QUALITY OF LAND AND RAW MATERIALS POTENTIAL AS THE MOST IMPORTANT TERM OF STATE SUPPORT SHARING IN AGRIBUSINESS

The article applies the index assessment of resources of the enterprise and focuses on different terms of economy and necessity to differ the total state support and its directions for efficient financing. Following the recommendations developed by the author allows increasing efficiency of financing on 15–30 %. The author applies the experience of enterprises in Omsk region which are financed by the government according to the terms of the World Trade Organisation contributing to production efficiency. The article specifies the measures which allow reduce production costs and receive funding according to the terms of the World Trade Organisation (due to limited state support in respect to WTO boxes). The author takes into account financial possibilities of enterprises in Pavlograd district, calculates costs for financial recovery and production cost effectiveness. The publication reveals that applying of low quality tilled land in crop rotation of the agricultural enterprises leads to increasing of production costs, so the author suggests conserving or transformation of the plots of this kind. The article makes conclusion that transformation of land plots is more efficient than their conservation in respect to the costs (on average it is twice more efficient).

1. O posledstviyah vstupleniya v VTO i merah podderzhki agrarnogo sektora. [Ministerstvo selskogo hozyaystva RF. Elektronnyiy resurs]. http: www.mcx.ru (data obrascheniya 23.03.2015).

2. Scheglov A. Spasenie selskogo hozyaystva spryatano v «zelenoy korzine» [Elektronnyiy resurs]. www. wto.ru (data obrascheniya 26.03.2015).

3. Stadnik A. T., Shelkovnikov S.A, Krohta A. V. Gosudarstvennaya podderzhka agrarnogo proizvodstva v regione [Vestnik AGAU], no. 12 (2009): 120–124.

4. Volkov S. N. Modelirovanie strukturyi sebestoimosti produktsii polevodstva v zavisimosti ot territorialnyih svoystv zemli [Vnutrihozyaystvennoe zemleustroystvo selskohozyaystvennyih predpriyatiy v usloviyah intensifikatsii proizvodstva]. Moscow, 1985. pp. 33–41

5. Semin A. N. O sovershenstvovanii gosudarstvennoy podderzhki selskohozyaystvennyih predpriyatiy [Ekonomika selskohozyaystvennyih i pererabatyivayuschih predpriyatiy], no. 11 (2009): 5–7.

6. Stadnik A. T., Matveev D. M., Krohta, M.G., Holodov P. P. Razvitie malyih form biznesa v selskom hozyaystve [Vestnik AGAU]. Barnaul, no. 11 (97) (2012): 119–123.

7. Uzun V. Rossiyskaya politika podderzhki selskogo hozyaystva i neobhodimost ee korrektirovki posle vstupleniya v VTO [Voprosyi ekonomiki]. 2012. pp. 131–149.

8. Agunovich Yu.A. Gosudarstvennaya podderzhka effektivnogo ispolzovaniya selskohozyaystvennyih zemel v Kamchatskom krae. [Avtoref. dis. … kand. ekon. nauk]. Moscow, 2013. 23 p.

9. Barsukova S. Yu. Vyidelenie regionov, neblagopriyatnyih dlya vedeniya selskogo hozyaystva, ili kak v Rossii sobirayutsya pomogat selskomu hozyaystvu v usloviyah chlenstva v VTO [EKO], no. 3 (477) (2014): 89–104.

10. Strategiya razvitiya selskohozyaystvennogo mashinostroeniya Rossii do 2020 goda. Moscow, 2011.