Motivational aspects of development of strategic network partnership in the agro-industrial complex

In our opinion, in a business network, these benefits should not be limited to the economic interests of individual actors (as follows from the main conclusions of the rational choice theory (H. Simon [42] H. Harsanai [43]), or behavioral economics, (R. Thaler, [44]), and considered from the standpoint of strategic perspective and overall benefit. If purely economic interests prevail, the partnership will not be able to develop, as participants may resort to opportunism in the process of organizational knowledge dissemination. However, the knowledge exchange within a strategic partnership is an important tool for achieving synergy and strengthening of competitive advantages, so motivation should extend to the processes of organizational knowledge development. Moreover, the interests' conciliation process may cover a wider range of stakeholders, such as local communities, regional authorities, logistics and trade companies and others. This will form the basis for the public benefit increasing from the strategic partnership network development in the agro-industry.

In general, participants in agro-industrial business networks are motivated to cooperate by various factors that are in the internal or external field of organizational interaction.

The main internal motives of network cooperation include:

1) the access to key resources for the formation of competitive advantages through the recombination of resources and processes, which allows finding additional opportunities for business development;

2) the increase in activities efficiency and profit growth through the development of organizational knowledge and business processes optimization, which allows reducing operating and transaction costs;

3) the business risks reduction through collective and consensual decisionmaking procedures, which increases their validity;

4) the increase of reliability level in the behaviour of partners in the implementation of network transactions, solidarity and support in case of individual participants' problems.

The motives that are formed in the external space of organizational interaction are:

1) the opportunity to unite efforts to lobby important in terms of strategic prospects for the development of agriculture changes in the legislative field of the country;

2) increase access to investment resources for the development projects implementation;

3) reducing isolation from global development trends through involvement in global networks of economic activity.

We would like to emphasize that the business network has much wider opportunities to implement innovation and investment projects. When substantiating them, it is important to agree on the costs to be incurred by each participant (network actor) in the implementation of common for the network value creation processes. This will allow each actor to compare the costs with the possible benefits, and thus - to compare the result with their own value structure and motivational benefits and thus decide to participate in the network. And this will create the basis for the formation of stable relations in the business network. Moreover, investment processes in Ukraine may intensify soon due to the adoption of the Law “On stat e support of investment projects with significant investments in Ukraine” № 3760, which entered into force on February 13, 2021 [45]. Especially since that, the law provides some benefits for strategic investors with investments of more than 20 billion euros, such investors could include investments that can be accumulated by members of the business network.

In our opinion, it is possible to balance the positions of actors in the network (their motivational advantages) based on the balance concept in game theory, formulated by Nobel Prize winner J. Nash [46], namely on the assumption that actors in a non-cooperative game will choose actions that can be defined by J. Nash as equilibrium. That is, those that will provide the desired for the network and acceptable to each network actor result; the latter will allow minimizing the cost of administering the joint activities of actors (primarily by eliminating the causes of opportunistic behaviour, which is manifested in organizational relations in the absence of trust between partners).

To increase the level of such trust (it means to shift the motivational preferences of actors from the position of maximizing their interests to the position of maximizing the results accumulated by the entire network) is possible by involving independent experts in the analysis of a joint business project. At the same time, all actors in the network must be sure that none of the experts has a vested interest in unreasonably defending the positions of individual actors. That is, no one will be able to manipulate the experts' opinion when making a final decision on the implementation of a joint business project.

Let's simulate this situation using the approaches to building models of partnership, which are described by A. Carida, M. Colurcio and M. Melia [47]. To do this, we assume that each of the experts formed their position (decided - xi) in the form of an expert opinion, which contains the necessary justification for the strategy of the business project in terms of costs and revenues, and presented it for discussion in the expert environment: ^si ^{є S}i, where і є N = {1, 2,..., n} - set of experts. This

conclusion opinion contains a plan (пі), based on a specific planning procedure. It is standard and predetermined, but the general algorithm can be implemented in a variety of tools, the choice of which depends on the subjective opinion of the expert (ri) (for example, a marketing plan to promote a product or a logistics support plan of the production process).

The combined actions of the experts are described as follows:

, where - planning procedure,

i О N.. Then the vector of published conclusions of all experts:

Together, they make it possible to determine the general vector of the network business strategy implementation plan:

The target function of the і-th expert, which reflects his interests and forms a position on the justification of the business project strategy, depends on his preferences (ri) in the choice of the planning procedure tools and reflects his subjective opinion on their feasibility

We'll consider that experts adhere to non-cooperative behaviour when choosing

dominant or equilibrium strategies according to Nash. Thus, we'll accept that s* - a vector of strategies balanced by Nash experts:

In the general case, the equilibrium point depends on the vector of all experts' positions:

And if the vector of peak points of experts for any of their personal preferences r є«^п coincides with the vector of plans for the network business project implementation, which should be carried out according to the procedure (or mechanism) for this project ^(h(r) =^{7r(s (r))}, then we can say that there is a Nash equilibrium:

Under these conditions, it can be argued that the expert assessment of the network's business project was carried out objectively, manipulations by experts who would defend their interests were not allowed.

Thus, the creation of conditions to prevent manipulation during the expert evaluation of joint business projects in the agro-industrial network will eliminate potential threats to the conflict of actors' interests in the distribution of costs and revenues. This means that it will form a motivational basis for mutually beneficial partnerships, thanks to which it is possible to achieve the effectiveness of network interaction.

Conclusions

Based on the results of our analysis of the dynamics and structural trends of the agricultural sector of Ukraine, a conclusion was made about their inconsistency with the “sustainable development” priorities. In particular, large agricultural holdings with sufficient investment potential prefer an extensive development path and focus on growing and exporting low-value-added industrial crops.

Medium and small agricultural enterprises usually enter into dependent relations with large ones, obeying their purchasing policy and only a small part of them implement modern business models in working with the market and choose niche strategies and develop organic farming. However, they mainly work for the domestic market. Lack of investment resources does not allow them to develop their export potential, using the terms of the association agreement with the EU in terms of dutyfree exports of products that have undergone industrial processing - because the acquisition of modern processing technologies requires significant investment. And the tax benefits that should encourage the development of processing industries, according to the adopted draft law № 3760, apply only to investment projects which value exceeds the equivalent of 20 million euros. This actually preserves the current state of affairs in the agricultural sector, creating preferences only for strategic investors.

We prove that positive changes can be achieved if we extend these benefits to projects implemented by business structures united in a business network. There are considered the conditions of development of agro-industrial business networks in Ukraine based on the integration of specific / unique resources which can provide resource and market synergy in the generation of new consumer values. We have proven that the effective functioning of a business network depends on its ability to create network capital. Given that the processes of its formation depend on the availability of potential participants unique / specific resources for the creation of new consumer values and their desire to share them, it is proposed to consider the term “network capital” in a broad and narrow sense; broadly - as a set of tangible and intangible benefits, defined in qualitative and quantitative indicators obtained from the business network; in the narrow sense - as a set of relations with enterprises interested in cooperation, formed on an institutional and contractual basis. This allows the initiators of a business network to determine, firstly, the main criteria by which to select participants (significant contribution to the creation of consumer values), and secondly - how to achieve the effectiveness of their network interaction (forming a motivational basis for mutually beneficial relations). The paper systematizes such factors of advantages' formation that lie in the internal space of the business network and are formed as a result of processes occurring in the external environment.

Based on this, the order of formation of network capital is determined and a graphical model of realization of network interaction of enterprises within the framework of the strategic partnership is built; it describes the logical connections between network capital, creating value and efficiency of business network participants.

The effectiveness of networking depends on the confidence of actors in the mutual benefit of such cooperation, which takes into account their motivational preferences. We propose to coordinate the positions of actors in the network based on an independent expert evaluation to achieve Nash equilibrium. Creating conditions to prevent manipulation during the peer review of projects will eliminate potential threats of conflict of interest of actors in the distribution of costs and revenues, and the chosen vector of positions should provide the desired result for the network and be acceptable to each actor. This will increase the attractiveness of the strategic partnership and form the motivational basis for long-term and mutually beneficial partnerships.

References

1. Gupta, J. and Vegelin, C. (2016), Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z.

2. Mohd, H. A. and Norhidayah, S. (2016), Sustainable food production: insights of Malaysian halal small and medium sized enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 181, part B, рр. 303-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.003.

3. Savickiene, J. and Miceikiene, A. (2018), Sustainable economic development assessment model for family farms. Agricultural Economics - Czech, vol. 64, pp. 527-535. https://doi.org/10.17221/310/2017-AGRICECON.

4. Ihnatenko, M. and Novak, N. (2018), Development of regional programs for the development of agrarian enterprises with organic production on the basis of the European and international experience. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 126-133. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2018-4-4-126-133.

5. Kucher, A. (2019), Sustainable soil management in the formation of competitiveness of agricultural enterprises. Academic Publishing House «Talent», Plovdiv, Bulgaria. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19554.07366.

6. Kucher, L., Heldak, M. and Orlenko, A. (2018). Project management in organic agricultural production. Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 104-128. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.281753.

7. Shevchenko, A. and Petrenko, O. (2020), Current state of micro and small agribusiness in Ukraine. Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 146-160. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.01.10.

8. Skydan, O., Nykolyuk, O., Pyvovar, P. and Martynchuk, I. (2020), Methodological approach to the evaluation of agricultural business system flexibility. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 444-462. https://doi.org/10.15544/mts.2019.36.

9. Carlisle, L., de Wit, M. M., DeLonge, M. S., Calo, A., Getz, C., Ory, J.,

Munden-Dixon, K., Galt, R., Melone, B., Knox, R., Iles, A. and Press, D. (2019), Securing the future of US agriculture: the case for investing in new entry sustainable farmers. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, vol. 7, 17.

https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.356.

10. Cardoso, J. F., Casarotto, F. N. and Marcon, C. (2020), Small business networks in the field of organic farming: strategies and management tools. Gestdo & Produзаo, vol. 27, is. 4, e4730. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X4730-20.

11. Savarese, M., Chamberlain, K. and Gragna, G. (2020), Co-Creating value in

sustainable and alternative food networks: the case of community supported agriculture in New Zealand. Sustainability, vol. 12(3), 1252.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031252.

12. Sadovska, V., Axelson, L. E. and Mark-Herbert, C. (2020), Reviewing value creation in agriculture - a conceptual analysis and a new framework. Sustainability, vol. 12(12), 5021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125021.

13. Pasichnyk, Yu. (2020), Export of agricultural and food products of Ukraine: concept of prospects. Journal of European Economy, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 247-264. https://doi.org/10.35774/jee2020.02.246.

14. Stadnyk, V., Krasovska, G., Pchelianska, G. and Holovchuk, Yu. (2021), Determinants of “green entrepreneurship” competitive strategies implementation in the agro-industrial sector of Ukraine. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 8th International Scientific Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Environmental Science, 21-22 October 2020, vol. 628, 012032. Ivano- Frankivsk, Ukraine. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/628/1/012032.

15. Stadnyk, V., Izhevskiy, P., Khrushch, N., Lysenko, S., Sokoliuk, G. and Tomalja, T. (2020), Strategic priorities of innovation and investment development of the Ukraine's economy industrial sector. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2713, pp. 145-166, available at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2713/paper12.pdf

16. The official site of State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020), Production

value of entities of large, medium, small and micro-entrepreneurship by type of economic activity in 2013-2019, available at:

http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2020/fin/pssg/ovp sg_vsmm_ek_2013_20 19_u.xlsx.

17. The official site of State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020), Number of

enterprises by type of economic activity with division into large, medium, small and micro enterprises in 2010-2019, available at:

http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/ operativ2018/fin/pdp/pdp_u/kp_ek_vsmm_2010_ 2018 u.xlsx.

18. The official site of State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020), Value added at factor costs of entities of large, medium, small and micro-entrepreneurship by type of economic activity in 2013-2019, available at:

http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2020/fin/pssg/dvvsg_vsmm_ek_2013_20 19_u.xlsx.

19. Agravery: agricultural news agency (2020), Shares of Ukrainian agricultural companies rose by an average of 10 % in October, available at: https://agravery.com/uk/posts/show/ akcii -ukrainskih-agrokompanij -u-zovtni-zrosli-v- serednomu-na-10.

20. Maruniak, Ye., Lisovskyi, S., Holubtsov, O., Chekhnii, V., Farion, Yu. and Amosov, M. (2021), Doslidzhennia vplyvu kontsentratsii silskohospodarskykh zemel na dovkillia ta suspilstvo v Ukraini [Study of the impact of agricultural land concentration on the environment and society in Ukraine], Kyiv, Ukraine.

21. The official site of State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2019), Labor costs of enterprises by type of economic activity with a division into large, medium, small and micro enterprises, available at:

http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2013/fin/kp_ed/kp_ed_u/vopp_ed_u_2019.htm.

22. The official site of State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2019), Number of employees in enterprises by type of economic activity with a division into large, medium, small and micro enterprises, available at: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2013/fin/kp_ed/kp_ed_u/kzp_ed_u_2019. htm.

23. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2021), The Law of Ukraine «On amendments to the Tax Code of Ukraine concerning the value added tax rate on transactions for the supply of certain types of agricultural products », available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/! 115-20#Text.

24. Agropolit (2021), Reducing the VAT rate for the agricultural sector to 14 %:

the fight against “twists” or a preference of $ 80-120 million for sunflower processor, available at: https://agropolit.com/ spetsproekty/859-znijennya-stavki-pdv-dlya-

agrosektoru-do-14-borotba-zi-skrutkami-chi-preferentsiya-v-80-120-mln- pererobniku-sonyashniku.

25. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (2021), Resolution of the Cabinet of

Ministers of Ukraine “On approval of the National Economic Strategy for the period up to 2030”, available at: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/npas/pro-zatverdzhennya-nacionalnoyi-eko-a17 9.

26. Official Facebook page of the Sustainable Development Agency ASTAR, available at: https://www.facebook.com/astar.age.

27. Official site NGO “Ukrainian Nut Association”, available at: https://www.gardens-nuts.com.ua/ru/partnery/24-ukrainskaya-orekhovaya- assotsiatsiya.html

28. Official site of Association “Yahidnytstvo Ukrainy”, available at: https://uaberries.com.

29. Official Facebook page of the first national agrarian cooperative

organization, available at: https://www.facebook.com/pnak.com.ua.

30. Stadnyk, V., Pchelianska, G., Holovchuk, Yu. and Dybchuk, L. (2020), The concept of marketing of balanced development and features of its implementation in the food market. Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 80-95. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.03.

31. Perechuda, K. and Chomiak-Orsa, I. (2013), The positioning of relational capital in management models. Zarzqdzanie i Finanse, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 293-307.

32. Wallace, E. (2006), Fares to friends. How to develop outstanding business relationship, 1st ed. The Relational Capital Group, Inc.

33. Bourdieu, P. (1986), The forms of capital In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, ed. by J. G. Richardson. Westport, CT: Greenwood, New York, USA.

34. Coleman, J. S. (1988), Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 94, pp. 95-120, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243.

35. Kolot, A. M. (2010), Sotsialno-trudova sfera: stan vidnosyn, novi vyklyky, tendentsii rozvytku [The social and labor issues: state relations, new challenges and trends], KNEU, Kyiv, Ukraine.

36. Camagni, R. (2009), Territorial capital and regional development In Handbook of Regional Growth and Development Theories, eds R. Capello and P. Nijkamp, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, pp. 118-132, available at: https://is.gd/RPw1p9.

37. Czakon, W. (2010), Hipoteza bliskosci. Przeglqd Organizacji, no. 9, pp. 1620.

38. De Wit, B. and Meyer, R. (2014), Strategy synthesis, managing strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage, 4th ed. Cengage Learning, London, UK.

39. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 242-266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225.

40. Adler, P. S. and Kwon, S. (2002), Social capital: prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 17-40. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134367.

41. Mustafa, M. and Chen, S. (2010), The strength of family networks in transnational immigrant entrepreneurship. Thunderbird International Business Review, vol. 52, is. 2, pp. 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.20317.

42. Simon, H. A. (1955) A behavioural model of rational choice. The Quarterely Journal of Economics, vol. 69, is. 1, pp. 99-118.

43. Harsanyi, H. (1977), Rational behaviour and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

44. Thaler, R. H. (2017), Behavioral economics. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 125, is. 6, pp. 1799-1805.

45. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2020), The Law of Ukraine “On state support of investment projects with significant investments in Ukraine”, available at:

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1116-20#Text.

46. Nash, J. (1951), Non-cooperative Games. Annals of Mathematics, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 286-295. https://doi.org/10.2307/1969529.

47. Carida, А., Colurcio, M. and Melia, M. (2015), Designing a collaborative business model for SMEs. Sinergie. Italian journal of management, vol. 33, no. 98, pp. 233-253. https://doi.org/10.7433/s98.2015.14.

Размещено на Allbest.ru