Introduction

The increased focus to the development of the agricultural sector in the Russian economics is explained not only by its growth in last 10-15 years, but also by increasing of its paces in a complicated situation, referred to the implementation of sanction restrictions, when GDP growth rates in Russia were being reduced in 2015-2016s. To a large extent it was stipulated by the agrarian reform in the beginning of 90s of the ХХ century [3, p. 59], the adoption of the Federal law “On the Agriculture Development” and of the State Program for the Agriculture Development and for the Regulation of Agrarian Markets of the Agricultural Production, Raw Materials and Foodstuffs [1, 2]. These documents determined forms and mechanisms of the state support of the branch. Besides that, the RF Government has implemented the retorsion for the import of foodstuffs from countries, who have initiated sanctions against the Russian economics. It caused the growth of the branch share in the national GDP, the unexpected Russia’s joining of world markets as a large scale foodstuffs’ exporter, the reduction of the gap between the import and export of the agricultural production, the reduction of the share of purchases of foreign foodstuffs. The branch has got a steady third place as to the volume of currency receipts from the export of the agricultural production to all levels of budgets, being the underdog only to the oil & gas sector of economics and exceeding incomes from sales of armaments and other key branches. If such trends are preserved, the agricultural area can in nearest 2-3 years achieve the positive balance of the export and import of the manufactured production.

With that the structure of the agrarian sector of the Russian economics is a far cry from the world practice. The structure of the agrarian sector of most world countries nowadays is prevailed by farmings, manufacturing the main share of the agricultural production. In Russia peasants’ farmings (PF) are being developing slowly, as already before reforms the agrarian sector structure was oriented to large scale agricultural organizations (AS) in the form of agroholdings. It resulted in an abnormal situation, when the production of basic volumes of the agricultural production is concentrated in groups of households with opposite sizes. So, the considerable share of the production (about 35%) is provided by small scale private farm holdings (PFH) of the population. Anyway, the production share of large scale agroholdings exceeds 53%. There is a big gap between these groups of householdings, which in the nearest future should be filled by the growth the agricultural production in PF. There is also large scale agricultural production in USA, but volumes of the manufactured production are almost evenly distributed between households of different sizes. With that up to 28% of the manufactured production falls on farmings.

Purpose of studies

The main purpose of these studies is to substantiate possibilities for the interaction of agroholdings and farmings, while preserving modern rates of development of the agricultural branch in Russia.

Маterials and methods

The importance of the agricultural branch in the economics of the country used to be and remains a very important one, as it provides for the occupation of about 10% of the population and its share in GDP keeps growing steadily even under the unfavorable influence of sanction restrictions. This circumstance witnesses the high stability of the agriculture provided unfavorable conditions of the development of Russian economics.

In last decades it is typical for many world countries to reduce the agricultural share in the GDP structure. In Russia during years 2002 — 2012 this share has been reduced from 6,5% tо 3,5%, accordingly. Anyway, starting from the year 2013, it has been growing and the growth till 2016 achieved 4,5%. So, the agricultural branch can be considered as some kind of support for the development of the country economics in unfavorable periods. So, in terms of sanction restrictions, the GDP is being reduced and agricultural share in GDP is being growing, as the development of this branch does not slow down so materially as the one of whole economics.

Main indices, characterizing the branch status, are given in the table 1 [6].

Таble 1

Place of the agricultural branch in the national economic

With that disproportions in the structure of agricultural enterprises can be a serious threat for the preservation of modern positive trends of its development. Nowadays three kinds of householdings are highlighted in the agricultural area: agricultural organizations (AS), comprising large scale agroholdings, peasant’s farmings, including individual entrepreneurs (PF); small scale personal farming householdings (PFH) of the population. Though it is customary to refer AS to large scale householdings, its most part (84,2%) соmprises representatives of the small business, though only 4,7% falls on representatives of the large scale business (see table 2 [4]).

Within reforms’ period the importance of such types of householdings has been changed drastically. The share of AS gross output in last 90s has been reduced and started to grow slowly in first decades of the XXI century. Otherwise, changes of the population PFH share have got the opposite directivity. The share of the gross PF production within this period has been stably growing, anyway its growth rate have not been considerable. Trends of growth of the production share in AS and PF and of the reduction of the production share in PFH have been designated after 2010 (see table 3 [6]).

Таble 2

Characteristics of organizations by kinds of business entities (according to the number of employees)

Source: grouping by the data base of the Ministry of Agriculture by AS.

Таble 3

Share of manufactured production by types of householdings, %

Меanwhile the preservation of the orientation to the small number of large scale AS considerably increases risks of the provision of the country population supply with foodstuffs, while observing its quality and required production volumes. In fact the supply with foodstuffs is contingent on production activities of agroholdings and in order to prevent breaches in supplies of foodstuffs it needs favorable conditions by different forms of the state support.

Anyway, as the business enlarges, the production loses its efficiency for the whole range of reasons. As most important let’s highlight such reasons as:

— growth of the number of subsidiaries and branches with the increased number of managing employees and workers, which purposes of activities far from always meet goals of business owners, what makes it necessary to reinforce the control, i.e., to involve new employees, not engaged in the direct production;

— the development of the small scale business is considerably restricted in territories of location of agroholdings and its branches;

— large scale agroholdings and its branches considerably increase the environmental load in the territory of its location;

— large scale agroholdigns and its branches are characterized by the high production concentration only in several settlements, what worsens terms of development of the agricultural production in  other settlements and causes its degradation.

There are also enough problems with the manufacturing of the agricultural production in public PFH. As a rule, householdings of this type apply obsolete technologies and inputs, there are considerable difficulties with production supplies to vertical foodstuffs chains, which are mainly owned by the large scale business. The workforce productivity in the public PFH in 2015 was 5 times lower in comparison with equivalent indices for AS and PF.

AS and PF are mainly engaged in such trends of agricultural production as cereal and oil crops, sugar beet, pig farming, poultry farming etc. As such types of householdings have got most productive sorts of plants and animals, its production capacity and quality would not disgrace foreign competitors in both internal and external markets.

The situation is quite different in such trends of the manufacturing of the agricultural production, on which public PFH are being specialized. To such is referred the production of potatoes, vegetables and fruits etc. As public PFH use obsolete technologies, technique and equipment, it also has got rather low labor efficiency. As a result it cannot compete with large scale manufacturers and have to maintain the extensive production due to the large number of such kinds of householdings. For trends of the agricultural production, on which the public PFH is specialized, problems of satisfaction of needs for volumes of production, import substitution and joining world markets are not still solved. Moreover, if the modern trend of the agricultural development is preserved, the share of the popular PFH in the production manufacturing till 2024 will be reduced by 31%.

The determining role in the growth of rates of the agricultural production is dues to its state level support, which provided for the involvement of investment resources, necessary for the branch modernization. Positive dynamics of the agricultural growth was provided at the expense of provision of subsidies for investment credits, leasing schedules for the purchase of the new technique and equipment, reimbursement of expenses for the purchase of elite seeds and cattle. Anyway, such privileges have been provided to the small amount of large scale AS in the form of agroholdings, as the majority of small scale and middle scale enterprises have not received such a support. The purpose of the implementation of such policy is to drive from the market the considerable number of manufacturers of the agricultural production. The consequence can be the development of the agriculture on restricted territories, loss of a part of agricultural lands, reduction of labor resources. Меanwhile, the strategy of the agriculture development should be based on the creation of conditions for the fuller use of the potential of all types of householdings, manufacturing the agricultural production.

Results and discussion

In Russia agroholdings and agricultural companies are consolidated in AS and its branches of different scale. Sometimes one AS with branches is being formed. The data on the number of employees and sizes of lands, falling averagely on one AS, аs well as on the gain amount (see table 4 [4]) are of interest. The table shows that the basic share of AS  61% has got the gain up to 30 mln rub. per year. These householdings are manufacturing in total 4,4% of the agricultural production, but it do not encumber of budget of state and creditors, as these householdings form only 7,4% of the debt, falling on all AS. On the contrary, large scale agroholdings, which share is less than 2%, produce the maximal volume of the agricultural production — 46,5%, but also form the maximal debt amount among all AS — 45,4%.

Таble 4

Grouping of AS by key indices, 2015

Source: grouping by the data base of the Ministry of Agriculture by AS

Large scale agroholdings possess hundred thousands ha of lands providing the occupation for more than 20000 employees. 13 аgroholdings, possessing of more than 300 thousand ha of AS lands (about 3%), employ 4% of agricultural employees, manufacturing more than 8% of the whole production. The obvious discrepancy between the area, number of employees and the gain is determined by the presence within largest agroholdings of AS with intensive production, not requiring huge areas (poultry plants and pig complexes). Anyway, the production scale increases the business efficiency only to some extent: at the moment the profitability ratio in the agriculture is being increased along the growth of the area of AS lands to 7-10 thousands ha, and with the following growth of lands’ area it is being decreased (see table 5 [6]).

Таble 5

Scale effect in AS activities

The accounting of increasing threats for the stable provision of the country population with foodstuffs, provided the high concentration of the agricultural production in several large scale agroholdings, as well as the impact of sanction restrictions, revealed the need for the reconsideration of existing approaches to the state support of AS and to principles of its formation. In modern terms the state support of AS should not stimulate the following enlargement of large scale agroholdings, but to re-orient to the creation of equal terms for hundred thousands of smaller manufacturing householdings, mainly to PF. It has got quite a simple explanation, as the transfer to the market in almost all post-socialist countries caused the considerable reduction of the public PFH and the rapid development of PF. If the trend is preserved in Russia, then the share of production, manufactured in the public PFH, will be reduced till 2024 up to 31%, аnd till 2035  by 20%.

The reduction of production in the public PFH should be considered at the development of the strategy of the agriculture development. In other words it should be compensated by the agricultural production growth in AS and PF. Only this term will allow the country not to lose the considerable part of the agricultural production. With that the stimulation of the manufacturing of the agricultural production in the PF will be especially topical. With that this issue should be solved, first of all, with the participation of large scale agroholdings, which are to create conditions for the manufacturing of the PF production according to modern technologies, allowing to generate typical batches of high quality foodstuffs and to build it in foodstuffs chains. Dissipated land, labor and other public PFH resources can be used with maximal efficiency in the PF, which are lately being more and more actively developing in our country.

PF in the modern Russia started actually revitalizing in 80-90s of the past century. Most farmers started to establish its households from zero. Till the present time this process is being developing at very low paces, notwithstanding the fact, that PF have got such decided competitive advantage as the maximal motivation to work, as the farmer is simultaneously both the owner, the master and the main employee. It is based on the life of the own land, use of the technique in his/her work, work for the benefit of his/her family.

Nowadays PF are the most dynamically developing structural formation in the Russian agriculture. It can be confirmed by the statistic data for the Moscow region, given in the table 6 [5, 7].

Таble 6

Dynamics of the agricultural production in the Moscow region by types of householdings, in mln rub.

The PF development becomes of the first priority first of all because of the impact of sanction restrictions, which nobody is going to cancel, and, secondly, due to the implementation by our country of сounter-sanctions, and, first of all, of the food import embargo for supplies of the imported foodstuffs and agricultural production. It has caused the need for the whole reconsideration of the agriculture development policy, for the stimulation of the target state support of its key sectors, the reorientation of activities of economic entities to new forms and models, as well as in the part of PF development. The uniqueness and the novelty of the situation, taking place in the Russian agriculture, assume the possibility of the transformation of the impact of sanction restrictions in positive trends of development of the agricultural branch. It manifest itself in the mutually beneficial cooperation of agroholdings and PF with the simultaneous increase of its participation in the provision of large scale foodstuffs manufacturers with good quality raw material resources and the and in the solving of such problem as the provision of the foodstuffs security at both the regional and the national level.

Basing on the example of the Moscow region, not only the growth of PF should be highlighted, but also the increase of qualitative characteristics of its activities. With that most intensively are being developed PF, which managed to successfully join agricultural clusters and to organize the successful cooperation with heading agroholdings. The stable sales market of the manufactured production allows agroholdings to carry out target investments, oriented to the support of small scale manufacturers in person of PF. So, the organization of the mutual cooperation is of benefit to all members, namely: аgroholdings become guaranteed consumers of the production and raw materials resources, manufactured by PF, and on the each new workspace in the agroholding falls 6-8  workplaces in PF, being members of agricultural clusters; in the cooperation with agroholdings PF receives the investment and technical support at the expense of provision of interest-free loans, advance payment, as well as the purchase of the technique and equipment.

Provided the substantiated and correctly implemented economic policy of the development of the agricultural branch the organization of the cooperation between agroholdings and PF will provide for the future reinforcement of its financial stability, for the saturation of regional markets with quality foodstuffs, the development of the clean agricultural production, as well as of the whole branch. The recent history of the development of the PF in Russia shows that in order to provide the complete foodstuffs safety of the country and its regions the economic policy in the field of agriculture should be re-oriented to the organization of mutual cooperation between large scale agroholdings and PF within frames of specialized agricultural clusters.

Conclusion

Following opinions can be made on the basis of results, obtained in the course of studies.

1. Notwithstanding the impact of sanction restrictions, the agriculture, as a branch of Russian economics, in last 3-4 years is characterized by stable trends of the production growth in the majority of fields, what promotes the fast implementation of the strategy of the import substitution for supplies of foreign foodstuffs.
2. The implementation of the foodstuffs embargo, as of point-based measures of the state support, first of all, large scale manufacturers of the agricultural production, allowed the agricultural branch to almost completely drop the need for the purchase of foreign foodstuffs, as well as to become a leader in several trends of its export.
3. With that there is an obvious disproportion in the organizational structure of the branch, when the most part of production is manufactured by the limited number of large scale manufacturers – аgroholdings, what considerably enhances risks of the full-scale provision of the foodstuffs safety of both several regions and the whole country.
4. Such a situation caused the need for the complete reconsideration of the policy of the agricultural development, of the stimulation of the target state support of of its key sectors, of the re-orientation of activities of economic entities to new forms and models, as well as in the part of the PF development.
5. Were revealed advantages and preferences of the organization of the cooperation between large scale agroholdings and smaller PF, which should serve as basis for the formation of the economic policy for the agricultural development for the foreseeable future.
6. Till the present time the PF potential has not been fully implemented. The PF development is going slowly. The attitude to PF as to the sector, determining the future the intensification of the development of the whole branch of agriculture on the basis of the implementation of innovative technologies in management and production, is not supported at the level of provisions of the state economic policy. Volumes of the financial support, provided to PF from the state, are rather insufficient, moreover, most PF just are not able to obtain such a support.