IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v17y2018i1p46-51.html

Is it Possible to Utilise the Agricultural Potential of Ukraine under the Current Agrarian System?

Author

Listed:
  • Olena Borodina
  • Vitaliy Krupin

Abstract

The government of Ukraine aims to transform the country into an ‘agricultural superpower at the international level’ with the hope that the sector will gain high foreign currency earnings and become ‘the engine of national economic development’. The large agribusiness corporations have willingly responded to these calls. However, placing hope solely in the corporate sector is inadequate as the key role of agriculture to create business diversity and achieve rural social and environmental objectives will remain unfulfilled. Many other national economies have experienced ‘the offensive’ of capital on agriculture during the twentieth century, with associated negative consequences, thus encouraging them to adopt more balanced agrarian policies which benefit the whole rural population. Utilisation of Ukrainian agricultural potential as an economic growth engine requires a fundamental change in the interpretation of its purpose, which is currently focused on profit†making export†oriented commercial activity. The multifunctional nature of the sector needs to be emphasised, the purpose of which is not only the production of agricultural and food products, but also the creation of public benefits, such as the development opportunities and means for existence for 14 million Ukrainian rural inhabitants, maintenance of ecological balance, regeneration of soil fertility and preservation of rural landscapes.Le gouvernement ukrainien a pour objectif de transformer le pays en une ‘superpuissance agricole au niveau international’ dans l'espoir que le secteur sera une source importante de devises étrangères et deviendra ‘le moteur du développement économique national’. Les grandes entreprises de l'agrobusiness ont répondu bien volontiers à ces appels. Cependant, il ne suffit pas de placer tous ses espoirs dans le secteur des entreprises car, dans ce cas, l'agriculture ne remplira pas son rôle clé de dans la création d'une diversité d'exploitations et la réalisation d'objectifs en matière de développement rural, social et environnemental. De nombreux autres pays ont fait l'expérience de ‘l'offensive’ du capital dans l'agriculture au cours du vingtième siècle, et de ses conséquences négatives, ce qui les a incités à adopter des politiques agraires plus équilibrées qui profitent à l'ensemble de la population rurale. L'utilisation du potentiel agricole ukrainien en tant que moteur de la croissance économique nécessite un changement fondamental dans l'interprétation de ses objectifs, qui sont actuellement centrés sur une activité commerciale créatrice de profits et orientée à l'exportation. La nature multifonctionnelle du secteur doit être mise en avant, sa finalité n’étant pas seulement la production agricole et alimentaire mais également la création de biens d'intérêt public, tels que le développement d'opportunités et de moyen d'existence pour quatorze millions d'Ukrainiens vivant dans des zones rurales, le maintien d'un équilibre écologique, la régénération de la fertilité des sols et la préservation des paysages ruraux.Die ukrainische Regierung versucht das Land hin zu einer landwirtschaftlichen Supermacht auf internationaler Ebene zu entwickeln. Durch hohe Deviseneinnahmen, so die Hoffnung, soll die Landwirtschaft zum „Motor für die nationale wirtschaftliche Entwicklung†werden. Die großen Agrarunternehmen des Landes haben auf diese Ankündigungen positiv reagiert. Es ist jedoch nicht ratsam, die Hoffnung ausschließlich auf große Agrarunternehmen zu setzen, denn so kann die Landwirtschaft ihre Schlüsselrolle, die in der Schaffung von Unternehmensvielfalt und dem Erreichen von sozialen Zielen und Umweltzielen liegt, nicht erfüllen. Im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert haben viele andere Volkswirtschaften eine “Offensive des Kapitals†mit all den damit verbundenen negativen Konsequenzen für die Landwirtschaft erlebt, was dazu führte, dass sie ausgewogenere Agrarpolitiken einführten, die der gesamten ländlichen Bevölkerung nutzten. Die Ausschöpfung des landwirtschaftlichen Potenzials der Ukraine als ökonomischem Wachstumsmotor des Landes verlangt eine Neuinterpretation ihres Zwecks, der zurzeit in profit†und exportorientierten wirtschaftlichen Aktivitäten besteht. Die Multifunktionalität der Landwirtschaft muss dabei in den Mittelpunkt gerückt werden, denn ihr Sinn besteht nicht nur in der Produktion von landwirtschaftlichen Produkten und Nahrungsmitteln, sondern auch in der Erzeugung von gemeinnützigen Gütern. Zu diesen zählen Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten und die Existenzsicherung für vierzehn Millionen ukrainischen Landbewohnerinnen und Landbewohner, die Aufrechterhaltung des ökologischen Gleichgewichts, die Wiederherstellung der Bodenfruchtbarkeit und der Landschaftsschutz.

Suggested Citation

  • Olena Borodina & Vitaliy Krupin, 2018. "Is it Possible to Utilise the Agricultural Potential of Ukraine under the Current Agrarian System?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 17(1), pages 46-51, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:17:y:2018:i:1:p:46-51
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12151
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12151?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. Brian, Kuns & Visser, Oane, 2016. "Towards an agroholding typology: differentiating large farm companies in Russia and Ukraine," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236326, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. World Bank, 2007. "World Development Report 2008," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 5990, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. V. Nebrat & K. Gorditsa & N. Gorin, 2020. "Structural and financial risks of land capitalization: lessons of domestic history," Economy and Forecasting, Valeriy Heyets, issue 3, pages 75-96.
    2. Tamás Mizik & Péter Gál & Áron Török, . "Does Agricultural Trade Competitiveness Matter? The Case of the CIS Countries," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 12(01).
    3. Nestor Shpak & Ihor Kulyniak & Maryana Gvozd & Jolita Vveinhardt & Natalia Horbal, 2021. "Formulation of Development Strategies for Regional Agricultural Resource Potential: The Ukrainian Case," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-30, June.
    4. Rashad Huseynov & Naila Aliyeva & Valery Bezpalov & Denis Syromyatnikov, 2024. "Cluster analysis as a tool for improving the performance of agricultural enterprises in the agro-industrial sector," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 4119-4132, February.

    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. Lesly Cassin, 2018. "The effects of migration and pollution externality on cognitive skills in Caribbean economies: a Theoretical analysis," EconomiX Working Papers 2018-30, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    2. Carter, Michael & Morrow, John, 2014. "The political economy of inclusive rural growth," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Yonas Alem & Mintewab Bezabih & Menale Kassie & Precious Zikhali, 2010. "Does fertilizer use respond to rainfall variability? Panel data evidence from Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 165-175, March.
    4. Jackeline Velazco & Ramon Ballester, 2016. "Food Access and Shocks in Rural Households: Evidence from Bangladesh and Ethiopia," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 527-549, November.
    5. Allenton D. Allen Jr. & Kadijah Diallo, 2025. "Agricultural Dynamics in Liberia: Current Issues and Solutions," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 9(10), pages 7430-7437, October.
    6. Arega D. Alene, 2010. "Productivity growth and the effects of R&D in African agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(3‐4), pages 223-238, May.
    7. Ioannis Glinavos, 2010. "Transition or development?," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 10(1), pages 59-74, January.
    8. Marius-Cristian PANĂ, 2012. "Education and Crisis," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(5(570)), pages 145-156, May.
    9. Ceballos, Francisco & Chugh, Aditi & Kramer, Berber, 2024. "Impacts of personalized picture-based crop advisories: Experimental evidence from India and Kenya," IFPRI discussion papers 2322, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Backson Mwangi & Ibrahim Macharia & Eric Bett, 2021. "Ex-post Impact Evaluation of Improved Sorghum Varieties on Poverty Reduction in Kenya: A Counterfactual Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 447-467, April.
    11. ., 2013. "An Indian Miracle?," Chapters, in: D. S.P. Rao & Bart van Ark (ed.), World Economic Performance, chapter 4, pages 88-110, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Joel Negin & Roseline Remans & Susan Karuti & Jessica Fanzo, 2009. "Integrating a broader notion of food security and gender empowerment into the African Green Revolution," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 1(3), pages 351-360, September.
    13. Devkota, Krishna Prasad & Devkota, Mina & Boboev, Hasan & Juraev, Diyor & Dilmurodov, Sherzod & Sharma, Ram C., 2025. "Data-Driven Agronomic Solutions to Close Wheat Yield Gaps and Achieve Self-Sufficiency in Uzbekistan," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    14. Ashok K. Mishra & Anjani Kumar & Pramod K. Joshi & Alwin D'Souza, 2018. "Cooperatives, contract farming, and farm size: The case of tomato producers in Nepal," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 865-886, October.
    15. Sunil KANWAR & Elisabeth SADOULET, 2008. "Dynamic Output Response Revisited: The Indian Cash Crops," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 46(3), pages 217-241, September.
    16. Collins-Sowah, Peron A., 2018. "Theoretical conception of climate-smart agriculture," Working Papers of Agricultural Policy WP2018-02, University of Kiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Chair of Agricultural Policy.
    17. Fu, Xiaolan & Pietrobelli, Carlo & Soete, Luc, 2011. "The Role of Foreign Technology and Indigenous Innovation in the Emerging Economies: Technological Change and Catching-up," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 1204-1212, July.
    18. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    19. OA Oyebamiji & ZS Kisava & JN Harris, 2021. "Irrigation and Productivity Empirical Insight of Farming Households in Tchien District," Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research, Lupine Publishers, LLC, vol. 9(2), pages 1196-1204, February.
    20. Stads, Gert-Jan, 2015. "Agricultural R&D in West Asia and North Africa: Recent investment and capacity trends," ASTI synthesis reports 129429, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    More about this item

    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:bla:eurcho:v:17:y:2018:i:1:p:46-51. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.