State Support Of The Agro-Industrial Complex

Abstract

The article analyzes the literature on state agrarian policy and highlights the problems. If in the USA it is environmental protection, in Western Europe it is the impact of the EU's common agricultural policy on agricultural producers, in Russia it is a lack of state funding due to complex climate and institutional factors (legislation, corruption, expensive loans, etc.). In Western Europe, the transition to bourgeois manufacturing began earlier – with the beginning of the "Little ice age". In the XVII – XIX centuries, an industrial revolution took place. One of the sources of industry formation was agriculture, which drained the latter of blood. In Russia, however, there were no other sources of initial capital accumulation that were present in Western Europe - usury and overseas colonies. Therefore, the burden of industrialization from the beginning of the twentieth century to the end of the 30s fell on the peasants. Agriculture is not a self-sufficient industry, and the food market is not self-regulated. Demand and supply of agricultural products are inelastic. In rural areas, state assistance is required in creating infrastructure, subsidizing the production of agricultural machinery, fertilizers, food, etc. Taking into account Russia's entry into the WTO, state support for agriculture should not direct methods (subsidies, subventions, etc.) and indirect (through tax benefits, protectionist foreign policy and domestic market protection, preferential crediting of agricultural producers, etc.).

Keywords: Agricultureprotection of agricultural producersstate support

Introduction

The formation of a digital economy is impossible without a material basis - the economic basis of the country, including a developed and efficient agriculture. This is especially true in the context of sanctions wars and economic crises that threaten the economic security of any country.

In the early 90's of the twentieth century, in Russia, in the course of liberalization and weakening of state support, the system crisis also affected agriculture, which provides food security and social stability.

Literature review

Articles indexed by Web of science on the subject of state support for agriculture over the past three years can be divided by country and by direction.

Articles on public policy towards agriculture in Russia presents issues: global issues, the ideology of development of agriculture (Niederle et al., 2019), the analysis of agricultural production in Russia as a whole and for individual product types subject to the policy of sanctions and import substitution (Moshchenko et al., 2020), economic crime (Yarkova, 2020), cooperation and integration processes (Sobolev et al., 2018), Finance in the broad sense (Kolesnikov, Stepanyan et al., 2019), public investment (Denisov, 2018; Khairullina, 2019a; Khairullina & Yarkova, 2019; Markhaichuk et al., 2019), public support for specific types of production (Kalinina et al., 2019), specific territories (Kadyrov, 2018), funding (Kolesnikov, Solovyov et al., 2019), market of organic agricultural products (Abrosimova et al., 2019), food security of the state (Kovazhenkov et al., 2019), (Kontsevaya et al., 2018), management (Gorlov et al., 2017), sustainable development of the agro-industrial complex (Shakhmurzov et al., 2018), taxation (Khairullina, 2019b; Kuznetsova et al., 2018).

In the materials related to US state policy in agriculture, the following issues are studied: environmental protection Medina et al. (2020), Cristan et al. (2019), Arathi et al. (2019), Hughes et al. (2019), Sullins et al. (2018), Miller et al. (2018), veterinary medicine and sanitation (Stewart et al., 2018), the agricultural land market (Horst & Gwin, 2018), forestry (Campbell et al., 1991), taxation (York & Munroe, 2010), in particular, trade wars (Venogradov et al., 2019).

Articles devoted to this topic in the European Union can also be divided by topics: finding a balance between the economy and the external environment (Cetkovic & Stevanovic, 2018; Noack & Schüler, 2020; Sabadas et al., 2018; Schulte et al., 2019), the use of new technologies (Jose Villaverde et al., 2018), in particular, computer (Blazquez et al., 2018; Rodriguez et al., 2018), state support for producers (Wengle, 2020), state regulation of the land market (Stacherzak et al., 2019); the impact of the EU common agricultural policy (Burny & Gazinski, 2018; Sapolaite et al., 2019; Michalcewicz-Kaniowska & Zajdel, 2019; Volkov et al., 2019), in particular, public financing (Alarcon & Arias, 2018; Andrlic et al., 2018; Asseldonk et al., 2018; Czyzewski & Matuszczak, 2018; Nicula et al., 2019; Simpach, 2018; Staresinic & Franic, 2018; Vladu et al., 2018; Zmija & Zmija, 2019); taxation (Lemishko, 2017), international relations (Khan & Ashfaq, 2018; Qian & Chen, 2018), the production of a specific type of product (Popescu, 2018).

Thus, from the analysis of indexed publications, we can draw preliminary conclusions about the importance of certain problems for agricultural production. In Russia, there are the most publications about the need, first of all, for state financial support. This is due to a whole set of reasons: Russia has a lot of zones of risky agriculture; the country has not yet recovered from the shock of market reforms, and the civilized market has not yet formed; state monopolies were replaced by private monopolies, primarily large banks and enterprises of the fuel and energy complex, which dictate prices on the market; the memory of gratuitous subsidizing of agriculture in the last decades of Soviet power still persists. Therefore, Russian producers suffer more from natural (climate) risks and institutional features of the market (monopolism, high interest rates for loans, corruption, poor infrastructure).

In the United States, researchers, and therefore the public, are more concerned with preserving the environment and the quality of life. Farmers ' risks there are more market-driven (for example, low prices that do not cover the cost of production).

In the literature about the European Union, the most written about the impact of the common agricultural policy of the EU, in particular, public financing, on countries and sub-sectors of agricultural production. This influence is usually assessed as positive, although it imposes strict requirements on the producers of goods. Therefore, the free agricultural market in the EU has been replaced by strict supranational regulation.

The complex adaptation of the Russian agricultural sector to the market environment with minimal state participation has been drastically transformed since 2014, when sanctions against Russia and the transition to a policy of import substitution forced attention to the need to strengthen state support for the national economy, especially agriculture.

Methods and Materials

The research mainly used methods of scientific abstraction, formal logic, dialectical-theoretical methods, the method of empirical analysis, statistical methods for calculating average values etc.

Results

One of the most important sources of financing for the emerging industry was agriculture. This was the case in England back in the XIV century, when the beginning of the "Little ice age" instead of dying crops of grain and viticulture gave rise to the growth of sheep farming and the creation of cloth Manu-facture on its basis. At the same time, "sheep ate people" when landlords seized communal land for pasture. Then in the XVIII century during the industrial revolutions (the steam engine turned the manufactory into a factory), large capitalist farms with rent and hired labor began to be created. The technological revolution in agriculture led to the creation of a large market for industrial production and the transfer of capital not only from agriculture to industry, where the rate of profit was higher, but also the migration of the population from villages and villages to the city. Russia remained an agrarian country for a long time. (Figure 1 ).

See Full Size >

In Russia, urbanization and industrial development were even more at the expense of agriculture, since it had no overseas colonies, with the exception of Alaska, and usury was very limited and banking capital was not developed. However, in contrast to the Old world, these processes were delayed by about one and a half to two centuries. So, in the middle. Nineteenth century among the landlords - the main producers of export grain was popular opinion of the Chairman of the Tariff Committee of the L. V. Tengoborsky that Russia, due to natural and climatic conditions – is an agricultural country and does not need to develop industry (Tegoborsky, 1852-1855).

Due to the peculiarities of historical development, the entire period of transition from the agricultural economy to the industrial one should be divided into two stages: pre-October (late XIX century-early XX century) and the period of industrialization of the USSR.

The pre-October period was characterized by deep theoretical study and non-violent methods. I. A. Vyshnegradsky and S. Yu. Witte who carried out this policy relied on the points of view:

- German economist F. List, who insisted on state intervention in the economy, protectionist policies to achieve economic domination of Germany in Europe;

-the Chairman of the Chamber of weights and measures, which was part of the Ministry of Finance at that time, D. I. Mendeleev, who laid the Foundation for "non-violent industrialization".

In the book "Towards the knowledge of Russia", D. I. Mendeleev called industrialization the only possible way of economic development of Russia. However, its development is hindered by low skills and productivity of workers, which makes the Russian industry uncompetitive. To overcome this, the government needs to implement a policy of low prices for agricultural products (most importantly, for grain), which, in its opinion, will keep the worker's salary at a low level and reduce the cost of production.

Thus, low purchase prices for agricultural products in the course of a protectionist foreign policy and protection of the domestic market, implemented by the government of I. A. Vyshnegradsky, and then S. Yu. Witte, became the first direction in all-round promotion of industrial development at the expense of agriculture. To protect the domestic market, the government introduced a new customs tariff in 1891.

The second direction of financing industry is the wine monopoly. Witte wrote to Alexander III that the wine monopoly is a tax on farmers, which gives the Treasury additional profit, which can be used for the development of industry.

The third direction is participation in the policy of the gold coin and gold bullion standard of the Parisian currency system. The introduction of the gold standard also usually works against agriculture as a deficit industry and contributes to the transfer of funds from it (Nazarenko, 2006).

The reforms of S. Yu. Witte were continued by P. A. Stolypin, who solved the problems of agriculture not by providing additional land plots, but by increasing the productivity of peasant labor. This, without affecting the landowners ' land ownership, enriched some peasants at the expense of others by destroying the community. As a result, the land was to become the property of strong men, and the ruined were to join the ranks of the proletariat.

Historians interpret the results of the agrarian Stolypin reform in different ways. However, by 1913, Russia ranked fifth in world industrial production (Gregory, 1982), becoming the world leader in industrial growth with an annual rate of 6.1% for the period 1888-1913 (Suhara, 2005). Thus, in the pre-October period, the Russian model of industrial development had a global trend and went directly through subsidized financing at the expense of agriculture. Urbanization has been slow.

The second stage of development of industry at the expense of agriculture should be attributed to industrialization in the USSR, which was characterized by a significant degree of continuity with the main concepts of I. A. Vyshnegradsky, S. Yu. Witte and A. p. Stolypin, as well as active violent methods of pumping both funds in monetary and natural forms, and labor from the village to the city.

By 1920, the level of production in Russia fell nine times compared to 1916 (Davies et al., 1994). The Communist leadership began to solve the problem by a planned redistribution of resources between agriculture and industrialization. Thus, at the XIV Congress of the CPSU(b) and the III all - Union Congress of Soviets in 1925 (Industrializatsiya SSSR 1926 - 1941 gg.…, 1970), the choice of a specific implementation of Central planning for 1926-1928 was vigorously discussed. During the discussion, two party blocs were formed - directions:

1) proponents of the genetic approach, who believed that the plan should be based on objective laws of economic development (economists V. Bazarov, V. Groman, N. Kondratev, etc., they were supported by the proponent of the evolutionary path to socialism N. Bukharin).

2) adherents of the teleological approach, who believed that the plan should transform the economy based on future structural changes, production opportunities and strict discipline (economists G. Kryzhanovsky, V. Kuibyshev, S. Strumilmn, etc., among the party elite - L. Trotsky, who insisted on immediate industrialization).

The large-scale and abrupt form of industrialization and forced collectivization was based on the same old methods:

• low purchasing prices for food, maintaining low wages in industry;

• the wine monopoly;

• during the NEP period - the policy of the gold standard, and after it-inflation, which allowed to transfer to industrial development not only income, but also a huge mass of the population from the villages.

To this was added the system of state supplies, carried out first through prodrazverstku, and then through the food tax.

Since the beginning of the first five-year plan in the USSR, agriculture has become a source of primary accumulation due to low purchasing prices for grain and exports at higher prices, as well as due to "super-tax" in the form of overpayments for manufactured goods. Since capital investment in heavy industry almost immediately exceeded the planned amount and continued to grow, monetary emission was sharply increased, and throughout the first five-year period, the growth of the money supply in circulation more than twice outpaced the growth in the production of consumer goods, which led to an increase in prices and a shortage of consumer goods.

With the beginning of industrialization, the consumption Fund decreased sharply, and as a result, the standard of living (Allen, 1997). By the end of 1929, in the face of a shortage, the card system was extended to almost all food products. In 1936, the cards were cancelled, and the increase in wages in the industry increased inflation. The average level of consumption per capita in 1938 was 22 % higher than in 1928 (Allen, 1997).

The result of this policy was a decline in agricultural production. Thus, animal husbandry decreased almost twice and returned to the level of 1928 only in 1938 (Gregory, 1982). Additional expenses were required to compensate for the losses of the village. In 1932-1936, the collective farms received from the state about 500 thousand tractors not only for mechanization of land cultivation, but also to compensate for the damage caused by the reduction of the number of horses by 51 % (77 million) in 1929-1933 (Wheatcroft et al., 1986). As a result of collectivization, famine, and repression between 1926 and 1939 the country lost in the form of direct demographic losses from 7 to 13 million (Denisenko, 2008; Denisenko & Shelestov, 1994) and even up to 20 million people (Rosefielde, 1987).

In the future, the peasantry also provided the growth of heavy industry with labor. The urban population increased by 12.5 million people, of which 8.5 million were rural migrants. Table 1 shows the dynamics of urbanization in Russia.

However, this policy can only continue for a limited period, since it ultimately leads to a serious violation of all the proportions and balance between industries. Only the reverse direction of the flow of financial resources can make the economy more balanced, which is one of the key points of agricultural policy in the West.

The analysis shows that there is still a lack of understanding in Russia that, in economic terms, agriculture is not a self-sufficient industry, and the food market is not self-regulating.

Demand for all agricultural products is low-elastic, since it is determined not only by economic factors (prices and income levels), but also by strict physical needs.

Based on Engel's law, the consumer increases their food costs when income increases, and reduces them when income falls, but disproportionately: with a decrease in the share of food costs as income increases, and Vice versa, i.e. there is an inverse proportionality between the level of income and the share of these incomes going to food.

The relative conservativeness of food demand is also reflected in the inadequate response of demand to changes in prices, especially for products of daily consumption.

Agricultural production itself is determined by its biological nature and the involvement in the production process of many natural factors that are available in limited quantities, primarily land. It is a conservative industry, and the nature of production has strict time limits: in crop production - it is a long process of increasing soil fertility, cultivation, crop rotation; in animal husbandry - it is the natural boundaries of the growth rate of livestock and increasing productivity. In addition, the yield depends on weather conditions, and livestock production depends on the epidemiological situation.

When demand falls and prices for agricultural products fall, production cannot be reduced quickly and painlessly.

Thus, in the food market, both supply and demand are inelastic. If they fluctuate slightly, the market self-regulates. However, with their significant changes, prices become extremely elastic, which destabilizes the entire economy. Therefore, the state has long developed mechanisms for regulating food markets.

Even with its industrialization, modern agriculture remains biological, dependent on natural factors, with unstable yields. One can see a serious contradiction between the relatively low profitability of agriculture, labor productivity, and the high need for investment and defense funds. For example, in developed countries, the share of agriculture in GDP is almost four times less than the number of people employed in the industry (Nazarenko, 2006). In countries with high natural fertility and high land security, these differences are not as large as in countries with low land security, where production has to be carried out on a capital-intensive basis. This suggests that agriculture is not only unable to act as a donor, but also has insufficient funds for its own development.

Agriculture cannot create its own infrastructure (neither physical nor intellectual), which is expensive, and for rural areas with its territorial scale-in particular.

Insufficiently well-thought-out Federal agricultural policy, without taking into account regional and institutional features of the agro-industrial complex, leads to a decrease in production, to unprofitability of agricultural enterprises, and this leads to social tension in society.

Over the past 15 years, the Government has defined the development of agriculture as a strategic direction of domestic policy. This has had a positive impact both on reducing the tax burden on the industry and on increasing the profitability of sales. The industry's tax burden has been decreasing annually over the past 14 years and on average does not exceed 42.4% of the average tax burden for all sectors of the economy. On the contrary, the profitability of goods sold, products rendered, and services rendered to the agricultural sector has increased. Its value is on average 34.1% higher than the average profitability in all industries, and since 2014 - 2.1 times. This happened also "thanks to the sanctions policy" of the US and EU countries, when Russia, in response to the sanctions imposed against it, imposed mainly food sanctions (Table 2 ).

Conclusion

State regulation of agriculture should include both direct and indirect methods. And now, after Russia's accession to the WTO, the former direct subsidization of commodity producers is difficult. Therefore, we believe that modern methods of direct impact should include Programs of state financing: land management and reclamation works; drought control; development of fire safety measures; state veterinary services; creation of a network of rural paved roads; electrification and telephony; agricultural science, etc.

The authors refer to indirect methods:

1. state agricultural protectionism: through a system of customs duties, subsidies, compensation payments, tightening of the veterinary control system for imported products;

2. preferential lending not to agricultural producers themselves, but to a chain that increases their capital intensity – i.e., producers of agricultural machinery, producers of chemical fertilizers, etc.

3. development of an effective tax system that combines the interests of the agro-industrial complex and the state. Benefits should apply not only to agricultural producers, but also to those who affect productivity in agriculture. For example, organizations of water and chemical land reclamation and manufacturers of agricultural machinery.

References

1. Abrosimova, M. S., Litvinova, O. V., Makushev, A. E., Vasilyeva, O. G., Gordeeva, L. G., & Ivanov, E. A. (2019). Conditions for the transition to organic agriculture and the development of the market for organic products in the regions of Russia. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2019: Education Excellence and Innovation Management through Vision 2020 (pp. 5725-5735).
2. Alarcon, S., & Arias, P. (2018). The public funding of innovation in agri-food businesses. Spanish J. Agric. Res, 16(13), 2018164-12657.
3. Allen, R. C. (1997). The Standard of Living in the Soviet Union, 1928-1949.
4. Andrlic, B., Šostar, M., & Bodegrajac, T. (2018). Impact of EU Funding on Rural and Regional Development Management. Scientific Papers Series “Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development “, 18(2), 17-21.
5. Arathi, H. S., Vandever, M. W., & Cade, B. S. (2019). Diversity and abundance of wild bees in an agriculturally dominated landscape of eastern Colorado. Journal of Insect Conservation, 23(1), 187-197.
6. Asseldonk, M. V., Meulen, H., Meer, R., Silvis, H., & Berkhout, P. (2018). Does subsidized MPCI crowds out traditional market-based hail insurance in the Netherlands? Agricultural Finance Review, 78(2), 262-274.
7. Blazquez, D., Domenech, J., & Garcia-Alvarez-Coque, J. M. (2018). Assessing Technology Platforms for Sustainability with Web Data Mining Techniques. Sustainability, 10(12), 4497.
8. Burny, P., & Gaziński, B. (2018). The CAP Implementation in Wallonia-Today Performance and Questions for the Future-A Brief Supplementary Comment from Warmia and Mazury Perspective. The Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union–the present and the future, EU Member States point of view, ed. M. Wigier, A. Kowalski, series" Monographs of Multi-Annual Programme, (73.1).
9. Campbell, G. E., Lottes, G. J., & Dawson, J. O. (1991). Design and development of agroforestry systems for Illinois, USA: silvicultural and economic considerations. Agroforestry Systems, 13(3), 203-224.
10. Cetkovic, A., & Stevanovic, V. (2018). Preservation and evaluation of biodiversity: the concept of ecosystem services and biological resources of fauna. Ecological and economic significance of fauna of Serbia, 17.
11. Cristan, R., Aust, W. M., Bolding, M. C., & Barrett, S. M. (2019). Estimated Sediment Protection Efficiences for Increasing Levels of Best Management Practices on Forest Harvests in the Piedmont, USA. Forests, 10(11), 997.
12. Czyzewski, B., & Matuszczak, A. (2018). Rent-seeking in agricultural policy revisited: a new look at the Common Agricultural Policy consensus. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 120(1316-2018-3607), 69-79.
13. Davies, R. W., Davies, R. W., Harrison, M., & Wheatcroft, S. G. (Eds.). (1994). The economic transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913-1945. Cambridge University Press.
14. Denisenko, M. B., & Shelestov, D. K. (1994). Poteri naseleniya / Narodonaseleniye. Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar'. [The loss of population\ population. Encyclopaedic dictionary]. Bol'shaya rossiyskaya entsiklopediya.
15. Denisenko, M. (2008). Demograficheskiy krizis v SSSR v pervoy polovine 1930-kh godov: otsenki poter' i proble-my izucheniya // Istoricheskaya demografiya. Sbornik statey [Demographic crisis in the USSR in the first half of the 1930s: estimates of losses' and problems of studying // Historical demografiya. Collected papers]. MAKS Press.
16. Denisov, V. (2018). Untapped Opportunities for the State Support of Agricultural Labour in Russia. Economy of region, 1(3), 1003-1013.
17. Gorlov, S. M., Kochkarova, Z. R., Lovyannikova, V. V., Ryazantsev, I. I., & Syromyatnikov, D. A. (2017, December). Methodology of the Institutional Approach to Structuring of the Elements of Management of the Agrarian Sphere’s Development. In Perspectives on the use of New Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the Modern Economy (pp. 723-732). Springer, Cham.
18. Gregory, P. R. (1982). Russian National Income: 1885-1913. Cambridge University Press.
19. Horst, M., & Gwin, L. (2018). Land access for direct market food farmers in Oregon, USA. Land use policy, 75, 594-611.
20. Hughes, R. M., Bangs, B. L., Gregory, S. V., Scheerer, P. D., Wildman, R. C., & Ziller, J. S. (2019). Recovery of Willamette River (Oregon, USA) Fish Assemblages: Successes and Remaining Threats. From catastrophe to recovery: stories of fishery management success.
21. Industrializatsiya SSSR 1926 - 1941 gg. Dokumenty i materialy. (1970). [The industrialization of the Soviet Union 1926 - 1941 Documents and materials]. Nauka;
22. Kadyrov, D. R. (2018). The Dynamics of the Efficiency of State Support to the Agro-Industrial Complex on the Example of The Volga Federal District. HELIX, 8(1), 2868-2872.
23. Kalinina, L., Zelenskaya, I., Trufanova, S., & Kalinin, N. (2019). Prospects of development of aquaculture in Russia and its regions. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 81, p. 01008). EDP Sciences.
24. Khairullina, O. I. (2019a). State Support of Investment Attractiveness of Agricultural Sector// Bioscience biotechnology research communications. 12(5).
25. Khairullina, O. I. (2019b). Analysis of the use of special tax treatment for agricultural companies. Revista san gregorio. 36.
26. Khairullina, O. I., & Yarkova, T. M. (2019). Program-target instruments of the mechanism of state support for agriculture. Amazonia Investiga, 8(19), 416-423.
27. Khan, N. U., & Ashfaq, M. (2018). WTO’s Implications on Agriculture Sector in Pakistan: Threats, Opportunities and Possible Strategies. Advancements in Life Sciences, 5(2), 30-36.
28. Kolesnikov, A. V., Zh, M. N., Solovyov, B. A., Parinov, D. V., Ovchinnikov, A. P., Lukin, O. A., & Gulenko, P. I. (2019). A focus on formation of financial resources of agricultural organizations, Russia. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management and Applied Sciences and Technologies, 10(10), 123.
29. Kolesnikov, A. V., Stepanyan, T. M., Spector, A. A., Panko, Iu. V., Komov, M. S., Latysheva, N. A., & Storozhenko, O. M. (2019). Complications of Russian innovative development financing. International transaction journal of engineering management & Applied sciences & Technologies. 10(9).
30. Kontsevaya, S., Zaruk, N., Galkin, M., Telegina, G., Mirontseva, A., & Makunina, I. (2018). Analysis of the agricultural insurance market with regard to state support in Russia. In Agrarian Perspectives XXVII. Food Safety-Food Security, Proceedings of the 27th International Scientific Conference, 19-20 September 2018, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 106-112). Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management.
31. Kovazhenkov, M. A., Fedotova, G. V., Kulikova, N. N., Sultanova, M. K., & Mandrik, N. V. (2019). Search for new economic solutions of the problem of food security. In Ubiquitous Computing and the Internet of Things: Prerequisites for the Development of ICT (pp. 1011-1021). Springer, Cham.
32. Kuznetsova, A. R., Zagirova, A., & Omarhanova, Z. (2018). Problems of poverty and motivation of workers to labor in the field of agriculture as effects of stagnant economy. В sbornike: Hradec Economic Days Double-blind peer-reviewed proceedings part I. of the international scientific conference Hradec Economic Days.
33. Lemishko, О. (2017). Tax policy tools used to stimulate agriculture: their implementation and effectiveness. Економічний часопис-ХХІ, 167(9-10), 18-22.
34. Markhaichuk, M., Kovalenko, N., & Chekunov, A. (2019). State support and prospects for the development of agriculture in Russian regions. Proceedings of the 7th international conference innovation management, entrepreneurship and sustainability (IMES 2019).
35. Medina, G., Isley, C., & Arbuckle, J. (2020). Promoting sustainable agriculture: Iowa stakeholders’ perspectives on the US Farm Bill conservation programs. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-22.
36. Michalcewicz-Kaniowska, M., & Zajdel, M. (2019). Rural Development in European Union Policy. Economic Science For Rural Development, 140.
37. Miller, R. S., Opp, S. M., & Webb, C. T. (2018). Determinants of invasive species policy: Print media and agriculture determine US invasive wild pig policy. Ecosphere, 9(8), e02379.
38. Moshchenko, O. V., Bidova, B. B., Lenkov, I. N., Erimizina, M. I., & Shchennikova, V. N. (2020). Agricultural exports from Russia to Asian countries: Analysis of prospects and trends. Revista San Gregorio. 37.
39. Nazarenko, V. I. (2006). Gosudarstvo i sel'skoye khozyaystvo na Zapade: monografiya [State and agriculture in the West: monograph]. Ogni TD».
40. Nicula, M., Stoica, C. (Dinca), Bacanu, S., Constanta, M., Ion, I.M. (Dumitriu) & Stanciu, S. (2019). Research Concerning Agricultural Subsidies for Romanian Farmers between 1990-2007. Education excellence and innovation management through vision 2020.
41. Niederle, P., Kurakin, A. A., Nikulin, A. M., & Schneider, S. (2019). Theory of “food regimes” as a model to explain the strategies of agrarian development (the ‘cases’ of Russia and Brazil). RUDN Journal of Sociology, 19(2), 261-276.
42. Noack, E. M., & Schüler, S. (2020). Rural development and human well-being: Do pillar-II-programmes take into account ecosystem services? A study in Lower Saxony, Germany. Environmental Science & Policy, 106, 191-200.
43. Popescu, A. (2018). Honey Production and Trade before and after Romania’s Accession into the European Union. Scientific Papers–Series Management Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, 18(4), 229-247.
44. Qian, Y., & Chen, J. (2018, June). A review on The Common Agricultural Policy in the European Union and the implications for China. In Asia-Pacific Social Science and Modern Education Conference (SSME 2018). Atlantis Press.
45. Rodriguez, M. A., Cuenca, L., & Ortiz, A. (2018, September). FIWARE open source standard platform in smart farming-a review. In Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises (pp. 581-589). Springer, Cham.
46. Rosefielde, S. (1987). Incriminating evidence: Excess deaths and forced labour under Stalin: A final reply to critics. Soviet studies, 39(2), 292-313.
47. Sabadas, M., Dirja, M., & Maxim, M. (2018). Study on implemented and future projects for sustainable development in aghiresu area, cluj county. Scientific Papers, 113.
48. Sapolaitė, V., Veveris, A., Volkov, A., & Namiotko, V. (2019). Dynamics in the Agricultural Sectors of the Baltic States: the Effects of the Common Agricultural Policy and Challenges for the Future. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 15(4), 211-223.
49. Schulte, R. P., O’Sullivan, L., Vrebos, D., Bampa, F., Jones, A., & Staes, J. (2019). Demands on land: Mapping competing societal expectations for the functionality of agricultural soils in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy, 100, 113-125.
50. Shakhmurzov, M. M., Gordeev, A. S., Kulintsev, V. V., Yuldashbaev, Y. A., Konik, N. V., Ulimbasheva, R. A., & Ulimbashev, M. B. (2018). Sustainable development of the agro-industrial complex and rural territories of the regions. South of Russia-Ecology Development, 13(3), 83-95.
51. Simpach, O. (2018). Importance of young farmers in selected member states of European Union. Relik 2017: Reproduction of human capital – mutual links and connections.
52. Sobolev, A., Kurakin, A., Pakhomov, V., & Trotsuk, I. (2018). Cooperation in rural Russia: past, present and future. Mir Rossii: Sociologiia, etnologiia [The world of Russia: sociology, ethnology], 27(1), 65-89.
53. Stacherzak, A., Hełdak, M., Hájek, L., & Przybyła, K. (2019). State Interventionism in agricultural land turnover in Poland. Sustainability, 11(6), 1534.
54. Staresinic, Z., & Franic, M. D. (2018). Structural and investment funds and their impact on the development of the republic of Croatia.Interdisciplinary management research XIV (IMR 2018).
55. Stewart, R. J., Rossow, J., Conover, J. T., Lobelo, E. E., Eckel, S., Signs, K., Stobierski, M. G., Trock, S. C.,Fry, A. M., Olsen, S. J. & Biggerstaff, M. (2018). Do animal exhibitors support and follow recommendations to prevent transmission of variant influenza at agricultural fairs? A survey of animal exhibitor households after a variant influenza virus outbreak in Michigan. Zoonoses and public health, 65(1), 195-201.
56. Suhara, M. (2005). Russian Industrial Growth: An Estimation of a Production Index, 1860-1913. College of Economics, Nihon University. 05-03.
57. Sullins, D. S., Kraft, J. D., Haukos, D. A., Robinson, S. G., Reitz, J. H., Plumb, R. T., Lautenbach, J. M., Lautenbach, J. D., Sandercock, B. K., & Hagen, C. A. (2018). Demographic consequences of conservation reserve program grasslands for lesser prairie‐chickens. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 82(8), 1617-1632.
58. Tegoborsky, M. L. (1852—1855). Etudes sur les forces productives de la Russie. [Essay on the productive forces of Russia], 1852—1855. Paris.
59. Venogradov, A. O., Zaklepenko, A. Y., & Safronova, E. I. (2019). USA, China and WTO: implications of the US-China trade conflict for the world trade. China in world and regional politics: history and modernity. 24.
60. Villaverde, J. J., Sevilla-Morán, B., López-Goti, C., Alonso-Prados, J. L., & Sandín-España, P. (2018). Considerations of nano-QSAR/QSPR models for nanopesticide risk assessment within the European legislative framework. Science of the Total Environment, 634, 1530-1539.
61. Vladu, M., Pânzaru, R. L., Savescu, P., & Matei, G. (2018). Studies on the situation of investments made with public funds under 123 measure" increasing the added value of agricultural and forestry products" of the national rural development program, in the south-west oltenia development region in romania. Romanian Agricultural Research, 35, 275-281.
62. Volkov, A., Baležentis, T., Morkūnas, M., & Streimikiene, D. (2019). Brexit and EU Common Agricultural Policy: The possible consequences for Lithuania. Economics & Sociology, 12(2), 328-344.
63. Wengle, S. A. (2020). The new plenty; why are some post‐Soviet farms thriving? Governance, 33(4), 915-933.
64. Wheatcroft, S. G., Davies, R. W., & Cooper, J. M. (1986). Soviet industrialization reconsidered: some preliminary conclusions about economic development between 1926 and 1941. Economic History Review, 264-294.
65. Yarkova, T. M. (2020). Illegal economic phenomena in the Russian agricultural sector. Revista de la Universidad del zulia. 11(29).
66. York, A. M., & Munroe, D. K. (2010). Urban encroachment, forest regrowth and land-use institutions: Does zoning matter?. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 471-479.
67. Zmija, D., & Zmija, K. (2019). Direct Payments as a Form of Small Farm support in Poland. Hradec economic days, II(9).