Forms of Ownership
University of International Business
Term paperby subject Management
“ Forms of Ownership ”
Property and socio-economic dealingss. The theory of belongings rights.
1.1 The history of the ownership and development of its signifiers.
1.2 Property as an economic class.
1.3 The theory of belongings rights.
Forms of ownership and their categorization.
3.1 Change of ownership is an indispensable status for the formation of the market.
3.2 Ownership in passage economic systems
The belongings is among the most of import and complicated jobs of economic sciences and economic theory. History of economic life during periods of increased societal activity tends to redistribute objects and belongings rights. Economy is chiefly farming. But, where is the economic system, there should be a maestro. Each economic entity, every resource, every merchandise must hold its maestro. From an economic point of position the maestro is a individual who induces an object in the economic procedures, seeking to utilize it in the best manner to pull out more value from it. Where there is an economic activity, there is ever a job of ownership. Property dealingss permeate the full system of economic dealingss and escort the adult male from the minute of his birth to go forthing in another universe. Everywhere we invariably come upon one common cardinal inquiry: Who owns the economic power, who assigns the material conditions of human being, the proprietor of the land, mills, and religious wealth?
The societal nature of these dealingss is an look inherent to the society in the economic dealingss of belongings. Today we are ready to action the province, which has assigned and squandered our labour nest eggs, does non pay us rewards, pensions. In this regard civilisation has non moved far from the carnal universe, where everyone defends their environment, claims a peculiar “ piece ” or district. It is recognized that the inquiry of ownership is likely one of the most of import issues finding the coevals, the being and the development of human society. On how and by whom it was raised, addressed and regulated in a given clip, including the present historical period, the sustainability, prosperity, and frequently the really being of any society for that affair, and each single member of society depend.
Factor of restricting the life of wealth and economic resources requires non merely a certain order of their distribution, but besides set uping some regulations of control over them. Concluding goods and economic resources, if limited, can non be every bit accessible for disposal, usage by perfectly all members of society. If this were so, so the society would come into muss.
Equally shortly as the adult male has picked up a stick, it becomes non merely an instrument of labour, but besides in his private nine, his belongings. Weapons defence and onslaught, objects of labour, fire, shelter, vesture, and family goods bit by bit go into ownership of an person or a group, or a folk.
Ownership is guaranting the right to command economic resources and life benefits for the set of economic histrions. In families, there is a point of position that belongings is the relationship between the adult male and his ownerships, control over it. Aspirations of a adult male to belongings ownership are considered at the same clip as a born inherent aptitude. However, in economics the laterality of the societal, and non natural, footing of belongings is progressively recognized. And in this sense we can, to some extent, acknowledge the blessing P. Proudhon: “ Property is a larceny ” – because no 1 would reason that if one individual is the proprietor of the thing, so others are denied the chance to hold it in their ownership.
In every historical era, belongings as an economic class reflects the full system of socio-economic dealingss. Forms of ownership and its fluctuations correspond to the predominating socio-economic system at all degrees. The issue of ownership is highly many-sided and with each new phase of development of economic thought new facets of this job are discovered.
So, do we necessitate private belongings or non? We can non answer this inquiry immediately, we need to understand in more item the advantages and disadvantages of different signifiers of ownership. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to analyze, reappraisal and analyze ownership construction: its societal, legal and economic facets ; every bit good as analyzing diverse signifiers of ownership, chiefly private and public, as the chief signifier of ownership ; analysis of belongings development and interaction of public and private belongings.
Chapter 1. Property AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC RELATIONS. THEORY OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
1.1 The history of the ownership and development of its signifiers
Property as an economic relation is formed at the morning creative activity of the human society. Labor and its division between persons, folks have a important influence on the outgrowth and development of signifiers of belongings. Possession of agencies of production has become one of the finding conditions of life, and production of necessary agencies of being. At the same clip, productive work made it possible to obtain economic merchandise to a greater extent than was necessary to guarantee the simplest necessities of life of the period. There is accretion of the belongings ; its type emerges in the signifier of wealth.
The outgrowth of the rich and hapless, the desire to spread out their retentions generate a war for ownership of the districts, wealth, belongings, belongings Begins to go through from manus to manus. Turning populations have more and more land, natural resources, engaged in production. As a consequence, all that is available to the adult male is segregated, captured, appropriated, divided, i.e. becomes the belongings.
The outgrowth of provinces contributed to the birth of public belongings. In this manner the diverseness of ownership in the signifier of personal, household, tribal, province was developed. Tribal, and so the inter-state wars, capturing and heritage of wealth gave birth to the ugliest signifiers of belongings – bondage and serfhood, the objects of which are people.
In the epoch of feudal system subsistence is tightly bound by ties of land ownership, means of productions, and the cowss to the having feudal Godhead. Under capitalist economy, the agencies of production becomes the belongings of the proprietor of capital. Private belongings flowers, the relationship between topics and objects of ownership progressively divide into the ownership, disposal and usage. In the hereafter, private belongings is modified. There is a joint-stock signifier of ownership. Along with the ownership of land, natural resources, edifices, equipment and other existent estate belongings, the function of gold and gems, hard currency, securities invariably increases. The jobs of rational belongings on a religious merchandise, and ownership of information emerge.
The on-going revolutions in certain states transform, convert signifiers and belongings dealingss. In peculiar, the socialist revolutions try to get rid of the private ownership of agencies of production, replacing it with the populace, province. But an economic system based on the overpowering laterality of province belongings is uneffective. As a consequence, the modern economic universe that has become fundamentally the universe market economic system is based on private belongings and on the feasibleness of coexistence of different signifiers of ownership.
1.2 Property as an economic class
Representations of the belongings have been organizing in scientific discipline and life for 1000s of old ages, while ownership has become, above all, the official mark of legal establishments and doctrine. For a long clip the belongings as a particular societal relationship was the immediate object of jurisprudence ( particularly civil jurisprudence ) , but with the farther development of societal production the belongings along with legal became besides the finding economic class. The construct of belongings dealingss includes on one manus relation of an proprietor to their properties, i.e. belongings relationship between topic and object. The topic of belongings ( the proprietor ) is the active side of belongings dealingss, holding objects of belongings, possessing, commanding and utilizing them. It should be noted that the belongings can non be subjectless. As to the orphan objects, things that did non hold or hold lost their proprietor, so they cease to be belongings.
The object of ownership is a inactive side of belongings dealingss in the signifier of objects of nature, affair, energy, information, ownerships, religious, rational belongings, entirely or in some grade belonging to the proprietor. Often the object of belongings is called merely the belongings.
In fact, belongings can non be imagined without persons or groups sing their specific things, conditions and merchandises of production as theirs, and others as belonging to aliens. From that it evidently follows that the belongings is the person ‘s attitude to things. In this instance, since this is the attitude of different people to the same concrete thing, so there is grounds of ownership as the relationship between persons about things. Bing lawfully settled by province, they take the signifier of ownership, which include the authorization of the proprietor to possess, usage and dispose of belongings. In the more complete definition of the deployment of belongings as an economic class, assorted economic experts used different inactive or dynamic bases in this class, its chief manifestations in the mundane pattern, its category and historical character and so on. From my point of position, the most functional thing to make, in footings of the present survey, is to find the proprietor of the thing through the chief manifestations of the economic domination: the ownership, usage, and disposal.
In the most general signifier the ownership can be defined as the relationship between economic agents sing the ascription of economic resources and consumer goods. Besides in the most general footings we can state that the appropriation of economic resources is the primary determiner in respect to the appropriation of consumer goods. Consequently, in any society or any state the rich and hapless stratification of the population stems chiefly on the different attitudes to economic resources as belonging to one or others.
It is possible to understand the kernel of belongings, if we consider it in concurrence with all other economic dealingss of society: the production, distribution, exchange and ingestion of goods. It is precisely the belongings that to the full reflects the socio-economic character of the era. All bing economic systems differ in their attitude, particularly in the ownership of the agencies of production. There are several historic belongings types, characterized by different methods of linking the manufacturer and the agencies of production and distribution of merchandises of the societal merchandise among the members of society. It is accepted to separate the primitive, slave, feudal and capitalist types of belongings. Until late, the socialist type of belongings was besides highlighted, for which, seemingly, there were non sufficient evidences. Socialism really was built in none of the states that were one time portion of the socialist community. Direct manufacturers in these states were still exploited, the reunion of the agencies of production with production workers in fact did non happen. The type of belongings under totalitarian government ( sometimes overtly, but in many instances disguised ) that appeared in these states, elaborately combined the features peculiar to ownership types of earlier ages and now bing.
Therefore, the belongings as an economic class is defined as the relation of persons or community of persons to things as belonging to them, which is expressed in the ownership, the usage and the disposal of belongings, every bit good as in turn toing the impact of all other histrions in the domain of economic domination, into which the power of the proprietor extends, that is to state, the public attitudes on the ownership, control and disposal of the thing.
1.3 The theory of belongings rights
In a society with the province legal construction the economic dealingss of belongings necessarily receive legal consolidation. This is expressed either as a system of legal regulations regulating these dealingss and the Institute of ownership, or in procuring some step of legal authorization for a specific individual who is the proprietor of the thing. In the first instance we speak of ownership in the nonsubjective sense, in the 2nd sense we speak of the subjective sense or of the subjective ownership.
Ronald Coase was at the root of belongings rights. Harmonizing to his theory: “ the belongings is non resources, non factors of production, and but a set of rights or portion of rights to utilize resources. ” Contentss of belongings rights comprise, belonging to the proprietor, authorization to have, usage and dispose of the thing. These powers, every bit good as the subjective right of belongings in general, represent lawfully back uping behavior capablenesss of the proprietor ; they belong to him every bit long as he remains the proprietor. In instances where the proprietor is unable to efficaciously exert these powers, such as the apprehension of its belongings for the debts or where the belongings unlawfully was held by another individual, he does non lose either the powers themselves or the belongings rights in general. To unwrap the content of belongings rights, it is necessary to specify each of the powers belonging to the proprietor. Let ‘s start with ownership.
Competence of ownership is the lawfully backed possibility of economic domination of the proprietor of the thing. It concerns the economic rule over the thing, which does non necessitate that the proprietor is in direct contact with it. For illustration, go forthing on a long trip, the proprietor remains the proprietor of his flat and the properties located in it.
Possession of a thing may be illegal. By jurisprudence ownership is called legal, if it is based on any legal footing, i.e. the legal rubric of ownership. Legal ownership is frequently referred to as holding rubric. Illegal ownership can non hold a legal footing, so it has a rubric. Thingss, as a general regulation, are in the ownership of those who have a right to have them. This circumstance makes it possible in differences over things to utilize the given of legality of existent ownership. In other words, one who has the thing is expected to be entitled to its ownership until proved otherwise. Illegal proprietors in bend are subdivided into honest and dishonest. The proprietor is painstaking, if he neither knew nor should hold known of the illegality of his ownership. Owner is unscrupulous, if he knew about it or should hold known. In conformity with the general given of conscientiousness people take parting in civil rights and duties, we should move upon the premise of good conscientious of the proprietor.
The division of the illegal proprietors in those with painstaking and without is of import in colonies between proprietors about the income and outgo, when the proprietor claims his thing by the tribunal claim, every bit good as in make up one’s minding whether the proprietor can purchase belongings right of ownership by prescription or non.
Competence to utilize is the lawfully backed possibility of pull outing utile belongingss from things in its personal or industrial usage and for production intents. For illustration, a sewing machine can be used for vesture non merely for one & # 8217 ; s ain household, but besides on the side for a fee. Competence to utilize is normally based on the entitlement of ownership. But sometimes you can utilize the thing, and non having it. For illustration, musical instruments rental studio delivers instruments for rent with the status that tool usage occurs indoor of the studio, for illustration, at certain hours and yearss. The same is true when utilizing the slot machines.
Competence of orders is the lawfully secured possibility to find the destiny of things by doing the legal Acts of the Apostless in regard of the thing. There is no uncertainty that in instances when the proprietor sells his thing, lends it, pledges it, transfers it as a part to a concern entity or partnership or as a contribution to the charity fund, it carries out the disposal of the thing. It is significantly more hard to lawfully qualify the actions of the proprietor in regard to things when he or she destroys the thing that has become useless to him or her, or throws it, or when a thing is by its belongingss designed for usage in merely one act of production or ingestion. If the proprietor deletes something or throws it, he disposes of a thing by doing nonreversible trade, because the will of the proprietor is directed for forsaking of belongings rights. But if the ownership is terminated as a consequence of single-use of the point, the will of the proprietor is non directed towards the expiration of the right of ownership, but towards pull outing utile belongingss out of the things. Therefore, in this instance there is an exercising merely of the right to utilize the thing, but non the right to dispose it.
Disclosure of the content of belongings rights is non completed by specifying powers belonging to the proprietor. The fact is that the powers of the same name may belong non merely to the proprietor, but to another individual, including the carrier of the economic direction right or of the life inheritable ownership right. It is hence necessary to place a specific trait that is built-in to the specified competency precisely as authorization of the proprietor. It is in the fact that the proprietor uses the powers vested in him at its discretion. As to the belongings rights, the exercising of the right at discretion including disposal means that the power ( the will ) of the proprietor is based straight on the jurisprudence and exists independently of the governments of all other individuals in regard of the same things. Governments of all other individuals are non merely based on the jurisprudence, but besides are dependent on the authorization of the proprietor, affected by it. Ownership has the belongings of snap. This means that it has an built-in ability to retrieve in the same volume every bit shortly as the connexions of restrictions no longer be.
Ownership is among the sole rights. This means that the proprietor is entitled to except the impact of all 3rd parties to the belonging-to-him range of economic domination, including through the steps of self-defence. This, nevertheless, does non intend that the power of ownership over properties is unbounded. In conformity with the allowable push of civil ordinance, the proprietor can really execute, with regard to his belongings, any action, but non contrary to the Torahs and other legal Acts of the Apostless. The proprietor is obliged to take steps to forestall injury to the wellness of citizens and the environment, which may be caused in the exercising of his rights. He must forbear from behavior which brings anxiousness to his neighbours and others, and particularly from the actions perpetrated entirely with the purpose to do person injury. The proprietor besides has the duty, on the footings and conditions and within the bounds prescribed by jurisprudence and other legal Acts of the Apostless, to let limited usage of his belongings by others. These fortunes must be considered in explicating a common definition of belongings rights. Finally, giving the definition of belongings rights should be based on a common definition of subjective civil right, which extends to the right of ownership.
As for the right of belongings this general definition should be elaborated taking into history the specific traits built-in to the right of ownership. The intent of the usage of any belongings right is to obtain economic benefit. In jurisprudence the basic rights of belongings are complemented by a figure of commissariats that reinforce and develop those rights, it is the right of heritage, the indefinite ownership, reception of income from the usage of goods belonging to the societal protection system, etc.
Chapter 2. OWNERSHIP FORMS AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION.
Ownership is called its type that is characterized, above all, by who is the proprietor. Ownership type determines the individuality of assorted objects of belongings to the topic of a individual incorporate nature, say, a individual, household, group, squad, people. We can non understand the economic system, if we do non larn how to sort the belongings. That is, we must be able to administer the dealingss of categories and delegate them to subordinate species, specific signifiers, depending on their common features. Classification assignment is mostly hampered by the fact that there are two types of belongings dealingss – in the economic and legal sense. Hence, there are two distinguishable evidences for categorization.
The footing for the categorization of belongings in its economic sense is the grade of cooperation of labour and production. This trial shows how many people are united in the procedure of labour and during the procedure appropriate financess and the consequences of production. Therefore, the existent belongings socialisation degree is determined. In its range socialized production has three chief degrees:
1 ) the lowest degree – one-person assignment ( little endeavor, on which one individual or his household are based ) ;
2 ) the mean graduated table of socialisation ( more or less a big endeavor or concern association, which is united under the work of many people ) ;
3 ) the highest degree – a national composite ( labour is cooperated in the national graduated table ) .
Categorization of belongings in the legal sense is grounded in different sorts of powers of the proprietors and the character of the belongings. The following are different: the nature of ascription and the relationship between belongings proprietors and non proprietors ;
1 ) the ability or inability to freely portion the common belongings among single proprietors at their discretion.
Sometimes the signifier of ownership in general is reduced to two types: private and public, to ease their consideration and survey. In visible radiation of the above Lashkar-e-Taiba & # 8217 ; s dressed ore on the three signifiers of ownership, which on the one manus have received broad acknowledgment in scientific discipline, but on the other manus are among the most common.
In the huge bulk of states private ownership is now predominating in changing grades. The usage of private belongings is one of the basic elements of a assorted economic system. Much of the capital is in private owned. Private ownership of capital, produced goods and services, and the received grosss are indispensable to back up the free endeavor system. Property is called private, in relation to which the proprietor is personified, isolated as an person. Private ownership requires a certain rejection of others, non related to the figure of proprietors ; it requires the right of control over certain objects – capital, land, income, concluding goods, etc. All of those are personalized and have concrete proprietors. In other words, belongings is considered private if the right to it belongs either to one individual or a comparatively little group of people, each of which has a partnering proprietor, has his or her personal portion of the belongings.
Private belongings belongs merely to persons. A fluctuation is a private single ownership. Individual, private houses, which form a legal entity, are little and are represented in a few sectors: handcrafts and agricultural production, services of all sorts, including the most modern, such as confer withing. Their proprietors are either one individual or a little figure of persons ; the natural work ( one individual or household, as it takes topographic point on farms in the countryside ) prevails, but in add-on thereto paid employment may be applied. Worldwide, there are several hundred million such families, but they are characterized by a immense rotary motion: every twelvemonth a big figure of such houses go belly-up and are liquidated, but replaced
with new 1s. Besides little houses, single private belongings class includes used-for-income belongings objects of single enterprisers ( little bargainers, craftsmans and broad professions ) , working on the relevant declaration ( patents, licences ) from the governments and non organizing a legal entity. Intermediate place between the private and public ownership is common belongings of a figure of topics. Common belongings is divided into a joint and shared. The common joint belongings is owned by all the proprietors together and non divided between them to pieces. The common portion ownership is divided into portions, parts. In co-ops, societies the portion of each proprietor is called eral resources. In many instances, shared ownership extends merely to the value of ownership belongings, it gives the right to take part in the direction of the topic, but the proprietor can non retreat their portion in touchable, physical signifier, pick up “ a piece ” .
Common portion ownership is hard to separate from the private ; the boundary between them is blurred. For illustration, stock ownership can be considered both private and normally shared, as the stockholder contributes its portion to the capital of stock company. Stock ownership is besides called the corporate as it is the belongings of a individual corporation. Corporative endeavors exist wherever the technological base of an industry involves formation of medium or large-scale production, which requires big sums of capital. These companies exist in the signifier of companies ( corporations and limited liability companies ) , partnerships ( complete, in religion, and others ) , co-ops, non-profit organisations ( foundations, associations ) . The topics of common belongings can be any belongings proprietors, including the province. If the proprietor separates their portion of the common belongings, it becomes private belongings.
The common belongings understood in the broadest sense extends from the narrow sectional to province belongings. The topic of belongings as an person is non stressed in public belongings, and belongings rights apply to all citizens. At the same clip, it would be inappropriate to presume that in the public belongings ( sometimes called societal ) the person as an proprietor does non look. State belongings is something that belongs to all, together and individually, i.e. every member of society at least to some minimum but to some extent has the rights of the proprietor. Often, public belongings is identified with the province that is non rather right.
The overall, including the national, belongings is sometimes divided on a territorial footing. In that instance, those signifiers of ownership are distinguished as a regional ( territorial ) and municipal ( local ) . Separation of those signifiers of ownership emphasizes the fact that the belongings to a certain extent is managed by the governments of the district, say, the municipality. Municipal belongings adjoins straight to the populace, which, nevertheless, in the West, and in Kazakhstan is qualified as differing by the province. Nevertheless, in its economic nature, they are related to each other. The lone difference is that municipal ownership is linked with the budget of the lower degree and operates in geographically limited countries of national economic system ; ownership of a part does non widen to the full state.
State ownership is guaranting for the province the right to command objects. State ownership in the developed capitalist states today is concentrated in a really limited scope of industries, which for one ground or another are low net income or even unprofitable, which makes them unattractive to private capital. These are chiefly the socio-economic substructure ( railroads, public-service corporations, instruction ) . In other industries there is merely “ point ” of province engagement in the signifier of bets in companies. The norm for developed states of the portion of public endeavors in the creative activity of GDP does non transcend 7 % . In developing states and states with passage economic systems, the figure is 11 and over 40 % . Companies that referred to as the province company, either are entirely owned or the province owns a commanding interest ( or at least, has a solid blocking minority ) . Legally the proprietors in federal provinces are the federal land bureaus ( such as the land of Germany or U.S. provinces ) , and in unitary provinces the proprietors are the relevant cardinal and regional establishments.
Companies and establishments ( e.g. educational or wellness ) in which the province participates at a degree below a blocking minority could be called assorted.
In states with a federal system the authorities belongings is divided into federal and sub-national, i.e. it is the belongings parts, topics of the federation.
To clearly separate between the province and public belongings is hard. The objects of public belongings, logically, should be good, by and large available to all citizens on an equal footing, such as vacant land, H2O and river infinites, public Parkss and beaches, woods. If the possibility of utilizing them by all the people is limited, so there is the rule of precedence applied. And such topographic points as menagerie, nature militias, which are administered by province authoritiess, every bit good as are already in province ownership, every bit good as province endeavors, establishments, the chief types of natural resources, defence installations.
Now let & # 8217 ; s turn the of import inquiry: which of the considered signifiers of ownership is better? Normally this inquiry is in the signifier of a quandary: public or private belongings? In fact, such an alternate preparation of the inquiry is counterproductive. It should travel about happening the most rational, optimum combination of both signifiers. Standard for rating can be merely one: what sort of belongings in a given historical minute and in longer term, offers higher degree demands satisfaction of the population, while taking into history the indexs of life quality. From the combination of these standards, penchant should be given to private belongings, which is now the nucleus of the developed market economic systems of the West. To make merely such an economic system, developing and former socialist states are endeavoring. It contains the net income motivation and competition, the realisation of which brings the highest economic efficiency and better meets the demands. However, private ownership has its drawbacks, particularly sing employment and unemployment. After all, the net income motivation and competition is coercing concerns invariably to seek possibly a greater decrease in production costs, including economic system in labour force. In Western states, a moving ridge of denationalization in the 80 ‘s, the first half of the 90 ‘s led to a decrease in the proportion of province ownership in the production of GDP from 9 am to 7 % on norm, that means get the better ofing the bequest of the prewar and early postwar old ages. In the 30-ies province ‘s direct engagement in the economic system expanded in the procedure of get the better ofing the deepest crisis in the history of capitalist economy of 1929 – 1933 old ages. State ownership in the prewar old ages in most Western states was significantly strengthened as a kind of “ backup ” of private endeavors, that had revealed the consecutive failings, and as an instrument of keeping the strength of the societal system. In the late 40 ‘s – 50 ‘s in Western Europe and Japan, private capital was temporarily weakened by war harm and certain other fortunes. Such a spread as a demand occurred was filled by the province, what is now non necessary.
The potency for farther denationalization in the Western states has mostly been exhausted. The province portion in it, at least in the medium term, will stay about at current degrees with little alterations in some states. However, in some instances to cover with the possible visual aspect of unemployment, in labour-intensive industries ( particularly in substructure ) new endeavors can be created through public investing. Programs of Western societal democracy, which came in power recent old ages, in several states, including France, Britain, Germany and Italy, supply for such steps. In developing states in the same period, the mentioned rate remained at 11 % . On one manus, this was due to the inflow of foreign private investing, through which the creative activity of new private endeavors was possible. On the other manus, the failing of national private capital forced the province to keep a comparatively high degree of its presence in the economic system. As in the medium term, we can non anticipate a monolithic addition in influxs of direct investing from Western states, every bit good as other grounds, the current figure is improbable to alter significantly in the foreseeable hereafter.
Former socialist states have embarked on the passage from planned to market economic system chiefly at the bend of the 80 ‘s and 90 ‘s. Market transmutation, of class, foremost of all requires supplanting of province ownership with private through denationalization and the creative activity of new private endeavors. In this respect states with economic systems in passage since the early 90 ‘s had already passed ( each in changing grades ) a important section of the way. However, the portion of authorities belongings in the production of the GDP of these states, on norm, still accounts for 20 – 30 % or more, i.e. , perceptibly exceeds the corresponding figure for developed and developing states.
Chapter 3. Change of ownership
3.1 Change of ownership is an indispensable status for the formation of the market
For the successful development of the belongings it is necessary to fulfill many economic and societal conditions, in peculiar, it requires a reappraisal of the relationship to the belongings in the new economic conditions.
Modern economic sciences today anew considers many of the procedures happening in our society. This applies to issues of ownership, the ratio of program and market methods to modulate economic activity, direct and indirect methods of direction of public procedures.
With the democratisation of our society motivations of passage to a market economic system appeared, hence, efforts were made to implement this end, sometimes non really successful, but, in our sentiment, worthy of consideration, since it is with them that a slow and painful break-up of our old economic stereotypes began.
Adjustment period was marked by increasing attending to the predicament of the Soviet people. However, the kernel of economic sciences prevarications in the fact that the understanding and desire to assist taken individually here do non make up one’s mind anything. For us to populate better, we must bring forth more goods and services of high quality. Unfortunately, we still have non mastered this art. But the authorities performed an active societal policy through increased emanations, but if equal measures of goods are non produced for this money, so it does non increase the criterion of life, but increases waiting lines, deficits and profiteering, as observed in the early phases of passage to a market economic system.
We believe that for the passage to a market we need, above all, in general footings, be cognizant of something that moves our society: what the modern market is.
Having decided to construct a market economic system, we must, above all, make its image, to see at least the lineations, to absorb the kernel of market dealingss. However, there are several grounds that prevent deep perceptual experience and apprehension of the market for a Soviet adult male.
First, we have seen and known a true market economic system in all its many manifestations, about ne’er. If anyone was in the states of the free market, so he or she saw merely of its visual aspect, without diging into the kernel of the internal mechanisms of market dealingss.
Second, we are non taught the market economic system. In schools, colleges, institutes, wireless and telecasting, we were told that abroad was disintegrating crisis economic system with development and captivity of the on the job people. Textbooks incorporating the true description of the market and the market economic system, the plants of alleged businessperson economic experts were either non translated or published or became known merely to a narrow circle of specializers.
Third, those natural associations of the word “ market ” , which occur in each of us in one manner or another, are connected with the corporate farm market, i.e. with market signifiers that existed in the Soviet economic system. But these analogies are really far from existent civilisation of the modern market and, therefore, give rise to a deformed position of true market economic system.
The footings “ market ” and “ market economic system ” in our state are normally treated merely as an exchange of trade goods and commodity-money dealingss, in other words, as trade, exchange, but such representation is crude.
The market is a whole system of diverse economic dealingss between people, ensuing in the production, distribution, exchange and ingestion, based on certain rules, the chief among which is freedom of economic activity.
The chief belongings of market-oriented economic system is to advance market dealingss in all economic domains, their incursion into all sectors, and coverage of all parts of the state. This belongings can be called the catholicity of market dealingss.
3.2 Ownership in passage economic systems
Transformation of ownership – from monopoly to pluralism signifiers
Changes in belongings dealingss have become pillars of economic reforms in the former Soviet democracies. In the theoretical program transmutation of the belongings required to turn to: to what level the proportion of province ownership should diminish, at what gait and what manner it goes lower, to whom public ownership should pass through.
In Kazakhstan and other CIS states embarked on the passage to a system, uniting private ( single and group ) , public and assorted ownership of the agencies of production. This is logical interfaces with the class of the passage to the market. Since the market supposes freedom of industrial and commercial activities, competition between makers, so domination of any one signifier of ownership must be overcome. It should be replaced by complementing each other assorted signifiers of ownership, each of which would be best adapted to the specific field of economic system, to economic activity.
State belongings in the passage
The distinctive feature of the dealingss between topics and objects of ownership at the province degree are due to the undermentioned fortunes:
& # 8226 ; The consequences of the direction of province belongings affect the destiny of many people, finding their criterion of life, societal security, wellness, rational development, security and many other recognized human values ;
& # 8226 ; province belongings are distinguished by great assortment of institutional and legal diverseness, covers a broad scope of national economic system sectors and are intended for usage in a assortment of waies ;
& # 8226 ; The execution of State ‘s right to belongings objects is achieved through the system of province belongings direction, which is a three-tier hierarchal construction. Public ownership is likely to retain its relevancy and map of the foundation of the full economic concatenation. Privatization procedure, taking to the enlargement of single and group ownership, does non intend that province ownership will be to the full uninstalled. There are sectors of the economic system, which are inappropriate for division on elements.
This applies chiefly to big, the most of import system runing in the involvements of the full province. Obviously, in Kazakhstan energy, transit and some other industries should stay in province belongings. This should include the material resources of scientific discipline, particularly cardinal scientific discipline.
The recommendations of assorted writers are that the portion of province belongings should be 50-30 % of fixed production assets.
Still for a long clip in front the populace sector will hold a important place in the national economic system and the sector requires equal system of control over it. Apparently, all province endeavors can be divided into two classs: the first is under the direct control of the province, the 2nd is on full commercial evidences.
An of import issue in the development of province belongings is to get the better of monopoly feature of the administrative-command system. By the terminal of 1990 in the technology industry of the former Soviet Union the portion of monopolized production reached 72 % . With the transmutation of the former democracies into independent provinces monopoly was farther complicated as many copying endeavors were on different sides of the new provinces boundaries.
It is clear that de-monopolization of production, based on province belongings is a long and complicated procedure. Partially get the better ofing of the monopoly can be done by downsizing, mechanical subdivision on their portion. For the building of new copying endeavors, it would necessitate excessively much money, which is presently non available for our state.
It can be assumed that interrupting monopolies will travel through variegation of production at bing workss, which are in power to utilize trim capacity ( or spread out bing ) for the production of scarce goods.
In get the better ofing the monopoly, the usage of Western states experience can play a positive function. Many of them are antimonopoly Torahs. In peculiar, in the United States in 1890 Clayton Act, forbiding horizontal amalgamation of companies, if it could destruct the competition was adopted by the Sherman Act ( “ charter of economic freedom ” ) , in 1914. – . Law Zeller-Kefovera ( 1950 ) extended this prohibition on a perpendicular amalgamation. For misdemeanor of antimonopoly Torahs legal duty is provided ( a mulct of up to 100 thousand dollars from executive officers and imprisonment of up to 3 old ages ) . Court may do the monopoly compensate for amendss in ternary size the sum for a company that has suffered from monopoly.
In some Western states there are administrative prohibitions on a high grade of monopolisation. In the U.S. monopoly making 90 % of the market has a mandatory division of the company into parts, if making 60 % and higher the monopoly is placed under province control. In Germany, one enterpriser can have no more than 30 % of the market of merchandises, 2-3 houses can have no more than 50 % , 4-5 can have no more than 70 % . The upper bracket for a individual house in the UK is set at 20 % of the market, and in Norway and India at 25 % .
However, one of the major theoretical and practical jobs was the deregulating, the definition and usage of the most efficient ways, theoretical accounts of denationalization. Denationalization is the transportation of province belongings into the custodies of single citizens, labour groups, entities, or the outgrowth of state-owned endeavors on the footing of assorted assorted signifiers of ownership. After the denationalization the topics of belongings become a private citizen, an employee of privatized endeavors, the labour collective, joint stock companies, keeping companies, etc. The objects of denationalization may be trade and services endeavor, lodging, little, medium and big endeavors of industry and agribusiness.
World pattern has gained some experience in denationalization. In states where the procedure of nationalisation took comparatively big graduated table ( the UK, France ) , denationalization took topographic point, for illustration, in the UK through: gross revenues and free distribution of portions, contract for services, sale of public lodging renters ; waiver from the province monopoly in order to advance competition. This procedure is drawn-out. In Western Europe it lasted 10-15 old ages. Denationalization was preceded by a batch of painstaking work. The basic waies: free transportation of belongings, the salvation of endeavors on discriminatory footings, the sale of portions, bringing companies in the lease, sale of little concerns at auctions, etc.
The aims of denationalization are associated with an increased efficiency of economic activities through market development and the formation of a bed of private proprietors, enterprisers, promoting employers to increase the efficiency of endeavors, enlargement of single autonomies and making a competitory environment, pulling foreign investing, publicity of the economic system & # 8217 ; s democratisation.
Denationalization is aimed at societal protection and development of societal substructure by agencies of denationalization.
The procedure of denationalization in Kazakhstan started before the construct of denationalization formed, and the construct of private belongings was recognized officially. As a consequence, there is a curious denationalization of public fiscal resources. Change of ownership does non take to effectual direction. In the economic system the regulation of natural monopolies steadfastly established, economic and fiscal crisis deepened. In this respect, the undermentioned actions are needed, which were antecedently used in other states:
& # 8226 ; a differentiated attack to denationalization of big province installations to set up an economic construction with a sensible balance of little, medium and big endeavors, with a sensible grade of competition between endeavors in different industries and with equal engagement of foreign investors ;
& # 8226 ; assortment of ways to reassign public belongings into private custodies, supplying short-run loans with the warrant of province endeavors whose activities are under qualified supervising, to finance the wages and duties to sellers, etc.
Property as an economic relationship began at the morning of the human society. All the of import signifiers of non-economic and economic irresistible impulse to work clasp on the monopolisation of assorted belongings objects. Economic irresistible impulse to work is based on the ownership of the conditions of production or ownership of capital. The societal idea has ever paid great attending to the issue of ownership. Particular intervention to it can be found in history, doctrine and literature. Rich tradition and the stuff has been accumulated in the legal literature, in frames of which a figure of waies in the survey of belongings rights has established.
The belongings belongs to such constructs around which for centuries best heads of world have been crossed. In the socio-economic literature there is the widespread definition of belongings as the appropriation by an person or group of production merchandises within and through specific societal signifier, or as a really societal signifier itself through which the assignment takes topographic point. Forms of belongings are different combinations of features ( powers ) . I have considered them, get downing from the simplest to the most complex.
As a consequence of my work, I have considered such an of import issue as: denationalization, researching it in phases, and besides used the experience of foreign states. It can be concluded that denationalization in Kazakhstan was carried out in a extremist version of the character, graduated table, gait, timing and methods.
1. Course of economic theory. Textbook erectile dysfunction. Chepourin MN, Kiseleva EA Kirov: “ ASA, 2001. with. 75-87.
2. Fundamentalss of the economic system. Textbook. Ed. Rayzberga BA. Moscow: Infra-M, 2002. with. 84-104.
3. RADYGIN A. , Arkhipov S. Ownership, Corporate Conflicts and Performance, Journal “ Problems of Economics & # 187 ; – & # 8470 ; 11, 2000 p.114.
4. L. Reznikov is it necessary to develop dealingss of in private owned lands? “ Russia Economic Journal & # 187 ; – & # 8470 ; 5, 2000 p.42.
5. Economy. Textbook. Ed. Bulatov AS. – Meter: Lawyer, 2001. with. 71-74, 663-669.
6. Economic theory. Textbook. Ed. Bazneva NI Turko SP. M N: BTEU, 1997. p.71-82.
7. Economic theory. Textbook. Ed. Borisova E. FM: Yurayt-M, 2000. with. 47-68.
8. Economic theory. Textbook. Ed. Dobrynin, AI, Tarsevicha LS M: Litera, 2000. with. 67-75.
9. Economic theory. Textbook. Ed. Mchernogo S. M. , et Al: In, 2000. p.131-150.
10. Economic theory. Textbook. Ed. Nikolaeva IP M: Prospect, 1999. with. 157-175.