IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aiy/jnjaer/v21y2022i3p576-603.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Study of the Profit Distribution Dynamics of Mining and Manufacturing Enterprises in Russia in the Imperatives of Industrial Changes

Author

Listed:
  • Inna K. Shevchenko
  • Yuliya V. Razvadovskaya

Abstract

Dynamic transformations in the economic, technological, social and political contours of global development adds a number of weighty arguments in favor of industrial changes in the domestic economy, involving the development of its own production potential. The purpose of this article is to study the relationship between the dynamics of profit distribution and the affiliation of enterprises in the industrial sector of the economy to various technological groups of industries and forms of ownership. The authors formulate a hypothesis that in the context of industrial changes at the present stage of economic development, the distribution of profitability of companies in the industrial sector implies more intensive structural shifts in the manufacturing industries, mainly in the high-tech sector. The methodology used in this study makes it possible to identify key structural asymmetries in the process of industrial changes in the Russian economy, including in the system of distribution of ownership of capital between state and private companies. To do this, the article uses data on the profit of industrial companies before tax and net profit presented in SPARK for 225,148 privately owned companies, as well as 1,178 state-owned companies for the period from 2011 to 2020. The authors formulate a conclusion about the dominant role of profit in the process of structural inertia of industrial changes in the national economy under conditions of limited invariance. Unlike previous studies, the article proves the presence of features in the distribution of profitability of industrial sectors of various technological groups, as well as the relationship between the form of ownership, net profit and the level of manufacturability of production. The theoretical significance of the study lies in supplementing the main provisions of the theory of industrial development of the economy, including the development of theoretical foundations for assessing the key parameters of the development of industries. The practical significance of the results obtained in the study is determined by the possibility of their application in the system of state incentives for the development of high-tech industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Inna K. Shevchenko & Yuliya V. Razvadovskaya, 2022. "Study of the Profit Distribution Dynamics of Mining and Manufacturing Enterprises in Russia in the Imperatives of Industrial Changes," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 21(3), pages 576-603.
    • Handle: RePEc:aiy:jnjaer:v:21:y:2022:i:3:p:576-603
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2022.21.3.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journalaer.ru//fileadmin/user_upload/site_15934/2022/06_SHevchenko_Razvadovskaja.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2022.21.3.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mercan, Muhammet & Reisman, Arnold & Yolalan, Reha & Emel, Ahmet Burak, 2003. "The effect of scale and mode of ownership on the financial performance of the Turkish banking sector: results of a DEA-based analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 185-202, September.
    2. Dumenil, Gerard & Levy, Dominique, 1990. "Post Depression Trends in the Economic Rate of Return for U.S. Manufacturing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(3), pages 406-413, August.
    3. Wolf, Christian, 2009. "Does ownership matter? The performance and efficiency of State Oil vs. Private Oil (1987-2006)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2642-2652, July.
    4. Boardman, Anthony E & Vining, Aidan R, 1989. "Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 1-33, April.
    5. Berthold Herrendorf & Richard Rogerson & Akos Valentinyi, 2019. "Growth and the Kaldor Facts," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 101(4), pages 259-276.
    6. Caroline Betts & Rahul Giri & Rubina Verma, 2017. "Trade, Reform, and Structural Transformation in South Korea," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 65(4), pages 745-791, November.
    7. John Laitner, 2000. "Structural Change and Economic Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(3), pages 545-561.
    8. Freeman, Alan, 1991. "National Accounts in Value Terms: The Social Wage and Profit Rate in Britain 1950-1986," MPRA Paper 52760, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 05 Feb 1991.
    9. Arthur, W. Brian & Landesmann, Michael & Scazzieri, Roberto, 1991. "Dynamics and structures," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-7, June.
    10. John Vickers & George Yarrow, 1991. "Economic Perspectives on Privatization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 111-132, Spring.
    11. Kurt Dopfer & Jason Potts, 2004. "Evolutionary realism: a new ontology for economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 195-212.
    12. Henley, Andrew, 1987. "Labour's Shares and Profitability Crisis in the U.S.: Recent Experience and Post-war Trends," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 315-330, December.
    13. Timo Boppart, 2014. "Structural Change and the Kaldor Facts in a Growth Model With Relative Price Effects and Non‐Gorman Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 2167-2196, November.
    14. Jim Glassman, 2001. "Economic Crisis in Asia: The Case of Thailand," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 77(2), pages 122-147, April.
    15. Tomasz Swiecki, 2017. "Determinants of Structural Change," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 24, pages 95-131, March.
    16. David Hauner, 2005. "Explaining efficiency differences among large German and Austrian banks," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(9), pages 969-980.
    17. Roberto Torrini, 2005. "Profit Share and Returns on Capital Stock in Italy: the Role of Privatisations behind the Rise of the 1990s," CEP Discussion Papers dp0671, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    18. Paul H. Malatesta & Kathryn L. DeWenter, 2001. "State-Owned and Privately Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labor Intensity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 320-334, March.
    19. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2002. "Technology, Geography, and Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1741-1779, September.
    20. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
    21. Dumenil, G & Glick, Mark & Rangel, J, 1987. "The Rate of Profit in the United States," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 331-359, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sposi, Michael, 2019. "Evolving comparative advantage, sectoral linkages, and structural change," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 75-87.
    2. Phi, Nguyet Thi Minh & Taghizadeh-Hesary, Farhad & Tu, Chuc Anh & Yoshino, Naoyuki & Kim, Chul Ju, 2019. "Performance Differential Between Private and State-Owned Enterprises: An Analysis of Profitability and Leverage," ADBI Working Papers 950, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    3. Filippo Belloc, 2014. "Innovation in State-Owned Enterprises: Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 821-848.
    4. Meenakshi Parida & S. Madheswaran, 2021. "Effect of firm ownership on productivity: empirical evidence from the Indian mining industry," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(1), pages 87-103, April.
    5. Mohammed Omran, 2008. "The Performance of State-Owned Enterprises and Newly Privatized Firms: Does Privatization Really Matter?," Chapters, in: José María Fanelli & Lyn Squire (ed.), Economic Reform in Developing Countries, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Beuselinck, Christof & Cao, Lihong & Deloof, Marc & Xia, Xinping, 2017. "The value of government ownership during the global financial crisis," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 481-493.
    7. Chen, Gongmeng & Firth, Michael & Rui, Oliver, 2006. "Have China's enterprise reforms led to improved efficiency and profitability?," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 82-109, March.
    8. Stefan Buehler & Simon Wey, 2014. "When Do State-Owned Firms Crowd Out Private Investment?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 319-330, September.
    9. Gong, Stephen X.H. & Cullinane, Kevin & Firth, Michael, 2012. "The impact of airport and seaport privatization on efficiency and performance: A review of the international evidence and implications for developing countries," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 37-47.
    10. Wolf, C. & Pollitt, M.G., 2008. "Privatising national oil companies: Assessing the impact on firm performance," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0811, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3860 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Henk Berkman & Rebel A. Cole & Lawrence J. Fu, 2014. "Improving corporate governance where the State is the controlling block holder: evidence from China," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7-9), pages 752-777, September.
    13. Boardman, Anthony E. & Vining, Aidan R. & Weimer, David L., 2016. "The long-run effects of privatization on productivity: Evidence from Canada," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 1001-1017.
    14. Jørn Rattsø & Rune J. Sørensen, 2012. "Political control of government enterprises: Who controls whom?," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2012-02-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    15. Vaona, Andrea, 2011. "Profit rate dynamics, income distribution, structural and technical change in Denmark, Finland and Italy," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 247-268, September.
    16. Parida, Meenakshi & Madheswaran, S., 2021. "Does ownership matter? Empirical evidence from the performance of Indian state and private coal mining companies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    17. Mathur, Ike & Banchuenvijit, Wanrapee, 2007. "The effects of privatization on the performance of newly privatized firms in emerging markets," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 134-146, May.
    18. Jing Yan, 2017. "Privatisation and trade performance: evidence from China," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 31(1), pages 66-78, May.
    19. Andrea Boitani & Marcella Nicolini & Carlo Scarpa, 2013. "Do competition and ownership matter? Evidence from local public transport in Europe," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(11), pages 1419-1434, April.
    20. Alonso-Carrera, Jaime & Raurich, Xavier, 2018. "Labor mobility, structural change and economic growth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 292-310.
    21. Bozec, Richard, 2004. "L’analyse comparative de la performance entre les entreprises publiques et les entreprises privées : le problème de mesure et son impact sur les résultats," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 80(4), pages 619-654, Décembre.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    industrial changes; structural shift; institution of property; profit; mining sector; high-tech production; rent; industrial policy.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L16 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics; Macroeconomic Industrial Structure
    • H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aiy:jnjaer:v:21:y:2022:i:3:p:576-603. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Natalia Starodubets (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seurfru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.