=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2104/paper_188
|storemode=property
|title=Production Activity of Agricultural Business Structures and Its Efficiency in Ukraine
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2104/paper_188.pdf
|volume=Vol-2104
|authors=Nadiia Reznik,Mykola Ilchuk,Sergey Us
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/icteri/ReznikIU18
}}
==Production Activity of Agricultural Business Structures and Its Efficiency in Ukraine==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2104/paper_188.pdf
Production Activity of Agricultural Business Structures
and Its Efficiency in Ukraine
Nadiia Reznik 1, Mykola Ilchuk 1 and Sergey Us 1
1
National University of Life and Environmental Science, 27 Heroiv Oborony st., Kyiv,
03041 Ukraine
rezniknadiya@ukr.net, ilchukmykola54@gmail.com,
sergey.us.ua@gmail.com
Abstract. The paper discusses that in the conditions of domestic economy
transformational changes, insufficient financing and economic risks growth;
there is a need to increase efficiency level of agricultural business structures ac-
tivity. Providing of these conditions depends on scientific and practical devel-
opments implementation into enterprises production activity with a purpose of
its improvement. To achieve a high efficiency level, it’s necessary to analyze
the agribusiness structures functioning environment which is characterized by
market conditions dynamic changes and greatly affects the size, specialization,
production structure etc. Most enterprises are on the stage of assets accumula-
tion and production diversification directions search which involves different
activities and intensive development. At the same time, banks’ lending volume
decrease and production costs growth due to devaluation of the national curren-
cy as well as economic activity decline leads to agricultural enterprises research
of new ways to increase return on investments.
Keywords: agricultural business structure, plant growing, stockbreeding, social
efficiency, employment, integral indicator.
1 Introduction
The aim of the article is to develop offers how to optimize production activity of agri-
cultural business structures and increase its efficiency. This task requires resources
provision level determination of agricultural enterprises, their rational combination
and effective usage. They should be solved by resource-saving production technolo-
gies, investments attractiveness increase and responsible attitude to the environment.
A significant contribution to the research of the production activities of the agricul-
tural business structures and definition of production’s optimization belong to such
domestic and foreign scientists as M. Ilchuk [1, 2], S. Kvasha [3], N. Reznik [4, 5], U.
Lupenko [6], M. Malik [7], B. Paskhaver [8], O. Shubravskaya [9], A. Sen [10], S. Mo-
cherny [11], A. Borisov [12], A. Azryliyan [13] and others [14-16]. In particular O.
Shubravskaya claims that production optimization is among the main methods to pro-
vide agricultural enterprises effective functioning in the unstable market environment.
Because of that, its theoretical and methodological implementation features, the corre-
lation between production resources, and their influence on output as well as parame-
ters and restrictions for the optimization model development under limited resources
conditions are extremely important [9]. S. Mocherny considers optimization of pro-
duction as a process of interaction between people and nature, as well as just between
people during creating material and immaterial goods in an optimal (the most perfect)
state by choosing optimal criteria with quantitative and qualitative parameters in order
to develop productive forces and economic relations [11]. A. Borisov offers that it is –
the definition of optimal values of economic indicators in the process of creating dif-
ferent types of economic product in order to achieve the best state [12]. A. Azryliyan
interprets the optimization of production as bringing the human-made process of cre-
ating products (products, energy and services) into the best (optimal) state [13].
Highly appreciating the contribution of these scientists for the development of the
theoretical and methodological foundations in analysis of the production activity of
agricultural enterprises and its efficiency, it should be noted that the question about
influence of the main factors of agrarian production on its effectiveness remains to be
fully investigated and needs offers for improvement of the main economic, social and
environmental indicators of agricultural production in conditions of economic risks
increasing.
2 Research Findings
2.1 Analysis of agricultural business structures
In accordance with the economic theory of social welfare, namely its provisions about
efficiency of resource distribution, each enterprise should maximize the effect of the
use of productive resources taking into account social interest. It means that in addi-
tion to efficient use of resources according an economic point of view, it should be
taken into account the possible negative influence on nature and potential social prob-
lems due to excessive automation of production and the failure of the enterprise to
provide workable people of the countryside with work. An existed interrelation be-
tween the interests of business, society and the environment is situated below (fig. 1).
Private business interests: increasing of prof-
it and recoupment of expenditures, reduce of
risk, reduce the period of capital turnover, in-
creasing of profit margin
Social interests of the soci- Environmental interests of the so-
ety: creation of new jobs, ciety: reduction of environmental
increasing of wages, im- pollution, improvement of the condi-
provement of labor conditions tion of renewable resources
Fig. 1. Interrelation between the interests of business, society and the environment in organiza-
tion process of production
Effective production activity of agricultural business structures requires a rational combi-
nation of plant growing and stockbreeding branches, needs to take into account market con-
ditions, as well as providing of economic, social and environmental efficiency of agricultural
production. A rational combination of branches involves using secondary production, trans-
ferring of seasonal employers to permanent employment during the year at the expense of
diversification of production, as well as increasing of economic efficiency of production
activities and reducing of financial risks.
Analysis of the cultivated areas and stockbreeding of agricultural enterprises of Ukraine
is shown below with the aim to evaluate production activity (fig. 2).
Sugar beet Other
1% crops 10% Winter
Soybeen wheat
7% 25%
Rape 5%
Fodder
crops 5% Sunflower
Corn for 21%
grain 20% Spring
barley 6%
Other Beef
livestock 11%
and Other
poultry cattle
2% 11%
Poultry
(chiken) Pork 24%
52%
Fig. 2. Structure of the cultivated areas and stockbreeding of agricultural enterprises of Ukraine,
2016 (including farms)
Ukrainian agricultural enterprises, including farms, are concentrated on the produc-
tion of the four most profitable crops: winter wheat, corn, sunflower and soybeans.
More than 50% of the total land area of agricultural enterprises is used for the grain
crops. At the same time, the structure of grain cultivation is changing: if in 2011 win-
ter wheat accounted for 43,9%, spring barley – 20,9%, corn – 12,7%, then in 2016 the
crop area under wheat was 25% , under barley – 6%, and corn – 20%. One of the
reasons for this change is possibility of getting bigger profit from 1 hectare of corn
cultivation. An important trend is the reduction of cultivated areas under fodder crops,
because of decreasing of livestock and poultry and a reduction of volume of produc-
tion of certain livestock products. Changing the livestock structure is explained by
higher profitability and a lower period of capital turnover when chicken and pork are
grown. At the same time, the growth of cattle in most agricultural enterprises is gen-
erally unprofitable. However, the reduction in the number of cattle has both negative
social (unemployment, income reduction) and negative environmental influence, in
particular reduction of organic fertilizers introduction. In addition, the creation of
large complexes for the production of pork and poultry meat involves significant risks
in the conditions of epidemics, and also has a negative influence on the environment.
Changing structure of cultivated area and livestock have direct influence on the volume
and production of agricultural products. Consider changes of gross products in terms of
the main types of products of plant growing and stockbreeding sectors, as well as its struc-
ture with the aim to research influence of the above changes on the production results of
agricultural enterprises (Table 1).
Table 1. Gross products of agricultural enterprises of Ukraine, calculated according constant
prices of 2010
Types of 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
products Mln. % Mln. % Mln. % Mln. % Mln. %
hrn. hrn. hrn. hrn. hrn.
Products of 71275 74 66813 71 92138 76,1 82130 72,6 103128 75,5
plant growing
Wheat 17530 18,2 13681 14,5 18143 15 12932 11,4 17982 13,2
Barley 7972 8,3 5260 5,6 5197 4,3 3928 3,5 4279 3,1
Corn 8747 9,1 10152 10,8 20646 17,1 18751 16,6 28018 20,5
Sunflower 14715 15,3 15875 16,9 20716 17,1 20267 17,9 26846 19,7
Soybeans 2382 2,5 3808 4 5085 4,2 5362 4,7 6158 4,5
Rape 5050 5,2 3854 4,1 3839 3,2 3293 2,9 6375 4,7
Other prod- 14879 15,5 14183 15,1 18512 15,3 17597 15,6 13470 9,9
ucts
Products of 24998 26 27276 29 28915 23,9 30952 27,4 33463 24,5
stockbreeding
Cattle (live 2125 2,2 2033 2,2 1984 1,6 2076 1,8 2043 1,5
weight)
Pork (live 4292 4,5 5244 5,6 5752 4,8 6202 5,5 7123 5,2
weight)
Poultry(live 8500 8,8 9321 9,9 9724 8,0 10396 9,2 11772 8,6
weight)
Milk 5460 5,7 5512 5,9 5585 4,6 6304 5,6 6422 4,7
Eggs 4208 4,4 4766 5,1 5462 4,5 5574 4,9 5693 4,2
Other pro- 412,9 0,4 400,8 0,4 408,6 0,3 400,9 0,4 410 0,3
duction
This table confirms that there is a steady tendency to increase the share of produc-
tion of basic agricultural products in the structure of gross products. At the same time,
there is an increase in production of corn for grain and sunflower and a decrease in
the production of barley and wheat. In the stockbreeding sector, the decline of produc-
tion is only for beef; production of other types of products is increasing. At the same
time, the change in the structure and size of production in livestock production is
much slower than in the field of plant growing. Also, the production of livestock
products is much less dependent on the natural and climatic conditions, so there are
no such sharp fluctuations in the volume of gross products, as in the field of plant
growing.
The size of agricultural enterprises is depend on available agricultural land, the re-
quirements of production specialization, the size of production expenditures, the
availability of financial resources, etc. Consider the quantitative changes in agricul-
tural enterprises of Ukraine by size of land (Table 2).
Table 2. Groups of agricultural enterprises of Ukraine by size of agrarian land, units
Groups of agricul- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016
tural enterprises in %
to
2012
Up to 5,0 ha 5850 5784 5639 5332 5026 85,9
5,1-10,0 ha 4082 4038 3983 3809 3755 92,0
10,1-20,0 ha 5088 4925 4897 4795 4784 94,0
20,1-50,0 ha 13928 13707 13535 13334 13294 95,5
50,1-100,0 ha 4731 4831 4895 5016 5275 111,5
100,1-500,0 ha 7385 7181 7195 7261 7233 97,9
500,1-1000,0 ha 2764 2667 2595 2624 2666 96,5
1000,1-2000,0 ha 2781 2661 2549 2565 2531 91,0
2000,1-3000,0 ha 1363 1347 1304 1270 1251 91,8
3000,1-4000,0 ha 701 666 640 632 619 88,3
4000,1-5000,0 ha 378 376 355 334 323 85,5
5000,1-7000,0 ha 313 332 342 337 345 110,2
7000,1-10000,0 ha 159 178 175 179 165 84,9
Over 10000,0 ha 112 131 152 164 175 156,3
Enterprises, which 49635 48824 48256 47652 47442 95,6
have agrarian land, ha
Enterprises, which 7517 7669 7877 8214 8416 112,0
don’t have agrarian
land, ha
Total 57152 56493 56133 55866 55858 97,7
This grouping makes possibility to argue that transformational changes have led to the
consolidation and reduction of agricultural enterprises.
Reasonable consolidation of enterprises contributes for more efficient use of resources.
There is a steady tendency to reduce the number of agricultural enterprises with the aim of
its consolidation, which has influence on the reduction of the number of employers in
agricultural enterprises of Ukraine (Table 3).
Reducing the number of employers in the stockbreeding is faster than in the field of plant
growing. One of the reasons for this is a reduction in stockbreeding and a focus on poultry
breeding, which has a higher level of profitability, a shorter period of capital turnover, and is
less labor-intensive.
Table 3. Level of employment in agricultural business structures of Ukraine, thsd. persons
Indicators 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016 in % to
2012
Number of 733,0 709,2 732,7 708,2 678,8 92,6
employers,
thsd. persons
plant growing 513,7 500,1 538,4 528,0 510,0 99,3
stockbreeding 219,3 209,1 194,3 180,2 168,8 77,0
Structure of 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % -
employment,
%
plant growing 70,1 70,5 73,5 74,6 75,1 +5
stockbreeding 29,9 29,5 26,5 25,4 24,9 -5
At the same time, such a decrease in the number of employees may mean a transition to a
more efficient system of production activity.
2.2 Analysis of production efficiency of agricultural business structures
Providing of effective production activity of agricultural business structures involves accord-
ance to scientifically substantiated level of use of production resources. One of the ways to
provide it is to reduce the cost of labor to execute production processes and control of target
using of labor time. The implementation of this strategy requires automation of processes
and the transition from labor to capital-intensive production. Compare the number of agricul-
tural employers per 1000 hectares of agrarian land and the proportion of the employed popu-
lation in different countries to determine the optimal number of workers in the agricultural
sector of Ukraine (fig. 3).
120 30
Share of employeed in agricultural
Number of employees in agriculture,
100 25
sector of the country, %
80 20
individuals/1000 ha
60 15
40 10
20 5
0 0
Countries
Number of employees in agriculture, individuals/1000 ha
Share of employed in agricultural sector of the country, %
Fig. 3. Employment level in agricultural sector of different countries, 2016
These data provide an opportunity to argue that agriculture of Ukraine is labor-intensive
in comparison with other considered countries of the world. For example, with the working
out of 1,000 hectares of agricultural land in the EU, the number of workers is twice as low as
in Ukraine, and in the USA this figure is five times smaller. At the same time, employs about
18% of the Ukrainian workable population are employed in agriculture, compared to 5% in
the EU and 2% in the USA. This means possibility to significantly reduce the labor produc-
tivity of the agricultural sector, increase its competitiveness if modern technology and the
necessary level of investment in Ukraine appear. A system of indicators was used to
evaluate the efficiency of agricultural production, including: cost 1 ts, sales volume,
price, profit on 1 ts and profitability level (table 4).
Table 4. Main production efficiency indexes of agricultural enterprises in Ukraine, 2016
Sales
Cost, Price, Profit, Profitability
Products volume,
UAH/quintal UAH/quintal UAH/quintal level, %
quintal
Wheat 146,2 6998047 187,2 41,0 28,0
Sunflower 281,9 3920759 384,7 102,8 36,5
Corn 140,1 14950106 176,8 36,7 26,2
Soybean 346,8 1363196 466,5 119,7 34,5
Barley 144,6 1349163 171,1 26,5 18,3
Rape 324,2 1061920 418,8 94,6 29,2
Poultry 1281,5 3102711 1084,5 −197,0 −15,4
Eggs, 503,2 644403 799,1 295,9 58,8
1000 pcs.
Pork 1747,7 303617 1845,9 98,2 5,6
Beef 2128,4 179518 1365,1 −763,3 −35,9
Milk 328,3 2760868 364,5 36,2 11,0
Among many instruments which are used for enterprises production efficiency
analysis one of the most common is production function. Production function is a
technical ratio between amount of resources used by producers and production vol-
ume on its basis. It is calculated at the macroeconomic level, where it shows aggre-
gate output dependence in monetary terms, and at microeconomic level. One of the
most popular type of production function is Cobb-Douglas function which in general
form can be written as [5]:
= , = (1)
where: A – coefficient which characterizes production efficiency, α і β – production
elasticity coefficients of capital K and labor L, which according to neoclassical theory
every production factor role in final output growth (or revenue share of relevant factor
in total income unit). In practical calculation the model should be converted into line-
ar-logarithmic:
= + + (2)
The equation of agricultural enterprises production function of the countries cal-
culated for 2005-2014 years and evaluated by least squares method in econometric
modelling environment Eviews (table 2 and table 3). Constructed regression models
show output (V) dependence from fixed assets value (K) and salary fund (L). Pro-
duction function calculation based on Ukrainian agricultural enterprises data creates
the following model:
= 0.88 ∗ + 0.39 ∗ − 4.12 (3)
where determination coefficient is (R2=0,986).
It allows to consider that production volume change caused by fixed assets value
and salary fund changes on 98,6%. Factors L=0,88 and K=0,39 together equal 1,27>1,
which shows high reproduction level with Labor factor dominant role in it. Calcula-
tions indicate that Ukrainian agricultural enterprises production is labor-intensive
which means lower competitiveness of their products on global market. It is necessary
to optimize agricultural production of Ukrainian enterprises to improve competitive-
ness of domestic crop and livestock production.
The construction of a relative indicator requires the transformation of absolute data
into relative indicators. There may be several ways of such a transformation, let's
consider the most popular: relatively average, relatively to norm or standard, relative-
ly to the scale of variation and relatively to the entire array. In addition, it is necessary
to define the weighting coefficients that allow following methodical techniques: cal-
culation of the matrix of coefficients for pair correlation, factor’s load and expert
estimates. Summarizing the experience of calculating integral indicators, we can offer
an algorithm for its construction in the form of the following sequence of steps: the
formation of feature’ set, standardization of indicators, justification of weighting
functions and aggregate of indicators.
Formation of a set of features involves defining the initial list of selected criteria of
the synthetic category that is being analyzed, as well as selecting methodology from
the list of individual criteria and statistical indicators that play a key role in the for-
mation of the integral indicator. The validity of the calculation process and the value
of the obtained data depend on the correctness of the hypothesis, on the basis of
which the criteria for the integral indicator is selected.
The evaluation criterion of production structure optimization was accepted integral
index of aggregate enterprise production efficiency (Іп), which was considered in
their works by such scientists as S. Shumskaya [14, 15] and U. Sayenko [16]. Me-
thodical approach of aggregate production efficiency determination on the test enter-
prise A data was constructed on three indicators that characterize economic, social
and environmental performance. According to investigation purpose, economic effi-
ciency most adequately described by profit value, social efficiency by average annual
employees number and ecological by used organic fertilizers amount. Integral index
value of aggregate test enterprise A efficiency was determined by formula:
!" = # $ + # $ + # $ (4)
where а1, а2, а3 – weight performance indicators coefficients which characterize
the influence of this partial indicators. The weight coefficients determined on the
basis of experts evaluations based on agricultural economy transformational changes
in 2000-2016 years.
х1, х2, х3 – graduated economic (profit), social (average annual employees number)
and environmental (organic fertilizers usage) performance indexes. The graduation of
the indicators calculated in relation to their average value (table 5). These coefficients
change annually, since technological efficiency is closely linked to natural conditions,
productive potential of land, technological characteristics of land, which is an im-
portant part of the cost of production and has influence on the profitability of an en-
terprise, and economic efficiency depends, for example, on market prices and tax
policy.
Table 5. Basic production performance indicators of test agricultural enterprise A
Years
Indica-
tors 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Statistical data
Profit, 809 130 3346 5571 2624 6333 3820 6543 8253 3384
thsd UAH
Average 334 296 221 250 288 254 222 229 171 165
annual
employees
number,
person
Organic 6186 5830 5580 4520 3890 5080 4632 4238 4523 4781
fertilizers
usage,
tons
Graduation (relative to average value)
Profit, 0,19 0,03 0,82 1,36 0,64 1,55 0,93 1,60 2,02 0,82
thsd. 8 2 0 5 3 2 6 3 2 9
UAH
Average 1,37 1,21 0,91 1,02 1,18 1,04 0,91 0,94 0,70 0,67
annual 5 8 0 9 5 5 4 2 4 9
employ-
ees num-
ber, per-
son
Organic 1,25 1,18 1,13 0,91 0,79 1,03 0,94 0,86 0,91 0,97
fertilizers 6 4 3 8 0 1 0 0 8 1
usage,
tons
Weight coefficients (experts evaluation)
Profit, 0,62 0,60 0,60 0,52 0,52 0,42 0,40 0,38 0,41 0,38
thsd. 3 4 3 4 3 5 0 6 2 7
UAH
Average 0,23 0,26 0,24 0,29 0,29 0,30 0,35 0,37 0,37 0,34
annual 6 5 9 4 4 7 9 7 7 3
employees
number,
person
Organic 0,14 0,13 0,14 0,18 0,17 0,21 0,22 0,23 0,26 0,27
fertilizers 1 1 8 2 0 6 3 7 1 0
usage,
tons
Methodical approach of total efficiency integral index in test enterprise A production was
built on three main factors, which characterize economic, social and environmental efficien-
cy. In the research it was found that economic efficiency most appropriate reflected by profit,
social efficiency – by average annual number of employers and environmental efficiency
characterized by organic fertilizers amount (fig. 4).
2,5
Normalized profit
value
2
Normalized average
1,5
annual employees
VALUE
number
1
Normalized organic
fertilizers amount
0,5
0 Integral indicator of
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020
the total efficiency
YEARS of the test
enterprise A
Fig 4. Aggregate efficiency integral index of test agricultural enterprise A production
Calculated integral index of aggregate enterprise production efficiency of test agri-
cultural enterprise A is increasing from 0,82 in 2015 year to 1,53 units in 2020 year
despite the fact that profit growth occurs at a lower rate from 0,83 to 1,15 units ac-
cordingly. Growth is caused by livestock increase and, as a result, new jobs creation
as well as organic fertilizers higher usage.
Integral indexes usage for production optimization effectiveness determination of
agricultural enterprises can become an important method of companies’ conditions
assessment in agricultural economy sphere because it allows to take under account at
the same time indicators which are expressed in different measuring units. Further
investigations should be performed towards database expanding for integral index
calculation and improvement of factors weight coefficients justification.
3 Conclusions
Offered calculations of the production function of Cobb-Douglas and the overall
integral indicator of total production efficiency make possibility to argue that the
agricultural business structures in Ukraine have opportunity to provide expanded
reproduction. At the same time, the factor of labor on the volume of production is
0.88 and is much higher than the influence of the factor of capital (0.39) that confirms
about labor-intensive reproduction process. This trend is confirmed by the forecast of
the integrated indicator by 2020 at the level of 1.53 units, which is explained by the
creation of new jobs and an increase of organic fertilizers. A rational combination of
economic, social and environmental efficiency will achieve a socially oriented
economy based on sustainable development of the agrarian sector.
The efficiency of agricultural businesses depends on the effective use of fixed
assets: land, labor and capital. A rational combination of these factors in the
production process contributes to the food security of Ukraine, in particular: ensuring
the physical and economic availability of food products, as well as the safety of its
consumption. At the same time, the formation of the optimal size and production
structure of agricultural enterprises is essential for ensuring food security of the
country. The optimal size of agricultural enterprises depends on the specialization of
the enterprise, available production resources, etc. The optimized production structure
should be formed taking into account market conditions. Optimization of the structure
and size of agricultural enterprises must be carried out taking into account the criteria
of optimality.
The criteria for the optimal production structure and size should include economic,
technological, social and environmental aspects of production efficiency. Economic
efficiency is the main because it generates resources for social and environmental
efficiency. The main indicators of economic efficiency are: the volume of gross out-
put, cost, the amount of gross and net income and profit, the rate of profit, the level of
profitability and others. Economic efficiency is closely linked to technological effi-
ciency, the main indicators of which are: yield of crops, livestock productivity,
productivity of employees, productivity of agricultural machinery, etc.
References
1. Ilchuk, M.: National Economic Development and Modernization: experience of Poland
and prospects for Ukraine. Baltija Publishing, Poland (2017).
2. Ilchuk, M., Konoval, І.: Methodical approaches to enterprise activity evaluation in the
agricultural sphere. Economy of APK 5, 51-58, Kyiv, Ukraine (2017).
3. Kvasha, S., Ilchuk, M., Konoval, І.: Economic justification of wheat production program in
Ukraine. Economy of APK 3, 16-25, Kyiv, Ukraine (2013).
4. Reznik, N.: International practice of investments in agrarian sector. Formation of market
relations in Ukraine 12, 65-67, Ukraine (2008).
5. Reznik, N.: Entrepreneurial firm: organizational aspect. Kyiv International University,
Kyiv, Ukraine (2016).
6. Lupenko, U., Kropyvko, M.: Agroholdings in Ukraine and their social orientation activities
intensification. Economy of APK 5, 5-21, Kyiv, Ukraine (2013).
7. Malik, M.: Competitiveness of agrarian enterprises: methodology and mechanisms. Insti-
tute of Agrarian Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine (2007).
8. Paskhaver, B.: Solvent food demand. Economy of APK 9, 51-61, Kyiv, Ukraine (2016).
9. Shubravska, O.: Agricultural production development in Ukraine: tasks and challenges.
Economy of APK 4, 5-12, Kyiv, Ukraine (2016).
10. Sen, A.: Collective Choice and Social Welfare: An Expanded Edition. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge (2017).
11. Mocherny, S.: Economic Encyclopedic Dictionary. World, Lviv, Ukraine (2006).
12. Borisov, A.: Big economic dictionary: economics, finance, accounting, taxes, insurance,
marketing, management. The Book World, Moscow, Russia (2010).
13. Azriliyan, A.: Big economic dictionary: 26500 terms. Institute of New Economy, Russia
(2008).
14. Shumskaya, S.: Peculiarities of construction and implementation of integral indicators in
international and Ukrainian practice. Economist, Ukraine (2006).
15. Shumskaya, S.: Production functions in economic analysis: theory and practice of usage.
Economics and forecasting 2(4), 104-123, (2007).
16. Sayenko, U.: Methodology and methods for the determination of integral social indicators.
NAS of Ukraine, Institute of Sociology, Kyiv, Ukraine (2004).
17. Ukraine state statistical service. Mode of access: http://ukrstat.org, last accessed
2018/03/01.