Sectoral shifts and a trajectory of transformation of the agrarian sector under the conditions of paradigmization of the concept of sustainable development of the rural economy

In addition to main variables, covariates in regression have to include the following parameters: arable land area; average annual temperature change rates; agro-production productivity dynamics for the last five years; share of fresh water used in agro-production; rural population dynamics; state support (assistance) for the agrarian sector; share of natural rent in GDP taking oil, natural gas, forest, mineral raw material and coal rent into account; as well as indicators of efficiency and performance of state regulation of the agrarian sector based on the World Bank's Enabling the Business of Agriculture ranking.

Analysis of links between the transformation of the agrarian sector and specific indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals, empirically, according to a two-stage model with fixed effects - using an experimental variable valuation method - shows that diversification of manufactured products and openness of the agrarian sector have a positive impact on its productivity. In this case, although, technological growth has an adverse impact in connection with a marginal income reduction, it is important to note that technologies are one of the key drivers of economic transformations in the sector. Water productivity remains low because it was unchanged during the whole transition period and, respectively, unproductive. So, transformation of the agrarian sector can demonstrate a various degree of the impact on three main components of sustainable development and is of especially great importance for the greenhouse gas emission reduction. It can also promote reduction in malnutrition scales and have an indirect impact on youth unemployment levels.

Goals of sustainable transformation of the agrarian sector have to be made topical both in the whole sub-region and in Ukraine. This can be achieved by adapting national plans for sustainable transformation of the sector, revaluating the existing structure of programs of state assistance to agro-producers for the transition to more efficient means of production, attracting private investments in agro-production modernization, increasing in efficiency of water use in agriculture for combating water scarcity and strengthening cooperation of the sub-region's countries and Ukraine to provide sustainability of the production-sales chain.

Conclusions

A trajectory of development of the sub-region's countries has always been impacted by geopolitical events, which, in their turn, have determined the structure of the economy, in general, and of the agrarian sector, in particular. So, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, positive growth rates of GDP in the sub-region were fixed in eight years, in 1999. Thereafter, a process of the stabilization of the economy is conditioned, mainly, by the expansion of extractive sectors in the countries rich in natural resources, while other countries relied on existing production systems and alternative growth means such as money transfer inflow and re-exportation of goods. Dependence on exports of natural resources and agro-raw material has made the countries of the sub-region and Ukraine vulnerable to external shocks such as raw material price fluctuations, financial crises and a later COVID- 19 coronavirus infection pandemic. Under the conditions of uncertainty of the agrarian policy, its inability to neutralize coronavirus penetration into agro-food chains, agro-productivity level reduction and rural economy growth, an issue of capability of countries to regulate the processes of transformation of the agrarian sector of their economy subject to interrelations and interdependencies between these processes and the Sustainable Development Goals becomes topical. A striking example is the inconsistency of food promotion channels with population self-isolation measures to minimize social contacts under the conditions of the global COVID-19 coronavirus infection pandemic resulted from incorrect regulatory-programmed transformation of the agroproduction sales system, disregarding growth of digital literacy of the population and features of its mental behavior in the urbanized environment.

This is exactly why the study considered the trends, which ran in the agrarian sector of the sub-region's countries, had an impact both on agro-production productivity and sectoral transformations in light of social, economic, financial, territorial and political shifts in the economic landscape of the sub-region's countries. We note that FAO considers transformational shifts in the agrarian sector as a dominant source of achieving a benchmark of “zero” hunger, which the countries of the sub-region undertook to achieve according the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Since Ukraine is one of the food leaders in the world and achieving the Global Sustainable Development Goals depends, on some extent, on the productivity of its agrarian sector, it is necessary to study the equality of the transformation of the sector in Ukraine and the subregion's countries, as adjusted for re-orientation of systems of food promotion from the markets of the countries of the former Soviet Union to the market of the European Union, USA and China, slowly solving problems of technical regulation and safety of food products.

Despite success in structural transformation in the subregion's countries, the success achieved is mainly limited to certain spheres such as the mining industry and dependency on money transfers, with no diversification. A small gain in productivity of the agrarian sector was achieved thanks to intra-branch modernization, which can potentially become a driver for achieving sustainable development of the food market of the sub-region and Ukraine. It is necessary to stress once again that it will be difficult for the countries of the sub-region to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth without taking a note of the need to transform the agrarian sector using the Ukraine's experience and vice versa, on the basis of adaptive measures involving criteria and methodological rules proposed by Katsushi S. Imai. Using mutual experience will provide sustainable transformation of the rural economy, which will become a new driver for the process of rural development by increasing in and diversifying agro-production as well as a catalyst for the prosperity of non-agricultural activity.

References

1. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. URL: https://www.unfpa.org/resources/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development.

2. IMF. Groups and Aggregates. 2021. URL: https://www.imf.org/external/pub s/ft/weo/2021/01/weodata/groups.htm.

3. World Bank Open Data. URL: https://data.worldbank.org.

4. The World Economic Forum. URL: https://www.weforum.org.

5. Balezentis T., Streimikiene D., Jurkenaite N., Dabkiene V. Structural Change, Productivity, and Climate Nexus in Agriculture. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2021. 258 p.

6. Петруха С.В. Державне антикризове регулювання аграрного сектору економіки України: монографія. Київ: ЦУЛ, 2018. 521 с.

7. Serres A., Scarpetta S., Maisonneuve C. Sectoral Shifts in Europe and the United States. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. 2002. № 326. 49 р.

8. Державна служба статистики України. URL: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua.

9. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Structural transformation and its role in reducing poverty: Asia-Pacific countries with special needs development report. 2019. URL: https://www.unescap.org/publications/asia-pacific-countries-special-needs-development-report-2019.

10. Asian Development Bank (ADB) / Agriculture development in the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Program member countries: Review of trends, challenges and opportunities. 2019. URL: https://www.adb.org/publications/trends-agricultural-development-carec-countries.

11. Петруха С., Петруха Н. До питання природи та ідентифікації структурних зрушень в економіці: методологічний аспект. Економіст. 2013. № 8. С. 23-26.

12. Gharleghi B., Popov V. Farewell to Agriculture? Productivity Trends and the Competitiveness of Agriculture in Central Asia. SSRN Electronic Journal. Published. 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3266340.

13. Петруха Н.М., Петруха С.В. Державне регулювання інтегрованих корпоративних об'єднань в умовах структурно-інституціональної та функціональної трансформації сільської економіки: проблеми методології, теорії, соціально-економічної та секторальної політики: монографія. Київ: ТОВ «Видавничий дім «Професіонал», 2020. 496 с. + 1 електрон. опт. диск.

14. Lerman Z., Sedik D. Transition to smallholder agriculture in Central Asia. Journal of Agrarian Change, 18(4), 2018. P. 904-912. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12282.

15. International Monetary Fund (IMF). Sustaining Long-Run Growth and Macroeconomic Stability in Low-Income Countries: the Role of Structural Transformation and Diversification - Background Notes. 2014. URL: https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/030514.pdf.

16. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and Food and Agriculture Organization of the Untied Nations (FAO). OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2018-2027. 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2018-en.

17. Могильний О.М., Козак М.І. Сировинна орієнтація аграрного сектору та її соціально-економічні наслідки для України. Економіка АПК. 2021. № 3. С. 19.

18. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The Kyrgyz Republic: Opportunities and challenges to agricultural growth. 2011. URL: www.fao.org/3/a-i2711e.pdf.

19. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Modern technology improves traditional livelihoods in Kazakhstan. 2017. URL: https://www.ebrd.com/news/2017/modern-technology-improves-traditional-livelihoods-in-kazakhstan.html.

20. FAOSTAT. URL: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data.

21. The Atlas of Economic Complexity. URL: https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu.

22. International Trade Centre. URL: https://www.intracen.org.

23. The United Nations Economic and Social Council. URL: https://www.un.org/ecosoc.

24. The World Bank. Doing Business. 2020. URL: https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings.

25. World Bank Group. Uzbekistan: Agricultural trade policy report. 2018. URL: http://invest-in-uzbekistan.org/wp-content/uploads/ENG-Modernizatsiya-selskogo-hozyajstva-Uzbekistana.pdf.

26. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Special Alert: FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment mission to Tajikistan. 2000. URL: www.fao.org/3/x7844e/x7844e00.htm.

27. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Sustainable infrastructure for low-carbon development in Central Asia and the Caucasus: Hotspot analysis and needs assessment, green finance and investment. 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/d1aa6ae9-en.

28. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of Food and Agriculture. 2020. URL: http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/en/?utm_=.

29. European Training Foundation (ETF). Torino Process 201617: Central Asia. 2017. URL: https://www.etf.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/torino-process-2016-17-central-asia.

30. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The state of food and agriculture. Women in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. 2011. URL: www.fao.org/3/i2050e/i2050e.pdf.

31. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Regional Overview of Food Insecurity: The Food Insecurity Transition. 2016. URL: www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/522759/icode/.

32. Zhang M., Chen Y., Shen Y., Li B. Tracking climate change in Central Asia through temperature and precipitation extremes. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 29(1), 3-28. 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-019-1581-6.

33. Godfray H.Ch.J., Beddington J.R., Crute I.R., Haddad L., Lawrence D., Muir J.F., Pretty J., Robinson S., Thomas S.M., Toulmin C. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science, 327(5967), 2009. P. 812-818. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383.

34. Мельников О.В., Петруха Н.М., Петруха С.В.

35. Економічне відновлення сільських територій: співвідношення фундаментального та прикладного аспектів наукового дослідження. Вчені записки Університету «КРОК». 2021. № 1 (61). С.176-193.

36. Imai K.S. Roles of agricultural transformation in achieving sustainable development goals on poverty, hunger, productivity and inequality. 2017. URL: https://www.rieb.kobe-u.ac.jp/academi c/ra/dp/English/DP2017-26.pdf.

37. Imai K.S., Cheng W., Gaiha R. Agricultural Growth, Poverty and Inequality in Developing Countries. Development, 58(2-3), 2015. P. 230-236. URL: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-016-0009-1.

38. Imai K., Gaiha R., Bresciani F. The Labor Productivity Gap between the Agricultural and Nonagricultural Sectors, and Poverty and Inequality Reduction in Asia. Asian Development Review, 36(1), 2019. P. 112-135. URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/adev_a_00125.

39. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Gender, agriculture and rural development in Uzbekistan: Country gender assessment series. 2019. URL: www.fao.org/3/ca4628en/ca4628en.pdf.

40. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Change in water-use efficiency over time (SDG indicator 6.4.1). 2019. URL: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca5400en/.

Размещено на Allbest.ru