leksyia 3 sobstvennost privatizasua

Theme № 3. Economic institutions: ownership and entrepreneurship. Types of economic systems and regularities of development. Lecture 3. 1. The economic system and its elements. 2. Economic and legal content of the property. 3. Denationalization and privatization: the stages, forms, methods and problems.

Ultimate goal of development of any economic system is the satisfaction of needs of a society. The level of satisfaction of needs depends not only on the efficiency of use of the limited economic resources, but also on the existing system of property relations.

Nowadays the economic world that became mostly the world of market economy proceeds from the expediency of coexistence of many various forms of property. Property relations cover all economic process; penetrate through all the system of economic relations. Types of economic systems differ in the forms of property.

1. Types of economic systems, their evolution

Every society, especially modern, represents a social system. It is a complex organized integrity, which includes separate individuals and social communities that are united by different connections and interrelations specific in their nature.

The basis of social system, its most important subsystem is an economic system. It is the sphere of functioning of production forces and productive relations, interaction of which characterizes a set of organization forms and types of economic activity.

The structure elements, which form different economic systems, are heterogeneous in their content. They unite general and specific, main and secondary, new and dying, and transformational economic forms. Each of these forms functions on basis of the general for the whole system and at the same time its own logics of development. In modern economic conditions the structure of elements of the system are characterized by dynamism, volatility and contradictions of development. This determines the necessity of structure differentiation of component elements of the economic system of society, without which the cognition of the objective laws and principal of their functioning is impossible.

In economic literature the problems of social historic development was seen for a long time from the position of formation approach, which essentially limited the possibilities for the analysis of these problems. As the basis of the formational approach is the research of quality determination of social economic and political structure of society (feudalism, capitalism, socialism) in terms of objectively established historical limits of the development of different formations.

Nowadays the development of society is regarded from the position of dialectic unity of civilization and formational aspects of this process. This approach gives an opportunity, on the one side, to understand deeper the essentials of production of vital values, necessary for the development of society, and on the other side – to determine specific features and the character of interaction of different forms of social historic process, which develop in terms of one civilization.

Civilization is one of the historic stages of the development of human society. It includes on the one side the unity of society and on the other – the essentials of the material and spiritual values, which the humanity inherited from the preceding generations and uses on every stage of the development with the aim of the extended reproduction.

Civilization approach is regarded as the method of historic periodization of society, which implies distinguishing of different types of society and historic ages in the historic circulation, which come across certain stages of development from their spring till depression and destruction.

In such historic circulation some researches distinguish multiple stages, others – just three. The worldwide known historian A. Toenby admits the existence of a dozen of various civilizations in the past. Its main defect is negation of the evolution process of human development, in particular natural transition from lower-developed economic systems to more developed ones.

According to other classification, it is distinguished only three civilizations in the development of society – agrarian, industrial and postindustrial (the last one has just begun). In this particular case the civilization approach is wider than formational one. However, such criteria of civilization approach as the level of development of techniques and science only partially cover the essentials of the economic system and almost don’t deal with economic systems and social relations in general. The formational approach explains transition from less developed social economic formations to more developed, first of all by economic factors, in particular by the system development of production forces in their interaction with productive relations (relations of economic property), which form a social way of production. The main criterion of periodization of various social ways of production is a type of property on means of production. In accordance with this criterion the primitive – communal society, slaveholding system, feudalism, capitalism and communism are distinguished.

So, the approach, in which the criterion of property is regarded as the basis of classification of economic systems, is called formational.

The main types and models of economic systems from the point of view of civilization approach.

Criteria of classification of economic systems	Models of economic systems
Portion of state property and the level of state interference economy	Market economy Socially oriented economy Mixed economy Command economy
Presence or absence of commodity-money relations and the level of their development	Natural production Command economy Production of goods Market economy
Development of industry, implementation of science into production	Agrarian society Industrial society Postindustrial society Information society
Character of property on means of production	Primitive-communal society Slaveholding system Feudal system Capitalism

In opinion of the supporters of civilization approach universities, institutes and scientific organizations become the most important structural elements of postindustrial society, and material production forces stop to play at the decisive role. The main social contradiction is the contradiction between specialists, scientific elite and non-specialists. Both in terms of organizations and on the level of society in general (unlike the contradiction between capitalists and employees at the enterprise, which is fundamental in the industrial society.

Methodological shortcomings of the theory of postindustrial society, according to the opinion of a well-known specialist in the field of methodology of economic and political economic research, professor S.V. Mocherny, are: description of the society from the side of one of the elements of productive forces – science; skipping property as a determinative criterion of the classification of society and its minimization to juridical fiction, to interests; substantial isolation from practical reality in developed countries of the world, which outstrip Ukraine in economic potential for several decades.

From the standpoint of formational approach the following economic systems are distinguished: economic precapitalist systems – primitive communal society, slaveholding economic system, feudal; economic system of capitalist type. The indicator of development extent of development of commodity-money relations is concretization of the property criterion. According to this criterion a market, socially oriented, mixed, and command economies are distinguished.

None of these economic systems exists in a pure state. The real economic system is the mixed system in which features of the market and centralized economy are combined, i.e. centralized planning and distribution with market exchange of the goods. In market economy the principles of economic activity play the leading role in comparison with centralized planning and state distribution of economic resources.

A. Smith wrote that market economy is managed by an ‘invisible hand’ of the market, emerging supply and demand, prices, and competition.

In the centralized planned economy directive, administrative methods of management prevail, the state pattern of ownership dominates, private property has practically been forbidden, there was a leveling distribution of incomes, there was no economic independence that did not promote development of business, the prices were established centralized, the state monopolies dominated.

The mixed economy is characterized by equality of all patterns of ownership (state, collective, private), polarization of riches, but thus indifference and mismanagement disappear. Indicative planning and forecasting are used, but there are also state planning and distribution of the state budget, various social and economic programs. Attitudes between firms and businessmen are on a contractual, agreement basis. Characteristic features are also freedom of pricing, freedom of business, competition, economic validity that is expressed in distribution of incomes on end results of work. As we can see, the mixed economic system is more effective in comparison with the centralized planned, command system.

The modern market is adjustable. Therefore according to the requirement of dialectics on the necessity of adequate reflection in the concepts and the categories of the science of reality, the social and economic system existing in Ukraine should be transformed not into market, but into systematic-market, or an adjustable socially-focused market system.

2. Property: economic essence and the right of property. Denationalization and privatization

    The problem of property is a central problem of the economic theory and practice. Economic structure of society is characterized with the appropriate productive relations, which are based on the definite type of property. Property, in turn, establishes the pattern of relations between people in the process of production, allocation, exchange and consumption of the material benefits, it discloses the reasons of the present condition of the economy, predetermines the tendencies in the development of the productive relations.

The essence of the economic power (who confers the material conditions and the results of production) is characterized by the property relations.

Property as a social form of the money profits appropriation is a multivariate category. First of all, it is an economic (basic) category, but simultaneously it is a legal (suspension) category. The property also stands out as a social, political, psychological, moral, ideological factor.

The property as an economic category is the system of expropriation and appropriation relations. For their realization it’s necessary to have at least two subjects and an object which creates these relations.

Appropriation is the economic connection between the people that determines their relation to things as own. C. Marx wrote that property is the relation of a person to the definite things as their own (Comp., T. 46, 4-1,-p. 479-480). The term “appropriation” includes a necessary element that is called “expropriation”. It’s possible to appropriate only things which have been expropriated from another subject, thus appropriation and expropriation are coupled categories. The relations of expropriation appear when products of labour are created by one person, and are appropriated by another one.

As each fact, property has its form and content. Content is a body of thing and process elements. Form is a structure that organizes the content that is correlation of the content elements. The form is always determined with the content.

The essence of property answers the question: who appropriates the material conditions, and, consequently, the effects of production. According to the content there are two kinds of property: labour and unlabored. The character of property is determined by its content.

The form of property shows, in what way appropriation of money profits happens – separately (individual or private appropriation) or collectively (united appropriation).

Property as a legal (juridical) category is expressed in the system of regulation, holding and utilization. C. Marx pointed that a right is an official confession of the fact. It doesn’t express property relations of themselves, only reflects them, that is legally fixes it in the definite laws, in the Constitution of the country.  Relations of regulation have the highest level of the relations. Only the owner can regulate, and it’s expressed in the unlimited appropriation of the money profits. Holding is a partial, temporary appropriation and regulation from the name of the owner. Holding relations are negotiated through the lease. Relations of utilization are shown in the direct using of means of production by the establishment workers. For instance, nowadays we have a state as an acres owner, local Soviets as holders and tenants, farmers as users. As the property can be regulated by one subject, and another only works, there is a contradiction between the labour and property – the main contradiction of each society. Going through all the system of productive relations, property relations determine them and stand as the main productive relations, taking the fundamental place in a system of the productive relations.

Thus, the economic content has the defining value in the behavior of property. The relation of people to things is a result of their relations to each otherin the process of production, allocation, exchange and consumption of the money profits. According to Marx, property is a relation of individuals to each other and their relation to the material, tool and products of labour. Property essence is not in the article of physical possession of things, it is in the process of the direct production, in the economic relations, which express a definite level of development of productive forces of society.

Forms of property have historically incoming character, reflects ascending from the solitary to the individual and general. Historically the stem property was the first form of property, then community property, whish is conditioned with the exceedingly low level of the productive forces development, when a human was not able to survive himself.

Productive forces development, deepening of the social labour division led to the disruption of the community property and to the initiation of the private property.

Historically change of the productive means was accompanied with the drastic changes in the private property. A method of the economic realization of private property became a basis of these changes.

In the slave means of production the private property was actualized by force of the without economic compulsion of slaves to the labour.

The feudal means of production is characterized by the private property of feudal per acres. It was divided into manor and peasant. The peasants and artificers have got private property for the tool of labor, livestock, economic structures, etc., and consequently a possibility to work for themselves. As a result of personal labor of the owner, labor private property appeared which was typical for small commodity production. 

The transition to capitalism is characterized by the development of capitalist private property, based on the wage labour. When a worker got the legal freedom, he was expropriated from the conditions and results of labour. The only property of a worker – his labour force, that he was compelled to buy to the owner of productive means to survive. Property expropriation with means of production from the workers led to the appearance of the hired workers class along with capitalist class. Uneconomic compulsion to labor replaced the economic compulsion. The capitalist private property, non-labour according to the content and separate according to the form, appeared. Consequently, one form of property (private) can have different economic content, and then various social nature.

General law action of the accordance of productive relations to the level and character of the productive forces development is expressed in deepening of the main capitalist contradiction between the intention of the social character of production and conserved private capitalist means of appropriation and administration. The social production demands social appropriation and administration. This objective necessity generates various forms of the associated or common property in cooperation, joint-stock companies, and monopolies.

Thus, per mark of 19-20 centuries the second stage in the development of capitalist private property relations advanced. A common property took leading positions in the economy of the western countries. This kind of property is not connected with the sole owners; it became anonymous and acquired the widest spread occurrence among the population. Banking capital became not only industrial, but also joint-stock. Their joining, amalgamation led to the flotation of the financial- industrial groups,   where industrial enterprises, financial-credit establishments, commercial organizations and design departments can enter to. The aim of such integration is using of new investments to the production for the competitive ability of products increasing in the market, the expansion of produce outlet, cost-effectiveness increasing of the economic activity.

In the second half of the 20th century in the industrialized countries a new phase of scientific-and-technological revolution started, demanding huge investments, that was impossible even for the big corporations. It’s necessary to have more powerful economic force of the social size – active interference of the state to the economic activity. As a result the government property, represented by the state sector, arises and is in progress in the economy.

So, in the second half of the 20th century the third development stage of property relations starts in the western countries. It is characterized by the intensification of the general joint appropriation in the form of the state and municipal property in the economic area.

The fundamental features of the third stage in the development of property relations: - in the majority of countries many key branches of industry (extraction of energy resources, iron and nonferrous –metals industry, atomic energy, etc), military -industrial establishment, central banks, general conditions of production (rail and pipeline transport, electrical network), social sphere institutions (public health, education, etc.) became state-owned; - common, joint property (state property) is used for the national economic and social tasks solution, that is impossible for the solution by the private and corporate capital; - the state uses its property to provide sustainable development to the national economy and to create normal conditions for vital activity of all the people.

On the modern stage of the development of society there are all three types of appropriation in the developed countries. They are: private property (labor and non-labor ); common equity (economic associations, joint-stock companies, industrial cooperatives, joint enterprises, corporations); common joint ( state and municipal) property.

Pure capitalism in its classic form has stopped to be an across-the-board system. Leading positions belong to the collectivized property in its two types – shared and joint, which promote strengthening of the social order to better usage of the top achievements of the material and spiritual culture. At the same time the world experience shows that private property is irreplaceable for the efficient organization of the small business, which is a starting mechanism for any market economy, the motivation of human activity. According to the French enlightener Voltaire, private property is the only material guarantee for personal freedom of a man. However private property is any other phenomenon is connected to the property differentiation of people, their incomes and which can lead to the aggravation of the social relations, appearance of non-labor private property. It is only the state, which can prevent from or localize undesirable consequences using economic leverage.

The evolution in property relations appears also in the relations between labor and capital. Scientific-technical revolution has changed the role of a man in the process of reproduction. The creative talent and high professionalism of a worker have become today the main resource of the economic growth. Therefore owners of the capital have to count on the interests of the owners of professional knowledge and intellectual property. Innovative development of economy and development of ‘share economy’ turn employees into working owners, co-owners, co-managers of a corporation. Relations of cooperation and partnership are developed between the owner and employee. Nevertheless there are some contradictions between them.

Development of collective forms of private property is followed by the process of separation of the capital of property from the capital of a function. At the same time the right of property is being disintegrated: the right of ownership, management, usage and control, the right of benefit belonging to one person, are allocated to the wide circle of people, who are connected with the usage of joint capital. As a result expropriation of a worker from the means and results of labor activity and from the production management. A worker becomes a working owner according to his social status. Appearance principally new types of property (stuff property, intellectual property, property on information) are one more peculiarity in transformation of property on the modern stage of the scientific-technical revolution development. Intellectual property has its own peculiarities. Patent right doesn’t provide the real property on results of the creative labor of the considerable part of inventions. The reason is in the status of workers. Thus, for instance, in USA corporations according to the employment basis all inventions are the property of corporations, i.e. expropriation of the creative personality from the results of its labor, that is one of the barrier in the development of the scientific-technical progress. Overcoming of this barrier resulted in the appearance of a new form of the entrepreneur activity - venture and risky entrepreneurship. Its main feature is about that venture funds for the credit are given not under the interest rate, but under a certain part of anticipated profit  in case of successful research. Nevertheless the risk rate is rather high.

Specific features are common to the property on information. On the one part, information as a bearer of the cost is the object of buying and selling and almost doesn’t differ from a regular good – a service as an object of private property. On the other side, consumption of information as a product isn’t followed by its disappearance. Distinguishing from a regular product, information in the process of its selling isn’t being expropriated. The owner loses only absolute monopoly on its usage and at the same time he may sell the same information for the second time. The value of information is that it is the essential basis for accumulation of intellectual potential of a society.

3.The improvement of property relations is about denationalization and privatization of property.

As it is noted in economic literature, the main reason, which caused the necessity of denationalization and privatization, is the deformation of property relations for means of production. The total nationalization (the part of the state sector in the former USSR exceeded 90 %) has separated a worker from the property and power. The latter were monopolistically concentrated in state possession. It caused hypertrophied centralism in the economy regulation and provided authorities with the right to solve all the questions of economic development: structural, investment, financial and tax policies; regulation of prices and wages, to decide on suppliers and consumers what and how many to produce. The centralized decision making on all the micro- and macroeconomic levels disrupted material incentive and lead to intensification of contradictions in the society.

The state having become a monopolist in economic and political powers in fact tried to realize not the common, but mainly departmental interests. The management methods were also adequate – the methods of strict hierarchical subordination.

In these conditions property in fact was formally communal and less reflected nation-wide features. Relation to nation-wide property as to somebody else’s and impossibility to command the produced product disrupted interest in quality of labor increase.

It’s possible to escape the negative influences in economic and other spheres of life, eliminating the causes of these phenomena, which are hided in the monopolistic position of the state and its institutions that had become full owners of the production resources and the results of the labor of the society. Hence the necessity of denationalization and privatization of property the creation of mixed economy, in which the market subjects (state, cooperative, joint-stock, private and collective enterprises), will be equal.

Denationalization and privatization are interconnected, but not equal terms. Denationalization as the opposite to nationalization must reflect the complex of measures, directed to disruption of state monopoly on property, reduction of state - owned sector creation of mixed economy in forcing the processes of self regulation of economy. Changing the functions of state in the regulation of economy results in that the state doesn’t take part in problems solving on a microeconomic level, but solves only macroeconomic problems.

Privatization is a payable or non-payable transfer of the prevailing part of the state property to individual or collective private owners. Privatization cannot be identified with denationalization however they have some common features. Denationalization not always means transformation of state property into the private one. State property can be of different types of collective property. The purposes of privatization are also different: the return of state property to the people with the help of which and for the funds of which it was created; transfer of inefficient state enterprises to real owners who take risk to lose their capital and thus interested in increase of effectiveness of its usage; mass creation of real subjects of market competition which act in accordance with real market demand. It should be emphasized that privatization in any case doesn’t mean full liquidation of state property. There is a range of industries which must stay in state property. These enterprises may be highly competitive if they work according to the laws of the market economy. The property of the authorities, law enforcement, state security, army, gold and currency funds, state material reserves are not subject to privatization. As well as unique natural objects which have national value.

The main directions of privatization are ‘small’ and ‘big’ privatization, land privatization and privatization of accommodation.

‘Small’ privatization is realized either by selling for cash using tenders or auctions to individual, group, private owners of state enterprises of trade, services, not big industrial, transport, building enterprises, not finished constructions; or by leasing with further redemption of these sights by the collectives working on them.

‘Big’ privatization is realized by means of incorporation of state enterprises. Joint-stock type of business is directed to deprive the state to command the means of production and its results, as well as into forming of a new owner and creating a collective owner.

Choosing a specific form of property privatization depends on industrial specifics of enterprises, the condition of their resource base, econmic efficiency and competitiveness of products produced.

In order to regulate the processes of denationalization and privatization in Ukraine the fund of state property has been established. It provides the forms and methods for privatization of enterprises, promotes the creation of trusts and issue of licenses for operation with privatization documents determines the part of shares of the state (communal) enterprises which is solved on principal value to the members of their labor collectives, organizes and controls shares selling of state enterprises on stock markets.

As a result of implementation of the state privatization policy (according to the ‘Concept of denationalization and privatization of enterprises, land and housing resources’) substantial changes in the structure of property must happen in the Ukrainian economy, the creation of market socially oriented economy in which the enterprises of all forms of property are in equal conditions and work according to market laws.

The system of economic relations of property covers the whole economic process. It goes through the whole system of relations and represents the basis for these relations between the market subjects on production, deployment, exchange and consumption of goods and services.

План:

1. Экономические потребности и экономические интересы.

2. Свойства: экономическая сущность и содержание права собственности. Разгосударствления и приватизации.

3. Типы экономических систем и их эволюция.

Конечной целью развития любой экономической системы является удовлетворение потребностей общества. Уровень удовлетворения потребностей зависит не только от эффективности использования ограниченных экономических ресурсов, но и в существующей системе отношений собственности.

В настоящее время в экономике мира, что стало в основном мира рыночной экономики исходит из целесообразности сосуществование множества различных форм собственности. Имущественные отношения охватывают все экономического процесса; пронизывают всю систему экономических отношений. Типы экономических систем различаются в форм собственности.

3. Типы экономических систем, их эволюция

В каждом обществе, особенно современных, представляет собой социальную систему. Это сложно организованная целостность, которая включает отдельных личностей и социальных сообществ, Объединенных различными связями и взаимоотношениями специфические по своей природе.

Основой социальной системы, ее наиболее важные подсистема экономической системы. Это сфера функционирования производительных сил и производственных отношений, взаимодействия, который характеризует набор форм организации и видов экономической деятельности.

Элементы структуры, которые формируют различные экономические системы, неоднородны в их содержание. Они объединяют общие и специфические, главные и второстепенные, новые и умирает, так и трансформации экономических форм. Каждая из этих форм функций на основе общего для всей системы и в то же время ее собственной логикой развития. В современных экономических условиях структура элементов системы характерны динамизм, изменчивость и противоречия развития. Это определяет необходимость дифференциации структуры составных элементов экономической системы общества, без которых познания объективных закономерностей и основных их функционирования невозможно.

В экономической литературе проблемам социально-исторического развития была видел за долгое время, с позиции формирования подхода, который существенно ограничил возможности для анализа этих проблем. В качестве основы формационного подхода является исследование качества определения социально-экономической и политической структуры общества (феодализм, капитализм, социализм) в условиях объективно сложившаяся историческая ограничения развития различных формаций.

В настоящее время развитие общества рассматривается с позиции диалектического единства цивилизационного и формационного аспекты этого процесса. Такой подход дает возможность, с одной стороны, понять глубинные основы производства жизненные ценности, необходимые для развития общества, а с другой стороны - определить особенности и характер взаимодействия различных форм социальной исторического процесса, который развиваться в рамках одной цивилизации.

Цивилизация-это одна из исторических этапов развития человеческого общества. Она включает в себя, с одной стороны, единство общества, а с другой - суть материальные и духовные ценности, которые человечество, унаследованных от предыдущих поколений и используются на каждом этапе развития с целью расширенного воспроизводства.

Цивилизационном подходе рассматривается как метод периодизации исторического общества, который предполагает выделение различных типов общества и исторических эпох в историческом обращения, которые поступают через определенные этапы развития от весны до депрессии и разрушения.

В таком историческом обращении некоторые исследователи различают несколько этапов, другие - всего три. Всемирно известный историк А. Toenby признает существование десятка различных цивилизаций в прошлом. Ее основным недостатком является отрицание эволюции человеческого развития, в частности естественный переход от низшей развитых экономических систем к более развитым.

Согласно другой классификации, различают только три цивилизации в развитии общества - аграрную, индустриальную и постиндустриальную (последний только началась). В данном конкретном случае цивилизационном подходе шире, чем формационный. Однако такие критерии цивилизационном подходе, как уровень развития техники и науки лишь частично охватывают основы экономической системы и практически не имеет дело с экономических систем и социальных отношений в целом. В формационный подход объясняет переход от менее развитой социально-экономической формации к более развитых, прежде всего, экономическими факторами, в частности, систему развития производительных сил в их взаимодействии с производственные отношения (отношения экономического собственности), которые образуют социальные способ производства. Основным критерием периодизации различных социальных способов производства-это тип собственности на средства производства. В соответствии с этим критерием в первобытно - общинном обществе, рабовладельческой системы, феодализм, капитализм и коммунизм отличаются друг от друга.

Таким образом, подход, в которой критерий собственности рассматривается как основа для классификации экономических систем, называемый формационный.

Основные типы и модели экономических систем с точки зрения цивилизационного подхода.

Критерии классификации экономических систем	Модели экономических систем
Часть государственной собственности и уровень вмешательства государства в экономику	Рыночная экономика "Социально ориентированной экономики" Смешанная экономика Командная экономика
Наличие или отсутствие товарно-денежных отношений и уровень их развития	Естественное производство Командная экономика Производство товаров Рыночная экономика
Развития промышленности, внедрения науки в производство	Аграрное общество Индустриальное общество Постиндустриальное общество Информационного общества
Характер собственности на средства производства	Первобытно-общинном обществе Рабовладельческой системы Феодальная система Капитализм

По мнению сторонников цивилизационного подхода университетов, институтов и научных организаций становятся наиболее важных структурных элементов постиндустриального общества и материального производства сил перестать играть в этом решающую роль. Главное социальное противоречие-это противоречие между специалистами, научной элиты, так и неспециалистов. Как в плане организации, так и на уровне общества в целом (в отличие от противоречия между капиталистами и работниками на предприятии, которое является основополагающим в индустриальном обществе.

Методологические недостатки теории постиндустриального общества, по мнению известного специалиста в области методологии экономической и политической экономических исследований, профессор С.В. Mocherny, являются: наименование общества со стороны одного из элементов производительных сил - науки; пропуск собственность в качестве определяющего критерия классификации общества и его минимизации юридических фантастика, чтобы интересы; существенные отрыве от практической реальности, в развитых странах мира, которые опередить Украину в экономический потенциал в течение нескольких десятилетий.

С точки зрения формационного подхода следующие экономические системы отличаются: экономические precapitalist систем - первобытного общества, рабовладения экономической системы, феодальной; экономической системе капиталистического типа. Индикатор развития мере развития товарно-денежных отношений конкретизации собственности критерий. Согласно этому критерию рыночной, социально ориентированной, смешанных и командной экономикой отличаются друг от друга.

Ни один из этих экономических систем существует в чистом виде. Реальные экономические системы-это смешанная система, в которой функции рынка централизованной экономики и объединены, т.е.. централизованное планирование и распределение с рынка валюты товаров. В рыночной экономике принципы хозяйственной деятельности играет ведущую роль по сравнению с централизованного планирования и государственного распределения экономических ресурсов.

А. Смит писал, что рыночная экономика управляет " невидимая рука " рынка, возникающие спроса и предложения, цены и конкуренции.

В централизованной плановой экономики директивы, административных методов управления, преобладает государственная форма собственности доминирует частная собственность, практически, были запрещены, произошло выравнивание распределения доходов, нет экономической независимости, которая не будет способствовать развитию бизнеса, цены были установлены централизованной государственной монополии доминируют.

Смешанная экономика характеризуется равенством всех форм собственности (государственной, коллективной, частной), поляризация богатства, но при этом безразличие и бесхозяйственности исчезают. Индикативного планирования и прогнозирования используются, но есть также в государственном планировании и распределении государственного бюджета, различных социальных и экономических программ. Отношения между фирмами и предпринимателями по контрактной, договорной основе. Отличительными чертами являются также свободу ценообразования, свободу предпринимательства, конкуренция, экономическая обоснованность, что выражается в распределении доходов по конечным результатам работы. Как мы видим, смешанная экономическая система является более эффективной в сравнении с централизованной плановой, административно-командной системы.

Современный рынок регулируется. Следовательно, согласно требованиям диалектики о необходимости адекватного отражения в понятия и категории науки реальности, социальная и экономическая система, существующая в Украине, должны быть трансформированы не в рынке, но и в систематическом-рынке, или регулируемый социально-ориентированной рыночной системы.