest number of jobs is created in the wholesale and retail trade and the service sector - 4.2 million people (47%). Industry and construction provide 1.8 million and 1.6 million jobs, respectively (19% and 17%).
Employment rates in small enterprises in other areas are, to put it mildly, depressing: healthcare - 1.2%, housing and communal services - 2.7%, science - 1.3%, transport and communications - 5%, which is explained by the significant presence of the state. in these sectors.
In terms of the growth rate of employed in small companies, information and computing services are in the lead (about 11.5% per year), which indicates the formation of a positive trend in the development of small business in this sector of the economy.
The sectoral distribution of employment is a reflection of the structure of small enterprises by type of economic activity.
Trading is the most common small business activity. It accounts for more than 72% of the turnover of small companies. Industry and construction are in second place (9.8% and 7%).
At the same time, small enterprises dominate in the production of some types of products.
According to the available estimates of Rosstat, small enterprises produce 50-60% of metal-plastic windows and doors, grape wine, and almost 70% of chilled fish. Over 97% of construction organizations are small businesses. In agriculture, personal subsidiary and peasant (farmer) households account for about 60% of gross agricultural output.
The creation of conditions for changing the structure of small business is an undoubted task of the Russian Government. But it cannot be solved by directive. The government should create conditions for the entry of small enterprises into such sectors as industry, transport, communications, health care, science, primarily through reforms in the public sector of these sectors. A striking example is housing and communal services, where small enterprises demonstrate a high level of profitability of 4.2%, while large enterprises have negative profitability of "-9%".
Business, society and power: the nature of the relationship
What kind of big business and under what conditions is legitimate in the eyes of Russians? And how do they generally see the obligations of business in relation to society? The findings show that only a third of Russians are convinced that any legitimate business always has the right to public approval and state protection. But for the majority of the population, the relationship "business - society - power" is of a conventional nature and presupposes the fulfillment of certain conditions by all parties. According to our fellow citizens, for business this means the need to develop not by appropriating state property, but at the expense of its own resources, and the acquisition of state property is allowed only in those cases when it is necessary to save a dying enterprise.
In the same range of conditions - assistance to the region in solving acute social problems and care for its employees (see Fig.).
Figure 2.
It is characteristic that the priority of such conditions as development from scratch at the expense of their own funds or by putting depressed state-owned enterprises on their feet is noted more by respondents of middle and older ages, while young people more often than others believe that the background of business is not so important, but it is important that an entrepreneur today paid taxes and provided jobs.
As you can see, the expectations of society in relation to big business are quite clearly articulated and quite logical. Moreover, they are quite doable. In these conditions, the task of public relations services of both individual companies and organizations representing the interests of large business is to inform the public about shifts in this direction and to form an adequate image of big business in Russia.
However, in activities for further legitimization in the public consciousness of big business, it is necessary to take into account the regional aspect of the attitude towards big business. The perceptions of the conditions for legitimizing big business in the eyes of society and of its priority social roles differ markedly in different regions, as does the attitude towards big business itself.
An important component of the image of a business in public opinion is also the nature and content of its activities, as well as the "proximity" of its products to the people themselves. For example, Russians recognize as socially important, first of all, business associated with the production of consumer goods, including food, with the provision of services to the population, with construction, communications and transport, with the development of high technologies, metallurgy, mechanical engineering, and the military-industrial complex. Russians more often assess the role of business in these sectors as positive than negative (see Fig. 3).
Public opinion assesses the role of business in the extraction and processing of natural resources, as well as in the financial and credit sphere (the shares of positive and negative assessments are approximately the same). And this also seems to be quite understandable, since in the first case, according to the logic of the population, we are talking about the exploitation of natural resources, as well as the people's distrust of the financial and banking sector, which is characteristic of post-Soviet Russia, aggravated by the negative experience of the last decade with all sorts of defaults and financial pyramids. ... And other recent polls indicate that Russians have very little trust in banks, preferring to keep money at home or invest in durable goods or real estate.
Figure 3
The data of this survey indicate a much higher degree of loyalty to big business in all industries, primarily on the part of young and successful Russians.
This is especially evident from the attitude of the respondents to the most "controversial" industries - financial and mining. If among the older generation a third of the respondents give a negative assessment of the role of business in these sectors, then among young people - only one in ten.
The conventionality of relations "power - society - business" suggests that not only business should bear a certain burden of socially significant responsibilities, but the government and society, on their part, should also create certain conditions for its development. What are these conditions under which, in the opinion of Russians, society has the right to expect socially responsible behavior from business? As can be seen from Figure 4, among Russians as a whole, the prevailing belief is that society can count on the participation of business in solving its social problems only in the following cases: 1) if the authorities create normal conditions for business and 2) people themselves treat business representatives with respect. Supporters of the point of view that business always, under any conditions, should participate in solving social problems - only a quarter of the population.
Figure 4
Respondents who have a positive attitude towards big business and those who have only negative emotions about it have different views on this issue. Among the former, more than three-quarters of their representatives consistently approach this issue in a conventional manner, while among the latter, slightly less than half of them, and almost as many are convinced that business is obliged to participate in solving social problems always, under any conditions. At the same time, even among those who treat big business badly, less than half (43.1%) consider themselves entitled to expect business to participate in solving social problems of society, regardless of the position of the authorities and society in relation to itself.
On the other hand, Russians are convinced that if business fulfills its part of an unspoken contract and participates in solving social problems, then the state should respond with good for good.
It should be emphasized that the majority of Russians understand, at least in part, the difficulties faced by business in modern Russian society. Only every tenth respondent confidently stated that in Russia today it is possible to conduct business absolutely legally (see Figure 5). A third of Russians are convinced that this is impossible, while the rest believe that doing business honestly "is possible, but difficult." Moreover, these difficulties, at least in the minds of ordinary Russians, are mainly associated with the position of the state power as a whole or its individual representatives.
Figure 5
However, in many respects the difficulties of legally doing business in the mass consciousness are of a mythologized nature. As the data show, the most optimistic legal environment of modern business is estimated by those who are closest to it - individual entrepreneurs. They, in particular, more often than others believe that business today can certainly be done honestly, or that it can be done, albeit difficult. Therefore, the attitude that the population today demonstrates to business can be considered largely complimentary, since people make even more discounts for it (in particular, on the difficulties of legally doing business) than the participants in entrepreneurial activity themselves.
As for the main reasons why business in Russia violates the law, the majority of Russians see them in corruption in government bodies and shortcomings in the current legislation (63.5% and 58.9%, respectively). Almost half of the respondents blame the country's atmosphere of general ignorance of legislation for the untidiness of business, in which any law-abiding businessman is doomed to ruin (47.5%). At the same time, many see businessmen violating laws as a desire to cash in on the current situation (which is called "fishing in troubled waters"). Thus, 43.9% of respondents believe that businessmen thus replenish the black cash fund, and 31.7% generally believe that it is profitable to break the law in business. But the share of those Russians who associate dishonesty in doing business with purely personal qualities of entrepreneurs is small and amounts to 15.6%.
Thus, the relationship between business, government and society is perceived by the population as a relationship of a conventional nature, presupposing the existence and fulfillment of mutual obligations by the parties. Therefore, the requirements that society and government make to business must be accompanied by adequate conditions for business development. On the one hand, this is due to the participation of the state, and on the other, with respect for the business of the population itself.
The social role and responsibility of business: the main priorities in public opinion
In their attitude to business, as the study has shown, the population is increasingly beginning to focus not on what kind of test modern Russian business has grown from, but on what role it can and should play in the life of the whole society and each individual. How do people understand the social role of business in the life of society, what do they expect from it?
The first thing to note in this regard is the conviction of Russians that those with high incomes should share part of them with society as a whole and with other people, even if the high incomes are the result of the efforts of individuals. This point of view is shared by 71.9% of our fellow citizens.
The requirement to share high income, one might say, is becoming today a cultural norm shared by the majority of representatives of all social groups and strata of the Russian population. Although, of course, among successful, young and active Russians, the proportion of those who believe that the high incomes earned by the efforts of individuals should belong only to them is also relatively high. For example, among young people under 30, they are 40.0%, among those who have benefited from reforms - 41.4%, among middle-income respondents - 33.2%.
The domination of predominantly barbaric and irresponsible entrepreneurship in Russia during the 90s led to the current position of the population, according to which social responsibility seems to be an even more important component of business than its economic efficiency. The majority of the respondents (60.4%) believe that today it is important to increase the social responsibility of business, even if this will somewhat reduce its economic efficiency. Perhaps, to a certain extent, this point of view is compensation for the general belief that businessmen still do not pay all taxes stipulated by the legislation, do not fulfill their obligations, therefore it is not a sin to demand something extra from them.
About a third of Russians (37.3%) adhere to liberal views on business and believe that the main thing for it today is economic efficiency and competitiveness.
However, it must be said that in Russian society today there are groups that support the priority of economic efficiency over increasing the social responsibility of business. These are mainly young people, high-income groups of the population and those who are directly related to business. For example, among the respondents who are self-employed and are familiar with the financial and organizational difficulties of entrepreneurial activity, the share of those who see an increase in its economic efficiency and competitiveness as a priority task for the development of Russian business (60.8%) is predominant ( see Fig. 6).
Figure 6
Social programs, as a rule, involve the withdrawal of part of the funds from the turnover of companies, and today not all entrepreneurs are able to do this. And many Russians take this into account in their business expectations. As a result, public opinion on the issue is split. Half of the respondents (51.0%) adhere to the principle of universality of social responsibility and believe that social obligations should be borne by all private companies and entrepreneurs, regardless of their level of profitability, and almost a similar part of the respondents (46.9%) believes that the burden of social responsibility should only be carried by large companies. Naturally, the survey revealed the largest number of supporters of the burden of social responsibility being redistributed within the business community towards its large representatives among individual entrepreneurs (71.5%).
Thus, there is no consensus among Russians today about how universal and universal an approach to the social obligations of business should be. At first glance, this seems to be a significant contradiction - on the one hand, the majority of Russians agree that it is necessary to develop social responsibility everywhere, and on the other hand, many of the respondents "liberate" small and low-income enterprises from it. This contradiction is explained by a fairly broad interpretation by Russians of the concept of social responsibility.
The study showed that a liberal (narrow) interpretation of the social responsibility of business, which presupposes only the fulfillment of obligations to the state (payment of taxes) and employees of their enterprises (wages), is shared by only 35.3% of the population. While the majority (58.1%) understand social responsibility as participation in solving social problems of the country and regions. In other words, social responsibility in the understanding of Russians implies going beyond the basic functions and tasks of business.
Representatives of almost all groups and strata of the Russian population, including young people and the middle majority of society, agree with a broad understanding of the social responsibility of business. Only among those who consider themselves to be highly secured and undoubtedly benefited from the reforms, the balance of assessments develops in favor of a narrowly liberal understanding of business responsibility (51.2% versus 45.3%). It is noteworthy that this issue is definitely not connected with the ideological and political segmentation of society, and even in the camp of pure liberals, solid supporters of the Union of Right Forces, support for an expansive interpretation, albeit insignificantly, is still higher (47.9% versus 46.5% of those in favor of a narrowly liberal interpretation ).
What specific areas of business social activity do Russians see as the most important? There are three groups of problems that are clearly different in popularity among Russians, and they see the need to involve big business in solving them.
The first group includes problems that have gained support from more than half of the Russians surveyed: the development of the material base of the social sphere, the creation of new jobs, and direct assistance to the most socially vulnerable groups. As we can see, along with the direct function of business (job creation), the main priorities include problems that are actually the tasks of state social policy. Of course, people do not wait for their solution by business instead of the state, but hope that entrepreneurs will understand the significance of these problems and help the country to solve them, primarily through honest payment of taxes.
The second group, the priority of which is said by about a third of the population, includes tasks related to the social responsibility of businessmen to their employees, to the regions where their enterprises are located, as well as with help in solving certain acute problems (environmental protection, combating drug addiction, support talented representatives from various fields of activity, etc.). In these matters, Russians expect the active and direct participation of big business. Note that here also the direct tasks and functions of the business coexist with broader areas of activity that go beyond the direct responsibility of the business.
The third group of problems, the importance of which was stated by 6-17% of the respondents, includes issues that, apparently, in the opinion of Russians, should be dealt with more by the state than by business - support for social initiatives and public organizations, reduction of discrimination in the world of work, improvement of the situation in the field of human rights, etc. Meanwhile, we note that in international documents disclosing the content and principles of social responsibility of business, overcoming discrimination in the world of work, respect for human rights, as well as improving the environment are attributed to the priority tasks. In Russia, as practice shows, these problems do not particularly concern not only the population, but also the authorities and business.
In the definition of specific areas of social activity of business, a number of targeted inquiries can be seen, when a particular area is more relevant for representatives of a certain social group of the population. Thus, young people more often than others highlight such positions as the payment of awards and scholarships to talented students, scientists, and improvement of the human rights situation. Middle-aged people expect more attention to the problems of advanced training and retraining, and the creation of new jobs. Elderly respondents primarily expect from business financial and material assistance to the poor and other socially vulnerable groups of the population.
Active and successful respondents more often than others expect business assistance in the development of private entrepreneurship and small business, creating conditions for the growth of economic activity of the population in the field of lending, insurance, and the development of banking services.
In general, it can be said that the social responsibility of business is perceived by Russians as an important component of social justice in society and as a necessary component of civilized relations between business, the state and the population. At the same time, social responsibility is understood by the population broadly, it means not only activities related to the tasks and functions of the business itself, but also activities outside the sphere of its direct responsibility, including the solution of key social problems of the regions and the country as a whole.
conclusions
Today, when the world is becoming more and more complex, the structure of relations between business and society is being transformed: society expects from entrepreneurs not only high-quality goods and services at an affordable price, but something more - stability.
Thus, the need to pursue a socially responsible policy is determined not so much by the authorities as by pressure from the consumer market. As a result, companies that use social projects as the latest and newest competitive advantage have a significant head start compared to their “irresponsible” competitors.
Literature
1. Alimova T.A. and others. Innovation processes in small business / Problems of statistics, 2003. No. 8. - 34 p.
2. Analysis of the external environment for the development of entrepreneurship / Analytical reference book. - M .: Resource center MP, 2002. – 168 p ..
3. Analysis of available and missing information on small enterprises in Russia / Analytical reference book - M .: Resource Center MP, 2006. - 41 p.
4. Andreev V.K. Fundamentals of Business Law in Russia. - M, 2002.
5. Belenky V.Kh. Entrepreneurship and the formation of a mixed economy in Russia / Socio-political journal. 2003. - No. 9/10.
6. Belyaeva L.A. The middle class of the problem of formation and development in Russia / World of Russia. - M.D996, 2005.
7. Blinov A.O. Small business as a problem of regional development / Ethnopolitical Bulletin. 2005, No. 4.
8. Braslavsky D. Big support for small business: The experience of Denmark / Business. 2004, No. 1, - p. 26-27.
9. Dowling G. Firm reputation: creation, management and performance evaluation. Moscow. Consulting group "IMAGE-Contact". Publishing House "Infra-M". 2003.368 p.
10. Dynkin AA, Sterlin AR, Tulin N. Entrepreneurship at the end of the XX century. - M., 2002.
11. Zevelev V.A. State regulation of entrepreneurial activity. - M., 2004.
12. Lisinenko I.T. Entrepreneurship and the market are the most important economic and socio-cultural phenomena of our time. - M., 2004.
13. Small business in Russia: state, problems, prospects / Analytical collection. - M .: Institute of Entrepreneurship and Investments, 2000 .-- 160 p.
14. Manzhikova V.E. Features of the development of entrepreneurship in Russia // Entrepreneurship in Russia. - Barnaul, 2003 .-- 15 p.
15. Mau V. Economy and power. Political history of economic reform in Russia. 1985-1994 - M., 2005.
16. Perepelitsa G.V. Features of interaction between entrepreneurship and power structures / G.V. Perepelitsa // Materials of the scientific - practical conference of teachers and graduate students "Innovative entrepreneurship in Russia: problems, searches, solutions". - Bugulma: Publishing house of IEUP. - 2005 .-- 73 p.
17. Perepelitsa G.V. Improving the interaction of business and government in the modern economy / G.V. Perepelitsa // Russian Entrepreneurship. - 2006. - No. 8. - p. 28-32
18. Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (Employers). To the 10th anniversary of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. Authors: Agafonov A.A., Dmitriev V.L., Ivershina M.V., Kazanin A.M., Fedoseeva V.N., Tsvetkova O.E. Moscow. ITRK RSPP. 2005.174 p.
19. Smirnov S.A. Small business: public support and development assistance. Moscow. "EBT-Kontur". 2004 .-- 290 p.
20. Fedtsov V. G. Entrepreneurial breakthrough of the Russian economy in the XXI century. Moscow. Academy of Russian Entrepreneurs. 2005 .-- 48 p.
21. Shamkhalov F.I., Kotilko V.V. A new paradigm for the development of small business in Russia / Scientific. ed. Filippov N.N. - M., 2002.
MATI - Russian State Technological University
Abstract on the subject "Fundamentals of Entrepreneurship"
Entrepreneurship in Russia
student gr. 6MP-III-49
Mikhail Gorbatov
Checked:
Moscow 2000
Introduction
The study of the history of Russian and Russian entrepreneurship, its cultural and historical prerequisites, which received a new impetus in connection with the reform of the economy of modern Russia and the development of entrepreneurial activity, allows a deeper understanding of the origins, causes and consequences of socio-economic transformations, to assess their impact on society. The relationship and interaction of the economy and public policy are obvious. The general state of these relationships is a factor that is most clearly reflected in the development of entrepreneurship. The Russian economic environment has a number of distinctive features due to the unique features of the Russian character, some of which have been formed over the centuries, while others have appeared only recently in an open market. In this work, I would like to show the influence of the characteristics of this environment on the development of entrepreneurial activity in Russia, and the prospects for this development. It seems to me that this study is relevant, since in recent years, when carrying out economic transformations, not only the cultural and historical traditions of Russian society, but even the modern psychology of public consciousness, are less and less taken into account. Of course, there are time-tested economic models that have been proven, but they are not applicable if they are not adapted to a particular country with its traditions and the present formed under the influence of these traditions. In this work, I tried to clearly show how theoretically correct theories of entrepreneurship development were distorted when trying to apply them to Russian reality.
Historical preconditions of entrepreneurship in Russia and tendencies of its development in the framework of the current economic situation
In Russia, the process of formation of a layer of entrepreneurs is now underway, claiming a leading role in the market economy. This process is contradictory and complicated, which is caused by many circumstances.
First of all, Russia has historically developed a negative attitude towards entrepreneurship. It was believed that the main characteristics of an entrepreneur, owner, business person are a pragmatic mindset, prudence, rationality, material interest, profit, etc. etc. contradict the ethical values of the Russian people. The pragmatic man has always evoked the contemptuous attitude of the Russian intelligentsia, which is reflected in Russian classical literature.
The new capitalist relations did not then become an organic part of the national economic system, which largely retained its traditional appearance. The overwhelming majority of the population was actually not included in the processes of the country's capitalization. The entry of the population into the market lagged behind the growth rates of the market itself and the scale of the enrichment of the new elite. The stratum of large entrepreneurs broke away from their social reserves. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, a large entrepreneur remained a lonely figure that did not evoke sympathy and did not have public support, not only outside his environment, but often inside it. It was precisely social isolation in the midst of a national crisis, the lack of support in the lower classes that paralyzed the capitalist alternative in the country.
The experience of entrepreneurial activity of that time shows that the process of capitalization should be evolutionary, stimulating and supportive, and not in any way forcing the natural development of market relations. It should not be implanted into life by force, the use of which to solve purely economic problems, by the way, has become a distinctive feature of the nearest Russian history.
In the USSR, entrepreneurship was officially viewed in a negative aspect, completely incompatible with the planned economy. This attitude towards reality was often not combined with practice. The latter could not fit into the rigid framework of an all-encompassing plan, and in order to fulfill it, enterprising business executives now and then had to show initiative, strive for innovations, for unconventional approaches. But the ordeals that rationalizers, restless business executives had to endure, the resistance they met in bureaucratic circles suppressed entrepreneurial activity. And private enterprise on any large scale was generally considered a criminal offense.
Here, it should be immediately emphasized that the conditions for the revival of entrepreneurship in Russia differ significantly from those in which entrepreneurship developed in the West, where the principles of economic freedom, competition, private property and individualism were formed over the centuries. The fact is that the formation of Russian entrepreneurship began in very unfavorable economic and socio-political conditions. Chief among them are the destruction of the mechanisms of state power, the deepening of the economic crisis with a general loss of control over the national economy, the bankruptcy of the old economic mechanism and the absence of a new one; errors in determining the directions and methods of implementing economic policy; severance of economic ties within the country, as well as with the former Union republics and countries that were previously part of the CMEA. All this together with other factors hinders the development of entrepreneurship, deforms its nature, and fetters the implementation of existing creative, economic and social resources.
The situation has changed over the past few years. The emerging class of entrepreneurs began to enjoy the support of the state. However, the generous allocation of rights and opportunities is not yet supported by mechanisms for their implementation. The lack of thoughtful steps in this direction is covered up with populist slogans about privatization, about the formation of a class of owners, which means the need to create conditions for the formation and expansion of the social base of reforms - the economically active stratum of the population, the all-round strengthening of entrepreneurial principles, with special emphasis, while focusing on their constructiveness.
Entrepreneurship as a complex and diverse socio-economic phenomenon has passed a historically long stage of its formation. For several centuries, the most expedient types and forms of entrepreneurial activity have been developed. This is reflected in the definition of its essence. The form of the enterprise has a direct direct impact on the nature and scale of capital attraction.
In the process of the formation of entrepreneurial structures, two main trends can now be distinguished. First: the prevalence of state structures that are inflexible and poorly adaptable to changing market conditions, as well as limited financial resources. And the second: the emergence and development of the entrepreneurial sector, more flexible and quickly adapting to changing market demand.
By the way, the implementation of entrepreneurship is possible only if there is a certain entrepreneurial environment, which is understood as the social economic situation, which includes the degree of economic freedom, the presence (or the possibility of emergence) of an entrepreneurial body, the dominance of the market type of economic relations, the degree of access to the possibility of forming entrepreneurial capital, the ability to use the necessary resources. a constitutional organization capable of using certain combinations of resources for the production of goods, making decisions, creating innovations and taking risks - entrepreneurship is a typical manifestation of the essential features of a market economy. In turn, the transition to the market is unthinkable without the development of entrepreneurship in its most diverse types and forms. Naturally, the degree of civilization and efficiency of entrepreneurship is directly dependent on the nature and structure of the macroenvironment of its functioning.
The basic property of entrepreneurship is the economic freedom of an economic entity, that is, the presence of a certain set of rights that guarantee autonomous, independent decision-making on the search and selection of the type, form and scope of activity, methods of its implementation, the use of the product and income generated by this activity. An indicator of the degree of economic freedom of entrepreneurship is the number of newly emerging (within a certain time period) independent (independent) enterprises.
For the development of entrepreneurship, a competitive environment is necessary - the presence of a large number of manufacturers - sellers of the same functional purpose or interchangeable products. Competition, admittedly, is a key link in the functioning of the market and the market economy as a whole. Competition in a market economy is understood as the economic process of interaction, interconnection and struggle of owners of goods and services for the most favorable conditions for production and sale. This presupposes the absence of monopoly production that impedes the development of competition. The role of competition in the formation of entrepreneurship is to identify the most rewarding, effective ways of development through comparison, selection of the best ways of activity.
In a competitive environment, there is a rigorous test of the ideas and personal qualities of entrepreneurs, their level of education, the ability to correctly navigate the world around them. And only those who know how to correctly understand and correctly assess and satisfy social needs rise to the top. It turns out to be a little like that. Most of the myriad of new ventures tend to fail and disappear. Some declare themselves bankrupt, others self-liquidate when it becomes clear that hopes for success will not come true. But a sufficient number of enterprises are operating successfully, creating new jobs, new areas of activity and the new added value that the modern economy needs. Entrepreneurship and competition are links in the same chain.
However, one should not especially rely on the naturalness and independence of the processes of formation of competitive relations and the development of entrepreneurship. This is clearly evidenced by the economic practice of developed countries. For example, Japan's highly competitive environment is riddled with government regulations. Maintaining competition requires direct and sometimes harsh influence of government agencies on business entities. This is a vast problem, the solution of which requires a comprehensive regulation of the economy, including free development and a variety of forms of ownership and organizational and legal forms of entrepreneurial activity; a clear and clearly oriented antimonopoly policy; definition of local natural monopolies and the mechanism of state control and regulation of their activities.
In Russian legislation, first of all, the Law "On Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activity in Commodity Markets" (adopted on March 22, 1991), there are specific enumerations of areas in which recommendations from the Antimonopoly Committee are possible in order to promote the development of entrepreneurship and competitive methods of economic management. Let's name the main of these directions:
Determination of preferential tariffs, as well as the reduction of taxes or exemption from them for economic entities entering this product market for the first time;
Changing the scope of application of free, regulated and fixed prices, including from the establishment of fixed prices for goods produced or sold by economic entities that abuse their dominant position;
Establishment of parallel structures in the spheres of production and circulation, in particular, at the expense of public investment;
Financing measures to expand the production of scarce goods in order to eliminate the dominant position of certain economic entities;
Licensing of export-import operations and changes in customs tariffs;
Making changes to the lists of activities to be liquidated.
At present, during the transition to the market, the Russian state, having stood up to the defense of market competition, must oppose monopoly with all its economic and political potential, find effective means of anti-monopoly prevention, and dismantle monopoly structures that are dangerous for the economy. Without an increase in the general competitive tone, it will not be possible to carry out nistructural transformations of production based on scientific and technical progress, nor a transition to economic growth.
New domestic non-state structures, unprepared for open and fair competition, react painfully to the government's attempts to limit their monopolistic behavior. It is known, for example, how negatively the exchange structures, tending to establish control over all wholesale trade, met Russian legislative acts aimed at preventing the monopolization of this market. Therefore, demonopolization of the economy has been and remains a constant concern and responsibility of the state, one of the main directions of its activity.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that the country has taken the Asian path of business development, when there are dozens of intermediaries between the producer and the consumer. Meanwhile, it is generally recognized that through mediation, welfare for the population cannot be created, and a shortage of goods cannot be overcome. This requires entrepreneurship, focused on innovative activities associated with starting their own business - the creation of an enterprise.
In order for entrepreneurship to receive incentives for development, and car manufacturers began to show initiative, certain conditions are necessary that determine, as it were, the external environment for the normal functioning of entrepreneurship. Let's consider the most important of them, negatively affecting the development of entrepreneurship.
First of all, this is a decrease in the level of profitability of most spheres of the economy, as well as its level as a whole in the national economy during the years of crisis, during the period of a significant decrease in the rate of development, or even their negative values. This pattern is inherent, as the analysis shows, in countries with developed highly developed market economies. For example, in France in 1970-1974. the average rate of return for the economy as a whole was at the level of 9-11%. In 1975, the crisis year, it dropped to 3.8%.
Secondly, the crisis development of the economy, the disorder of the financial system, inflation, the huge budget deficit accompanying the development of the economy during this period, sharply weaken, reduce the government's ability to provide entrepreneurship, in particular, small and medium-sized businesses, state support, without which it, as shown by the rich practice of others countries practically cannot develop.
If we talk about the situation and the possibilities of the modern Russian economy, then these possibilities are extremely modest. They are even less perceptible in the conditions of a plundering tax, the absence of preferential loans, and the vulnerability of the Iraket mafia. In addition, the bulk of it, as has already happened many times, will not reach the addressee, but will settle with corrupt officials.
There is one more factor determining or shaping conditions, their favorable or unfavorable impact on the development of entrepreneurship. This, as it is defined in Western literature, is the dynamics of demand. It is caused at the same time by the rate of population growth and elasticity in prices and incomes, moreover, for different goods or different groups of goods.
In the current crisis conditions of the development of Russia, when for seven years (1992-1999) a process of decrease in the population of the country was observed, the share of the poor, or even just the poor, is increasing every year, and the purchasing power of the bulk of the population is steadily and sharply decreasing, the impact of demand on the development of the economy, its branches, its specific spheres in the plan of stimulating entrepreneurship is extremely small. Meanwhile, business development cannot be successful with a poor population. In this regard, entrepreneurs are concerned that the Reform Program and the budget practically provide for very few measures aimed at creating conditions conducive to the growth of incomes of the population, business and, ultimately, the budget.
The successful development of such reforms presupposes the dynamic development of all forms of business - small entrepreneurship to large financial and industrial groups. In turn, this is impossible without a purposeful and consistent state policy of protectionism of domestic business, the formation of entrepreneurship, and reliable protection of the interests of owners. Moreover, world experience shows that the degree and methods of state influence on the economy are different in different countries, but still there is a general pattern - the higher the level of economic development, the weaker the role of the state, and vice versa.
Recently, the intervention of the Russian government in the economy has significantly intensified, it has become permanent and decisive. The difference in approaches between the ruling bloc and the opposition is only in the degree of dirigism. But in either case, he is assigned a decisive role.
A prerequisite for the establishment and development of a business is a full-fledged and consistent legislative and regulatory framework for entrepreneurship. Such a legislative base, in which the interests of economically active citizens and their associations would be defended, has yet to be created.
One of the conditions for effective and real development of entrepreneurship is taking into account the interests of Russian entrepreneurs in the foreign policy of the state, expanding economic ties of Russia with countries of near and far abroad, expanding the market. Meanwhile, as a result of strategically ill-considered, and in a number of cases of erroneous actions of the authorities, the basis of business, traditional economic ties and markets, has been significantly undermined. Russian manufacturers have practically lost their positions in the markets of Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The markets of the countries of the former USSR are being lost and are being lost, including those that are part of the CIS.
It seems that the Russian Government needs to concentrate its efforts in this area to create conditions for the rapid return of Russian goods and firms to traditional markets, to achieve for them a real regime of the most favorable conditions, an increase in quotas, a sharp simplification and reduction of customs procedures and a decrease in export-import taxes. At the same time, entrepreneurs should themselves be directly involved in the development and implementation of such a policy.
Successful development of entrepreneurship presupposes equal access for all or, at least, the bulk of business structures to financial resources and the implementation of export-import activities. Currently, access to them is limited only to a narrow circle of some firms and banks. The state monopoly on foreign economic activity is growing into an even more dangerous monopoly of individual firms. The list of special exporters and agent banks should be formed publicly and democratically. In these matters and in these areas, it is necessary to move from the permissive principle to the registration principle.
Russian entrepreneurs rightly insist on their broad involvement in solving the problems of accelerated repayment of the debts of a number of countries to Russia. The government should organize the sale of debts to Russian entrepreneurs and provide effective political and legal assistance in their “purchase”. Speaking about the current situation in the country's economic development, it can be noted that in recent years a long and full of difficulties has been covered. The face of the country and the economy has radically changed during this time. Nevertheless, the current political, social and economic situation in the country can be assessed as dangerous for the prospects for the stable development of domestic business.
Efforts by entrepreneurs give the greatest results in the context of intensified investment processes, especially if these efforts are consolidated with the efforts of the Government. So far, banking and other investments in Russia are possible only with a 100% reserve coverage, regardless of the borrower, term, guarantors. With the same 100% liquid collateral. With the use of all other forms of risk insurance.
This is more important, since in recent years the production base of the Russian economy has been steadily shrinking and is currently in an extremely difficult state. Many types of production, including advanced and competitive ones, are on the verge of destruction. New types of products, especially high-tech ones, are mastered extremely slowly, or their production stops altogether. The decline in production continues in all spheres and industries. In such a situation, it is impossible to reduce everything only to the inevitable limitation of costs and savings. The state and the population grow rich not from savings, but due to the prosperity of domestic business. Under these conditions, the Government should develop a system of measures to stimulate the development of production and a mechanism for their implementation, as well as create a system for insuring investors against political risk, including against its own unfavorable actions.
The most important direction and form of state support for entrepreneurship in Russia is a scientifically grounded, objective and thoughtful approach on the part of the state authorities to the development of the banking system in the country. Sharp changes in the rules of its functioning, whether it is taxation of banking activities, changes in financial regulations or procedures for the establishment, operation or liquidation of commercial banks, undermine the basis of the business, do not make it possible to conduct it thoughtfully, promising local markets.
An important condition for the development of entrepreneurship, assessment of its prospects and forecasts is a constant assessment of the current state of the economy, determination of the degree of compliance of the initial market plans, transformations with the actual actual direction of their development, normally organize the purchase of raw materials, production and sales of products. In my opinion, it is unacceptable to impose cognitive, fiscal and other police functions on banks. Political and power pressure cannot be exerted on them.
One of the main factors hindering the civilized development of domestic business and, in particular, the inflow of foreign investment, is the critical level of crime. In this regard, the state not only does not provide support to entrepreneurship, but it actually does not fulfill one of its most important functions - protecting its own citizens from encroachments on their dignity, life and property. The victims of the rampant crime in its most severe forms are the economically independent citizens, industrialists, bankers, representatives of trade and other businesses. The ineffectiveness of law enforcement and judicial authorities has led to the fact that the role of arbitrators in resolving economic disputes and even protecting the personal safety of entrepreneurs is transferred from the state to the hands of criminal structures. As shown by a survey conducted by the Institute of Youth in 1994, only about one third of young entrepreneurs do not experience the pressure of the criminal environment, 30% prefer a “roof” and only 12% prefer a good security service. Many respondents believe that the severity of the tax burden forces them to commit various violations, to unofficial transactions and, as a result, pay tribute to criminal structures. Attention is drawn to the fact that 90% of the respondents are convinced of the impossibility of entrepreneurial activity without bribes.
The rise in crime is parallel to the unprecedented flourishing of corruption in government bodies.
Arbitrariness and lawlessness, violation of constitutional norms and laws at all levels of government have grown unbelievably. All this happens with the connivance of the power structures. It is necessary to establish large-scale and constructive interaction between the state and entrepreneurs in curbing the rampant crime in the country.
With the creation of these and some other conditions for business development, a mutually beneficial social and business partnership between the state and entrepreneurship is possible. Partnership relations are, first of all, relations of cooperation and mutual assistance. In Russia, such relations are just emerging and require urgent measures to radically improve tax, credit, monetary, investment and legislative policies. There is a need for scientific substantiation, a thorough study of the main elements of the cooperation mechanism in accordance with the interests of society and entrepreneurship. The foundation of this partnership is a unity of fundamental strategic interest in the creation of a highly efficient market economy and the achievement of a high level of well-being for all people. This means that both the state and entrepreneurs must meet halfway, which is practically impossible without mutual concessions. |
The creation of a stable organizational and legal mechanism of partnership between the state and entrepreneurship, the ultimate goal of which is to achieve the highest economic and social efficiency through the formation of the most favorable external environment for the functioning of business, will ensure the stabilization of the economy and the country's exit from the crisis.
Also, the nature of the liberalization of the economy has a direct impact on the formation of entrepreneurship. Gradual reforms create more favorable conditions for the adaptation of business entities to new market conditions, leaving some reserve time for consistent training in adequate responses to market incentives and criteria, for acquiring the necessary knowledge for this and for developing appropriate skills and stereotypes of entrepreneurial behavior. In turn, one-stage "shock" reforms lead to the abandonment of the old, which have become unusable traditions of economic activity, and encourage the mastery of the art of entrepreneurship as quickly as possible, putting the subjects, voluntarily or involuntarily turning into entrepreneurs, before the problem of economic survival.
In the case of rapid liberalization, there is a risk of a gap between the requirements, which are determined by the introduced market relations, and the limited ability of people to immediately develop new ways of entrepreneurial behavior that meet these conditions - such a delay, again, can result in a drop in efficiency, or even a complete disintegration of the economic mechanism. Similar concerns were expressed even before the start of the reforms. But one of the important effects of the high speed of liberalization, which caused the segmentation of the process of entrepreneurship formation, was not predicted. These are the sharp differences in the formation of entrepreneurship in the sectors specializing in servicing transactions and in the real sector.
A conspicuous difference was formed: more significant growth of new enterprises took place in the field of finance, intermediation and trade, since it was these areas at the beginning of the reforms that were completely underdeveloped from the point of view of the standards of a market economy: the situation was different in the sphere of production. While rapid liberalization gave impetus to the rapid growth of Rostubank, trade, insurance, intermediary and the like companies, in the production sector, mainly the existing organizational structures remained business structures) In this situation, the cadres of business executives turned out to be much more unstable - the attraction of new entrepreneurial forces or their selection took place on a much smaller scale than in the sphere of services of transactions
It would seem that the new market conditions in which manufacturing enterprises find themselves, strict market criteria for economic efficiency should also lead to the selection and rejection of candidates for entrepreneurial roles in the manufacturing sector. However, this process, although it is unfolding, is at an incomparably slow pace with a significant shortage of qualified managerial staff. It is not only the objectively formed sharp differences in the dynamics of sectors in the context of rapid liberalization that play a role here - the explosive growth of the financial and trade sector and the crisis in the manufacturing sector. These differences have also created a deep gap in the attractiveness of these sectors in terms of capital investment and hence in terms of business prospects. Therefore, there is almost no migration of young energetic entrepreneurial personnel who have managed to deploy their abilities in the financial and commercial field, in production.
Such problems were typical for all countries with economies in transition, but in the most developed countries of Eastern Europe, which had significant prerequisites for the development of entrepreneurship, this gap was not so significant. The rapid liberalization in these countries also created advantages in the formation of an entrepreneurial layer for the financial and trade sector, but, firstly, this sector was not formed out of nowhere and, secondly, certain entrepreneurial elements already existed in the manufacturing sector.
The method of privatization of state enterprises also played a role in consolidating the current situation. The desire to carry out as quickly as possible a large-scale privatization of the public sector has led to the fact that privatization in Russia has acquired the following characteristic features.
Template organizational and legal forms attached to privatized enterprises:
Distraction from the problems of functioning of privatized enterprises, lack of support for them:
Undervaluation of funds of privatized enterprises, sale of a significant part of state capital at preferential prices or transferring it into ownership free of charge;
Unformed real effective demand for privatized property
When, in the process of discussing privatization plans, it was said that the free distribution of property does not contribute to the formation of responsible owners, there was a large grain of truth in this. But neither the property received free of charge, nor the property acquired at “ridiculous prices”, nor even the property paid in full does not make its owner an entrepreneur.
In the era of capitalism, the owners of both hereditary and purchased estates were not always in a hurry to demonstrate their readiness to act according to new, market rules. Many of them squandered their fortunes and went bankrupt. The same can be said about the guild masters, the owners of handicraft workshops. The process of developing a layer of capitalist entrepreneurs was very painful and took a long period of time, so any redistribution of property rights (and even the stability of ownership, passing from generation to generation) cannot be regarded as a sufficient condition for the formation of entrepreneurship. For this, it was necessary to develop a set of measures, organizing privatization in such a way that each of its elements would contribute to the formation of entrepreneurial behavior. This, however, was not done.
The desire not only to speed up privatization, but also to soften social resistance to its implementation led to the fact that during the distribution of property rights to state property, most of these rights passed into the hands of employees and administration of former state enterprises. This distribution of ownership has further contributed to the conservation of the organizational and social structures of industrial enterprises, stimulated the reluctance of large-scale personnel rotation. And without such a change of personnel, the movement towards the implementation of the entrepreneurial functions of a new layer of people with special needs could not take place.
The complexity of the situation was aggravated by the fact that in many cases the management enterprises found themselves without control both by external owners and by their own workers, among whom were pollinated the smallest blocks of shares that recently had real opportunities to influence the management of enterprises. Even those enterprises that were formally owned by the state, control of their work
However, the matter is not limited to the problem of the omnipotence of managers and the slow influx of fresh forces. Why do directors and administrations of industrial enterprises themselves do not master entrepreneurial skills, do not turn into modern industrial managers? Because the formation of their entrepreneurial behavior is influenced by a number of factors, both preserved from the past and created by the current reforms.
Having received additional opportunities to control enterprises, managers at the same time faced the problem of depreciation of working capital and physical wear and tear of fixed capital amid falling profitability of production and investment hunger. In such conditions, mastering the skills of modern entrepreneurship is far from always able to help an enterprise in its struggle to survive. Sometimes the skills of the past can help much more - finding budget subsidies, soft loans, special privileges (for example, export-import or tax rebates) from federal and local authorities.
On the contrary, the standard line of behavior of an entrepreneur - the induction of the most severe economies through the liberation of unnecessary production values and labor - is in sharp conflict with all previous experience and traditions, and with some modern realities. Dropping production capacities means lowering the status of the enterprise, and in conditions of investment hunger creates a threat that in the foreseeable future it will not be possible to increase capacity again. Mass dismissal of “extra” workers also contradicts the tradition of social paternalism of the past; today they are fraught with an increase in social tension, also because enterprises have largely retained the function of providing a number of social services to their employees, and the loss of these services on dismissal is not compensated in any way. Mass layoffs are provoking a negative reaction from local authorities, whose meager budget is unable to cope with growing unemployment. The influx of fresh entrepreneurial forces into production is limited, among other things, because the management of industrial companies under the conditions of a crisis, when it is necessary to wage a sophisticated struggle for the competitiveness of production, is much more difficult than removing foam using the objective underdevelopment of the financial intermediary sector.
When financial and intermediary operations bring in many times higher profits than production activities, potential entrepreneurs rush to where it is easier to raise money. “This simplification, coupled with the specific motives determined by the criminalization of the business environment, has led to the fact that new entrepreneurs are able to fight for control over industrial enterprises, but almost none of them have yet been able to realize themselves in any complex and large industrial business project.
The state policy of privatization left aside the solution of many tasks, such as retraining of economic managers and education of modern industrial managers. The state did not carry out any notable operations of adaptation to market conditions even of public sector enterprises, refusing to play any role in the market restructuring of state enterprises and in the formation of full-fledged business entities. The intention to reduce the scope of the public sector is largely determined by the desire of the "reformers" not to deal with the fate of production at all. However, this striving was also demonstrated in relation to enterprises remaining in state ownership in Eastern Europe; the attitude towards privatization, with the general course towards rapid and large-scale privatization, was nevertheless more cautious and somewhat more pragmatic. The refusal of the "reformers" from responsibility for the fate of production appeared in problems that were formed during the formation of entrepreneurial structures and entrepreneurial activity in the field of foreign economic relations
Domestic manufacturers faced competition from more technically advanced and well-established sales systems for Western goods, and competition from cheaper goods from Third World countries. There was no time to adapt to the situation, which resulted in a deterioration in foreign trade positions. The more difficult foreign trade situation was not compensated for by a skillful entrepreneurial strategy.
The one-step nature of liberalization predetermined the bias in the orientation of foreign economic entrepreneurship to use the difference between domestic prices and world market prices. Hence the special profitability of mass small business in foreign trade.
Entrepreneurship in the foreign economic area developed in our country under the influence of a number of factors related to the specifics of the reforms. One of these specific features is the simultaneous existence in 1992 of an undervalued exchange rate of the ruble, which made it possible to export resources even at dumping prices, and a special exchange rate for importers, which made imports profitable due to its hidden subsidies from the budget.
Along with this, a characteristic feature of Russian entrepreneurship at the initial stage of the reforms was the struggle for export licenses and quotas, the recipients of which also acquired the opportunity to get rich quick. The difference between domestic and world prices, as well as a favorable exchange rate, created all the conditions for this.
The peculiarity of Russian foreign economic relations and in the structure of exports of goods of the fuel and raw materials group in 1902-1995, when the possibilities of playing on the difference between domestic and world prices and on the exchange rate appeared, they turned out to be even more beneficial for export. A fierce struggle broke out for the right to participate in the promotion of oil, oil products, as well as ferrous and non-ferrous metals, etc. abroad.
Entrepreneurship in the field of imports often boiled down to the transformation of foreign trade firms into branches of foreign companies that ensure the promotion of foreign products on the Russian market. which for a number of products was insufficient. At the same time, imports of investment goods dropped sharply (reflecting a sharp contraction in domestic investment demand)
Foreign trade entrepreneurship, no less, affects domestic production in the direction of increasing its competitiveness. Cooperation between manufacturing and trading companies in organizing production and promoting domestic products in the world markets is practically absent (with a few exceptions - in military production).
The low competitiveness of national production has led to the fact that many foreign trade companies, for reasons of profit, become partners of foreign business to squeeze out domestic production from both external and internal markets.
A characteristic feature of Russian entrepreneurship is the limited strategic behavior. This feature is determined not only by the specifics of the conditions for the formation of the entrepreneurial stratum, but also by the specifics of the current economic situation. Entrepreneurs do not pursue strategic goals, firstly, because the first years of the formation of a market economy proceeded under the influence of the colossal profitability of short-term transactions in the circulation and in the financial sector. This circumstance has formed among entrepreneurs the corresponding socio-psychological attitudes, stereotypes of thinking and behavior. Secondly, the gap between the profitability of long-term investments in production and short-term financial transactions is still affected. payback.
A characteristic feature of entrepreneurial behavior is the exaggerated impact of short-term financial goals for many entrepreneurs in the manufacturing sector, often determining their desire for personal enrichment to the detriment of the firm's position. There are frequent cases of the transfer of capital of the company by its leaders to shell companies.
Very low degree of law-abidingness. This manifests itself, for example, in tax evasion.
In the transitional economy of Russia, there is an uneven development of entrepreneurship in various socio-economic sectors of the national economy. If private entrepreneurship has received a rather noticeable development, then state entrepreneurship drags out a miserable existence. Cooperative and any other forms of public entrepreneurship are represented by a small number of cooperatives, by inertia retaining the signs of the times of perestroika. New enterprises based on the property of employees appeared as a result of privatization, but despite their wide distribution, the property of employees turned out to be purely nominal. Their shares, not being consolidated, do not represent a controlling interest, and in enterprises where more than half of the shares belong to some 5% owned by the director.
The oppressed state of state entrepreneurship is determined by the chosen model of reforming the economy, subordinated exclusively to the interests of private profit. Since positive national goals were not set within the framework of the reform policy (except for the irreversibility of the reforms themselves), then state entrepreneurship as a tool for enforcing such a policy turned out to be unnecessary. People began to remember about him (without practical consequences) when the state of the public sector began to inspire fears about the revenues of the state budget and the stability of the economy as a whole.
Conclusion
Summarizing the above, we note that such a state requires significant changes not only in the system of control and encouragement of entrepreneurial activity, but also in the general economic conditions that determine the formation of the fundamental characteristics of entrepreneurship. Without realizing the responsibility of the state for the direction, results and social cost of the reforms, this problem cannot be resolved.
The process of establishing entrepreneurship, contrary to the expectations of many, turned out to be much more difficult, controversial and time-consuming business than it was initially imagined. It is conditioned by the nature and course of social and economic reforms, on which the overall success of the process under consideration depends. In turn, this process influences the course of reforms. This is the possibility of alternative manifestation of new real forms of ownership within the framework of a multi-structured national economy, and a change in the structure of social production, etc. The current situation is generally unfavorable for the functioning of the entrepreneurial corps in Russia. But even in these complex and contradictory conditions there is a positive experience in the development of entrepreneurial activity, which allows us to consider the process of the formation of this phenomenon irreversible.
bibliography:
1. "The Economist" 1/99.
2. "Entrepreneur" 2.3
As a result of studying this chapter, the student must:
know
- the content and functions of entrepreneurial activity;
- factors that determine the direction of entrepreneurial activity;
- the specifics of the emergence and distinctive features of Russian entrepreneurship;
- the content and role of competition in the modern economy;
- the specifics of the formation and state of competition in the Russian economy;
be able to
- analyze the behavioral characteristics of business entities in the Russian economy;
- creatively apply the main provisions of the theory of entrepreneurship to solve practical problems in the field of entrepreneurial activity;
- use competition theory to create incentives for innovative behavior of business entities;
own
- skills to search for data characterizing the state of entrepreneurship and competition in the national economy;
- skills in analyzing the factors of entrepreneurship and the state of competition.
The economic nature of entrepreneurship and its features
Entrepreneurship is a historical phenomenon. Its existence is inextricably linked with the market economy, which is the starting point for the existence of entrepreneurship. It is in this economy that entrepreneurship identifies itself as a special type of economic behavior, expressed in the desire to benefit through the implementation of market transactions, ie. in the process of exchange. The role of exchange is important for understanding not only the genesis of entrepreneurship, but also its specifics. First, exchange stimulates the search for new opportunities, giving entrepreneurship the character of an initiative activity. Secondly, it is in the exchange process that the entrepreneur sees the source of the benefit, which serves as a motive and at the same time an assessment of his initiative. Thirdly, when faced in the exchange process with persons similar to himself, the entrepreneur perceives his activities as competitive.
However, exchange is condition, but not the reason for the emergence of entrepreneurship. Genuine cause its emergence is private property. On the one hand, it created the opportunity to conduct separate production and formed a private interest, on the other hand, it created an opportunity for private individuals to appropriate the results of entrepreneurship, acting as a condition for the realization of private interest. At the same time, the role of exchange is that it creates conditions for the emergence and realization of private interests. Moreover, exchange turns into a generator of genuine entrepreneurship only when production for exchange becomes the main function of economic entities.
The fact that entrepreneurship is a way of deriving economic benefits through market exchange is extremely important for understanding the specifics of entrepreneurship. The point is that market exchange is carried out to the mutual benefit of its participants. This means that entrepreneurship should not be associated with deception and violence, but with the extraction of benefits through the satisfaction of social needs. Thus, speaking of nature of entrepreneurship, attention should be focused on the fact that, firstly, it is a consequence and result of the development of exchange and the market economy and, secondly, it is a type of economic behavior that is subordinated to the achievement of selfish goals through the implementation of public interests.
The economic content of entrepreneurship is revealed through the analysis of its features: competition, initiative, commercial risk, economic responsibility, a combination of production factors and innovation.
Competitiveness. Competitiveness is a defining feature of entrepreneurship. The emergence of rivalry is not only natural, but also consistent with the nature of entrepreneurial behavior, for which the confrontation of interests is a meaningful moment. Competition among entrepreneurs has a number of features: it is compulsory; has a restrictive effect on the development of opponents; accompanied by a vital selection among the participants.
Compulsory adversarial nature is that none of the entrepreneurs can avoid entering into competition with others, even if he does not want to. This sign forms a strictly definite type of consciousness in rivals: the elimination of rivals is a condition of one's own survival.
Restrictive impact on the capabilities of opponents important for understanding the essence of market rivalry. The presence of other entrepreneurs in the market limits the opportunities for each of them. Therefore, the essence of the matter is not in the rules governing their activities, and not in the severity of these rules, but in the nature of the market competition: to interfere with each other (without even taking action for this) in achieving goals. The essence of the conflict between entrepreneurs is that the advantageous position of one is achieved at the expense of the oppression of the other. The meaning of the restrictive effect of competition is that no entrepreneur has and cannot have freedom of action.
Vital selection mechanism among entrepreneurs is triggered through the action of compulsory participation in an entrepreneurial contest. It always favors those entrepreneurs who meet the competitive demands of the market, and tightens the conditions of survival for those whose parameters are below the level set by them. Such rivalry is not limited to the ranking of rivals, but is accompanied by their negative selection, i.e. by compulsory elimination of the losers. Therefore, competitiveness among entrepreneurs is a deliberate effort to limit the ability of rivals to survive. This commitment is the defining principle of entrepreneurial behavior.
Entrepreneurial initiative. The constant pursuit of new opportunities to derive value is the hallmark of an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurial initiative has purely economic roots and is expressed in the desire to realize the opportunities provided by market exchange. Therefore, the causes that give rise to it are rooted in the specifics of the exchange, namely in its inherent uncertainty, which is due to the incompleteness and uneven distribution of information among the participants in the exchange. Market uncertainty on the one hand, it forces people to take initiative in order to reduce uncertainty, and on the other hand, it initiates actions based on assumptions about the existence of advantages. But the goal of proactive behavior is the same - to transform market uncertainty to its own benefit.
Commercial risk and business liability. The reality surrounding the entrepreneur is presented in the form of market uncertainty beyond his control. Inseparably linked with the properties of the market (changes in market conditions, prices, consumer preferences, etc.), this uncertainty is aggravated by the activities of the entrepreneur himself, expressed in the unpredictable reaction of the market to his initiatives. For an entrepreneur, the essence of the problem of market uncertainty lies in the uncertainty of the outcome (result) of his initiatives. Therefore, any decision made under conditions of uncertainty is associated with a risk for him, which is expressed in the possibility of losses.
Commercial risk is measured uncertainty. Measured in the sense that the entrepreneur knows the distribution of probable outcomes based on past experience or a priori calculations. When an entrepreneurial initiative does not go beyond the already known practice directions, techniques and methods of doing business, the entrepreneur faces a risk. When such an initiative carries beginnings unknown to practice, the entrepreneur will deal with uncertainty.
An entrepreneur's risk taking is not associated with an appetite for risk, but with his desire to turn market uncertainty in his favor. Exactly receiving remuneration acts as a decisive factor prompting an entrepreneur to take risks, and the amount of risk he takes on directly depends on the size of the likely reward. In addition, commercial risk is a measured risk also because it is always based on sober calculation and taking into account possible negative consequences. The economic responsibility that accompanies the risk poses for the entrepreneur the task of mastering and managing the risk. The contradiction that arises between the motivated desire for risk and the desire to reduce its degree is resolved by creating risk management systems.
Combination of factors of production and innovation. The search for the best options is associated with a combination of factors of production, the purpose of which is to increase the return (profitability) from each resource. One form of increasing resource efficiency is moving them to markets where their alternative value is higher and they will bring more income. This activity is called arbitration and is easily found in the field of trade and exchange activities. Another, more complex in content way of increasing the efficiency of the use of resources - combination based on the principle of substitution of factors of production. Its essence lies in the search for the most rational version of the combination of production factors by replacing one factor with another. By varying the factors of production, the entrepreneur not only ensures the transition to a more efficient use of the resource, but also, creating new technologies, ensures progress in production.
Thus, combining can become a tool changes in the way of doing business, when market uncertainty is opposed by a systematic organization. Innovation, which has now become a symbol of entrepreneurship, as an element is always present in it. On the one hand, this is due to the adversarial nature of entrepreneurial activity, forcing innovation: he who does not improve, he dies. On the other hand, operating under conditions of uncertainty requires constant ingenuity and creativity from the entrepreneur.
Innovation as a form of manifestation of entrepreneurial initiative is caused by the desire not to create something new, but to benefit from this “new”. An inventor is not an innovator. He becomes such only when he realizes himself as an entrepreneur, i.e. as a person striving for better business results.
Innovation as a sign of entrepreneurship, it is a commercially successful implementation of an entrepreneurial idea, regardless of the form of its expression. The point of innovation is that it generates additional income. Considering entrepreneurship from this perspective, the search for a new source of profit is not just one of the forms of innovation, but the essential side of entrepreneurial innovation.
The internal motivation of an entrepreneur to innovate is conditioned, firstly, by the fact that it, allowing to change the market situation in a direction favorable to itself, is the best a way to protect against market uncertainty. Secondly, by contributing to the withdrawal of the entrepreneur from competition through innovations, innovation - a way to acquire sustainable competitive advantages. Third, and most importantly, any method that brings additional benefits will be innovative for the entrepreneur, regardless of the consequences that its application will cause for public welfare.
Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.
St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering.
Department of Economic Theory.
Abstract on the topic:
"Entrepreneurship in the modern Russian economy"
I've done the work:
Student gr. MAC-3
Akopyan R.A.
The work was accepted by:
Zhdanov Zh.Zh.
St. Petersburg
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… ..3
1. The essence of entrepreneurship …………………………………………… ... 5
2. Types of entrepreneurship ……………………………………………… ... 6
3. Forms of entrepreneurship …………………………………………… ..11
4. Problems and prospects of entrepreneurship development ……………… ... 16
5. Causes of problems ………………………………………… ... 18
6. Ways to solve the problems of entrepreneurship ……………………………… 20
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 24
List of used literature …………………………………………… ..25
Introduction. The practice of world business has proven that entrepreneurship occupies a very important place in the national economy of any state. After all, it largely determines the rate of economic growth, the structure and quality of the gross national product, forming it 40-50 percent. But the point is not only in quantitative indicators - this factor is inherently an immanent element of the market infrastructure. A harmoniously developing state simply needs to come to such a market economy so that a high level of development of entrepreneurship is a necessary component in it. Earlier in Russia, a clear preference was given to the concentration of production - socialist gigantomania, but now, when our economy is trying to follow the Western path, it must be admitted that the success of this path, to a greater extent, is possible thanks to the development of entrepreneurship. In our country, entrepreneurship not only does not receive sufficient assistance from the state, but often finds itself in tough opposition to bureaucratic structures and in overcoming the existing structure of the economy, a feature of which is the predominance of large enterprises. Entrepreneurial initiative is stifled by legal barriers and vulnerability to versatile arbitrariness. Assessment of the real state of affairs in the field of entrepreneurship in Russia is very difficult due to the meager nature and low reliability of information about the activities of Russian enterprises. Therefore, in relation to entrepreneurship, a system of reliable statistical monitoring is needed, thanks to which it will be possible to draw up a clear program of support and development of entrepreneurship, because the experience of world development shows that in conditions of an economic crisis, policies aimed at providing assistance and promoting the development of entrepreneurship give tangible results in achieving balanced economic growth. Small business as a component of modern production largely contributes to maintaining a competitive tone in the economy, creates a natural social support for a social structure organized on the basis of the market, and also forms a new social stratum of entrepreneurs. All this led to the choice of the topic of the abstract as the most relevant.The essence of entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship is one of the most important components of the economy. In the countries of market economy, entrepreneurship has become widespread and constitutes the overwhelming part of all forms of organizations. Over the past ten years, millions of entrepreneurs and property owners have appeared in Russia. In connection with the privatization, only a part of organizations and enterprises remained with the state, and the rest passed into private ownership. The bulk of Russian entrepreneurship is small and medium-sized businesses.
The main task of an entrepreneur is enterprise management, which includes the rational use of resources, the organization of the process on an innovative basis and economic risk, as well as responsibility for the final results of their activities. The social nature of entrepreneurship means not only the activities of the agents participating in it, but also the presence of certain conditions in the public economy, which make it possible to realize the functional characteristics inherent in entrepreneurship. The totality of such conditions constitutes an entrepreneurial environment, the most important elements of which are economic freedom and personal interest. Economic freedom is a defining feature of the business environment. For an entrepreneur, the presence of economic freedom is not only the opportunity to engage in one or another type of activity and have equal access to resources and markets, but also the moral and ethical sanction of entrepreneurial activity.
Personal interest is the driving motive of entrepreneurship, therefore, providing conditions for the appropriation of the results obtained, the extraction and accumulation of income is a defining condition of the business environment.
Types of entrepreneurship
Depending on the content and direction of entrepreneurial activity, the object of capital investment and obtaining specific results, the relationship of entrepreneurial activity with the main stages of the reproduction process, the following types of entrepreneurship are distinguished:
Production,
Commercial and commercial,
Financial and credit,
Intermediary,
Insurance.
Manufacturing entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship is called production if the entrepreneur himself directly, using tools and objects of labor as factors, produces products, goods, services, work, information, spiritual values for subsequent sale (sale) to consumers, buyers, trade organizations.
Industrial entrepreneurship includes the release of industrial and agricultural products for industrial and technical purposes, consumer goods, construction work, the carriage of goods and passengers, communication services, utilities and consumer services, the production of information, knowledge, the publication of books, magazines, newspapers. In the broad sense of the word, industrial entrepreneurship is the creation of any useful product that consumers need, with the ability to be sold or exchanged for other goods.
In Russia, industrial entrepreneurship is the most risky occupation, since the restructuring of the economy did not provide the necessary conditions for the development of industrial entrepreneurship. The existing risk of non-sale of manufactured products, chronic non-payments, numerous taxes, fees and duties are a brake on the development of industrial entrepreneurship. Also, the development of manufacturing business in Russia is constrained by the inaccessibility of some resources, the lack of internal incentives and the low level of qualifications of novice businessmen, fear of difficulties, and the availability of more accessible and easy sources of income.
Meanwhile, it is industrial entrepreneurship that we all need: ultimately, it will be able to ensure stable success for a novice businessman. So one who gravitates towards a promising, sustainable business should turn his gaze to industrial entrepreneurship.
Commercial (trade) entrepreneurship.
The manufacturing business is closely related to the circulation business. After all, the goods produced must be sold or exchanged for other goods. Commercial and trade entrepreneurship is rapidly developing as the main second type of Russian entrepreneurship.
The principle of organizing trade entrepreneurship is somewhat different from the production one, since the entrepreneur acts directly in the role of a merchant, trader, selling finished goods purchased by him from other persons to the consumer (buyer). A feature of trade entrepreneurship is direct economic ties with wholesale and retail consumers of goods, works, services.
Commercial entrepreneurship covers all activities that are directly related to the exchange of goods for money, money for goods or goods for goods. Although the basis of commercial entrepreneurship is made up of commodity-money transactions of purchase and sale, practically the same factors and resources are involved in it as in industrial entrepreneurship, but on a smaller scale.
To successfully engage in trade entrepreneurship, it is necessary to thoroughly know the unsatisfied demand of consumers, to react quickly by offering appropriate products or their analogues. Trade entrepreneurship is more mobile, changeable, as it is directly related to specific consumers. It is believed that for the development of trade entrepreneurship, there should be at least two basic conditions: a relatively stable demand for the goods sold (therefore, a good knowledge of the market is necessary) and a lower purchase price of goods from manufacturers, which allows traders to reimburse trade costs and obtain the necessary profit. Trade entrepreneurship is associated with a relatively high level of risk, especially when organizing trade in industrial durable goods.
Financial and credit entrepreneurship.
Financial entrepreneurship is a special form of commercial entrepreneurship in which currency values, national money (Russian ruble) and securities (stocks, bonds, etc.), sold by the entrepreneur to the buyer or provided to him on credit, act as the subject of purchase and sale. In this case, this means not only and not so much the sale and purchase of foreign currency for rubles, although this is also a financial transaction, but an unforeseen range of operations covering the whole variety of sale and exchange of money, other types of money, securities for other money, foreign currency, securities.
About Pull & Bear brand Polon Bir official
Titanic: Exhibition at Afimoll
Quasi una fantasy quasi una fantasy