CC BY
53
♦----------------------------------------------------------------
and efforts for generating and reproducing knowledge become a specific kind of productive activity. A new social stratum of knowledge owners having separate specific interests which are manifested in an income factor is formed
i.e. remuneration for knowledge and intellectual rent. Intellectual rent is paid at the moment as a part of wages and has no independent institutional form.
The development of institutional interests in the postindustrial economy is also associated with the growing role of human capital. Global role of human capital in the interests of production factors owners leads to the transformation of property relations. Appropriation of knowledge becomes increasingly important and replaces contradictions defined by relations to the means of production.
Public interest in building a postindustrial society in Russia will become a reality only if the changes will help
reduce transaction costs and increasing revenues will be linked with the human capital formation.
1. Барашов Н.Г. Ограничения развития национальной инновационной системы России // Вестник Оренбургского государственного аграрного университета. 2009. № 1.
2. Барашов Н.Г, Митяева Н.В., Соколова О.Ю. Значение атрибутивных свойств экономической системы для ее развития // Вестник СГАУ им. Н.И. Вавилова. 2009. №9.
3. Итоги 20 лет российских трансформаций // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2005. № 12.
4. Мирошниченко Н.В. Содержание категории «инновация» в контексте формирования экономики, основанной на знаниях // Вестник СГСЭУ. 2009. №4.
5. Оводовский А.В. Развитие институциональных интересов субъектов рыночной экономики: дис. ...канд. экон. наук. Саратов, 2006.
удк 330.12 N.A. Kamenev
SPECIAL FEATURES OF COMPETITIVE AND MONOPOLISTIC RELATIONS IN THE PRODUCTION OF LOCAL PUBLIC GOODS
The paper is devoted to the analysis of a correlation between competition and monopoly in the production of local goods. Necessity of organizing production of some local goods by natural monopolization of industry is proved. The author differentiates constant and temporary natural monopolies.
Key words: local public goods, natural monopoly, competition.
H.A. Каменев
ОСОБЕННОСТИ КОНКУРЕНТНО-МОНОПОЛЬНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЙ В СФЕРЕ ПРОИЗВОДСТВА ЛОКАЛЬНЫХ БЛАГ
Статья посвящена анализу соотношения конкуренции и монополии в сфере производства локальных благ: Доказывается объективная необходимость организации производства ряда локальных благ путем естественной монополизации отрасли. Различаются постоянные и временные естественные монополии.
Ключевые слова: локальные блага, естественная монополия, конкуренция.
Competition has a special place in the institutional organization of a market economy. First, market competition as a market institution ensures efficient functioning of other institutions, and secondly, helps economic agents to react to market signals. Among other market institutions, competition stands out because it lacks self-organizing properties and stability. It can not be a result of concerted actions nor a consequence of the behavior of economic agents and that indicate the need to regulate competition within as a precondition for its existence. Whereas Adam Smith advocated competition as a way of spontaneous ordering of the market, now competition is usually considered as an ordered system. That view is advocated by the German neo-liberal school (W. Eucken, A. Muller-Armack, H. Lampert) .
Some studies have shown that the benefits of competition do not depend on the presence in the market of a large number of enterprises. For example, Torii assumed that when the number of firms in the market is relatively small, productivity is increasing together with a growing number of firms; it is mainly due to competition which forces firms to operate more efficiently [16]. But when the number of firms is relatively large we have the opposite trend:
productivity is falling together with a growing number of firms; this happens because of the need for indivisible investment (lump sums). This means that as the cost of equipment replacement grows, firms are increasingly reluctant to reequip and efficiency of the equipment decreases. Research has shown that technical efficiency decreases with increasing market competition in the industrialized countries (Australia, Canada, Japan, United Kingdom and United States) and developing countries (Korea), but if market concentration is below a certain level technical efficiency also decreases [15]. According to a survey of enterprises in transition economies, competition from one to three competitors leads to the introduction of innovations such as a decision to produce new products. A firm is a sufficiently institutionally active economic agent that determines the rules of the game in various spheres of its activity, i.e. makes a rational choice of ways to achieve its goals in the most optimal way [12, p. 73 - 74]. Firms that have more than three competitors are more successful in the market than monopolists but their advantage is twice less than the advantage of firms having between one to three competitors [14].
♦
♦
These arguments suggest that economy benefits from competition (higher efficiency and innovations in the product markets) only at a certain level of competition, and this is not always the competition between many firms. This finding is especially significant for the production of local goods where historically there has been only one producer - the state. Moreover, the level of competition in national markets is determined not only by market structure as such but also by potential competition. Practice confirms that competition in its many manifestations is not only consistent with the basic principles of public economy but also allows to some extent to mitigate or even eliminate major flaws in the organization of public sector especially monopolism.
Competitive mechanism can be used in the public sector for a more focused, efficient and dynamic allocation of resources and to reduce costs of each program and operation with an increase in their efficiency. Competition may force manufacturers to compete for customers as they study consumer preferences, consider costs and compare them with their results, make remuneration directly dependent on the quantity and quality of services rendered. Competition while mitigating or neutralizing a number of flaws in the state and the market contributes to a more rational allocation of resources and costs reduction of each program and operation with an increase in their efficiency
Tendency to monopolization is rooted on one hand in the nature of local goods, and on the other hand, their significance for society. Most of the local goods by virtue of their non-exemptness can only be effectively produced by monopolies. The local goods that can be produced privately should in public interests be controlled by state. However, some goods not only may be provided with the help of competition but should in public interests be produced with the help of competition. Neoconservative economists support denationalization, privatization and deregulation of entire industries [3, p. 10] but their proposals should be treated with caution.
The theory of natural monopoly as a part of the economic theory has been developing from the 60s of the twentieth century. At that time the term “natural monopoly” acquired technical and economic content. That is a conventional name for monopolies that appeared due to either technical or economic reasons associated with economy of scale. Until relatively recently natural monopoly was generally recognized as a special case of monopolistic firms for which average costs are decreasing function of sales volume (ouput) at all their levels up to full saturation of the market demand1. In other words, the existence of natural monopoly is economically justified by minimizing public costs.
According to the neoclassical tradition natural monopoly is an ultimate form of imperfect competition, in which there are markets where competition is undesirable or even impossible2.
1 A textbook example of this would be a graph demonstrating ability of a natural monopoly to produce the required quantity of goods at lower average cost than can be done, for example, by two firms. Thus, the presence of more than one supplier in the event of a natural monopoly would inevitably lead to higher costs.
2 This view is described in detail in a fundamental textbook: Fischer S, Dornbusch R., Shmalenzi R. Economics. M., 1998.
P. 203 - 204, 772.
The main factor of “naturalness” of monopolies is an increasing return to scale (economy of scale). Minimization of public costs is achieved due to the fact that total costs are lower if all products are manufactured by one firm [7, 8, 11, 12]. Fisher gives the following definition of a natural monopoly: If the production of any volume of output by one firm is less costly than its production by two or more firms then we say that the industry is a natural monopoly [5, p. 211 - 213].
Some definitions of natural monopoly stress social public significance of goods, considerations of economic benefit for the state and public as well as national security Of course, the very idea of a natural monopoly is based on the need to exempt from competition rules but the factor of public interest may only have relevance in a limited number of goods and services3. Some businesses can be protected from competition for political reasons in order to guarantee a stable return on services that are important from the standpoint of public interest. This is especially true for natural monopolies at a local level. Natural monopolies provide equal access to basic goods and services for citizens. In modern society all citizens should have equal access and the right to enjoy such utilities as electricity water, communications, sewerage.
Proponents of institutional trend in the economic theory define the concept of natural monopoly in terms of contracts and transaction costs. Institutionalism focuses not on precise definition of the essence of the concept but on the dynamics of transformation in corresponding sector of economy. As a rule it is suggested to introduce controlled competition relations in natural monopolistic environment. The experience of a number of countries in the world which have carried out reforms of natural monopolies shows a decline in the attractiveness of new structures for consumers precisely because of the fact that as a result of vertical disintegration of large companies and splitting monopolies into separate business entities transaction costs and price of services increased [2, p. 45 - 46].
Thus, presence of several competitors in the natural monopoly sectors would have divided the market and reduce sales of each competitor. Unit costs, and hence, tariffs would increase. The competition would be extremely difficult. To rid society of these adverse outcomes, governments usually give exclusive right to one firm to supply water, gas, electricity In exchange the government reserves the right to determine the geographic scope of the monopoly, regulate the quality of its services and control prices. The result is a regulated or state-organized monopoly designed to achieve lower production costs and ensure that consumers will benefit from this saving in cost.
Initially, a classic example of the importance of economies of scale factor was public utilities sector - supply of water, gas, electricity, local telephone communication and sewerage. In the Western economic tradition natural monopolies are regarded as entities providing socially significant goods to the consumer - railway, aviation and other modes of transport, fuel and energy production, such as gas and electricity, a number of utilities [6, p. 277].
3 A number of papers on corporate structures in modern economy and corporate governance in large companies highlight the key role of natural monopolies as a “guarantor of socioeconomic development of state and society” (Kruk M.D. Modern forms and mechanisms of corporate governance: methodology and practice. M., 2000. p. 270).
♦--------------------------------------------------------------
In many countries natural monopoly sectors include most economic activities that provide public utilities: telecommunication, power lines, oil and gas pipelines, railways, cable television, water and sanitation [1]. For countries with economies in transition, particularly important are the following sectors of the natural monopolies: freight rail transport, electricity and telecommunications [9, p. 7].
In recent years the notion of infrastructure industry as a synonym for natural monopoly has been widely used in academic and business papers. Restructuring and reforming natural monopolies are clearly linked with their infrastructure component. Virtually all sectors of natural monopoly are infrastructure industries which are infrastructure networks that organize product supply between distant from each other both in space and time economic agents, as well as industries that operate those networks.
In the institutional structure of most natural monopolies there are several fundamentally different elements. First, it is material transport networks proper which deliver products to consumers (rails, pipes, power lines, etc.). Second, operations or other activities for operating of these networks (system operators, dispatching etc.). Third, the markets in which there is a matching of supply and demand for network infrastructure services - supply in these markets is formed by the capacity of supply networks and demand is formed by supply flows depending on their volume. Fourth, actual production of goods and services by enterprises that are part of a natural monopoly. It is obvious that three of the four elements are directly connected with the industrial infrastructure [4, p. 137 - 138]. In many cases it is difficult or almost impossible to separate infrastructure market proper from operations market.
In the infrastructure sectors at least two vertically integrated stages are identified: creation of a product and network operations services. Traditionally they were regarded as containing fundamental properties of natural monopoly, when the cost function is such that for all existing levels of demand the production by one firm is cheaper than competition between two or more firms. Recently, under the influence of technical and technological innovations that allow the establishment of independent companies operating on a competitive basis, those views in relation to the production stage are “blurred”. At the same time network stage as a rule continues to be a monopoly, and therefore it is possible to support “your national” producers and discriminate other producers. In this case benefit from the competition at the production stage is lost and profits at the monopoly network stage will increase at public expense.
It is important for the choice of optimal state policy to divide natural monopolies into temporary and permanent. The case of a permanent natural monopoly is characterized by increasing returns to scale at any production volume. Any volume of demand can be satisfied by only one firm with minimal costs.
Water supply and sanitation services providers which are everywhere in medium and large cities of Russia are called “Vodokanal” may serve as an example. In the course of the reforms introduced in 1992, they acquired the status of municipal unitary enterprises. Their functions include preparation (cleaning, disinfection) and delivery of water for households and businesses as well managing sewage system. These services are provided to households, enterprises, budgetary institutions. Construction of water
purification and biological treatment facilities especially pipelines (water supply and sewerage systems) even in small communities requires large investments. Maintenance, repair and equipment replacement require significant ongoing costs which are almost independent of the volume of transported fluid. Thus, here we have a situation that is typical for natural monopolies: virtually insurmountable barriers to entry, high costs; but with growing in volume average and marginal costs are reduced. Operation of the discussed natural monopolies is confined to the locality and possibly the surrounding area. “Vodokanal” is a permanent local natural monopoly.
Firms which benefit from returns to scale only at a certain volume of demand are commonly called temporary natural monopolies. Temporary natural monopoly occurs when up to a certain volume of production the effect of returns to scale is positive and then it is negative. Average cost curve in this case is U'-shaped and with a possible increase in demand the monopoly will cease to be natural, there will be opportunities for the entry of new firms in the market and development of competition.
Long-distance telephone service may serve as an example. In the United States for example increased demand for long-distance communication has led to the deregulation of the industry. Single monopolist, AT&T company, was disaggregated and currently long-distance services are competitive sector.
Researchers have repeatedly pointed out that monopoly markets can be competitive. Noteworthy are the views of M.E. Porter who describes state of competition in a competitive market as [10]: competitive forces caused by the economic activities of the existing competitive systems (manufacturers); competitive forces that arise due to the threat from new competitors; competitive forces that arise from substitute products in terms of price; competitive forces that are determined by economic capacities of suppliers; competitive forces that arise depending on economic and trade capacity of buyers.
The state of each group of factors (competitive forces) and their interactions define the functionality of a particular production system (entity) in a competitive environment and its potential.
For various sectors of natural monopolies technological competition is the most significant, i.e. emergence of substitute products based on scientific and technical progress for example autonomous roof boilers in apartment buildings, autonomous water supply and heating in cottages, Internet and mobile communications. Some segments may be characterized as competitive with free-mar-ket prices instead of regulated prices.
From the standpoint of the market structures theory this situation can be characterized as a transition from monopoly to oligopoly or more often from monopoly to a model of “a dominant firm and competitive followers”. There is an asymmetric market structure which is characterized by the following characteristics: an industry market with several firms where the biggest market share belongs to one firm behaving similar to a monopolist and residual demand is divided among small outsider firms for whom the of the dominant firm is the price of the market.
Thus, the following factors of monopolizing local public goods production are singled out: goods special properties, social significance, high costs of market coordination. However, it should be noted that often natural monop-
♦
♦
olization of local public goods production is determined by the trajectory of the previous development when the current organization of industry copies experience of the past years due to the high costs of restructuring.
1. Акупов В.Б., Рудаков М.Н. Теория организации: учеб. пособие. Петрозаводск, 2003. и^: http://media.karelia.ru.
2. Астапов К. Реформирование электроэнергетики в Российской Федерации // Проблемы теории и практики управления. 2003. № 6.
3. Бабайцева И.К. Влияние новых технологий на роль государства в экономике // Вестник СГСЭУ 2010. № 5 (34).
4. Городецкий А., Павпенко Ю. Реформирование естественных монополий // Вопросы экономики. 2000. № 1.
5. Канапин В.В. Система антимонопольной защиты в США. М., 1997.
6. Крук М.Д. Современные формы и механизмы корпоративного управления: методология и практика. М., 2000.
7. МаршаппА. Принципы политической экономии. М., 1986.
8. Милль Дж. С. Основы политической экономии. М., 1980.
9. Питтман Р. Вертикальная реструктуризация инфраструктурных отраслей в странах с переходной экономикой / / Working Papers. 2003. № 1.
10. Портер М. Конкуренция. СПб., 2000.
11. Сурков В. Управление рисками в сфере естественных монополий // Проблемы теории и практики управления. 2003. № 6.
12. Удалов Д.В. Фирма как институциональный субъект // Вестник СГСЭУ. 2006. № 14 (3).
13. Янковский К.А. Естественные монополии в системе экономических отношений. М., 2000.
14. Bresnahan Т., Reiss P. Entry and competition in concentrated markets // Journal of political economy. 1991. № 99(5).
15. Caves R. and associates. Industrial efficiency in six nations. Massachusetts. 1992.
16. Torii Akio Technical Efficiency in Japanese Industries // Caves R. and associates. Industrial efficiency in six nations. Cambridge, 2000.
УДК 330.142 A.P. Kolyadin
ASSESSMENT OF INVESTMENT IN HUMAN CAPITAL EFFICIENCY
The paper examines educational events at enterprises as an investment process. The author distinguishes stages of investment process, identifies possible response of human resource experts as well as economic indicators to assess the success of each stage. Various methods of investment in education efficiency assessment are discussed.
Key words: investment, human capital, investment efficiency.
А.П. Колядин
ОЦЕНКА ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИ ИНВЕСТИЦИЙ В ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСКИЙ КАПИТАЛ
В статье анализируется образовательное мероприятие на предприятии как инвестиционный процесс. Выделяются фазы инвестиционного процесса, определены возможные действия специалиста по персоналу, а также экономические показатели, позволяющие оценить успешность каждого этапа. Рассматриваются различные методики оценки эффективности инвестиций в обучение.
Ключевые слова: инвестиции, человеческий капитал, эффективность инвестиций.
Today development of human potential is carried out in the classical (mobilizational, inertial) and innovative (modernizing, innovative) forms. Innovative way of development is the result of intensification of human potential reproduction in the consumer and production systems of society [2, p. 88]. Whether funds for training in the production system are referred to investment or expenditure depends on the training objectives. If the only aim of training is increasing personnel motivation then the funds are considered expenditures and the only expected outcome of the training will be increased employees' loyalty to the organization.
If as a result of educational programs the company receives additional benefits, then these costs can be considered investments. This definition is relevant if the management of the company initially plans staff training for specific purposes, such as to improve performance, increase staff awareness about the strategic goals of the company, motivate staff for achievement of these goals, increase staff expertise, form a corporate culture, prepare a framework for organizational changes, and improve management principles.
Each of these goals ultimately leads to increased competitiveness. Consequently, the training may well be regarded as an investment project (a set of plans and actions for implementation of investments and achievement of specified results.)
The process of investment in human capital can be divided into the following stages.
Step 1. The cost of vocational guidance. At this stage vocational counseling for future professionals and skilled workers is held in educational facilities. It is a costly stage which is funded at present mainly from the state budget. To evaluate the effectiveness of these activities is extremely difficult, it is more a question of using various techniques to improve the quality of education [4, p. 198]. In recent years a growing number of students pay for their own education or their employers pay for them.
Step 2. The cost of recruiting and hiring personnel. Those costs are fixed as they are connected with the systematic work of human resource agencies on human resource planning, documentation, test files for applicants, drawing up contracts with educational institutions, employ-
