– 994 . – : https://sites.google.com/site/seinstitutespb/ dennis-muller-obsestvennyj-vybor.
10. Atkinson, A. B., L. Rainwater and T. Smeeding. Income Distribution in OECD ountries // O CD Social Policy Studies. – 1995. – No. 18. – 164 .
11. :
[ ] / [ ., ., .,
.] – . – 2014. – 76 . – : http://www.rac.org.ua/ fileadmin/user_upload/publications/GGI_ Ukraine_final.pdf
2 1 . 0 1 . 1 5
. , - . , .,
. ,
, ,
:
.
; ,
;
.
К : ; ; ;
.
Z. Halushka, Doctor of Sciences (Economics), Professor, A. Dutchak, researcher
Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, Chernivtsi, Ukraine
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY OF MARKET DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME: APPROACHES TO EVALUATION
This article provides a comparison between scientific approaches to understanding the economic and social efficiency of market income distribution. Based on multidisciplinary approaches the essence of the concepts of fairness and efficiency in the distribution; explored approaches to combining efficiency and equity used in policy income distribution at different levels of management; the possible social and economic consequences of ineffective regulation of income in today's economy. The analysis is based on comparing the four concepts of justice that are considered socially efficient. Considered: utilitarian, formulated by J. Bentham; egalitarian, which provides for equal distribution; market (liberal) approach – to polar egalitarian and roulzianskyy that treats justice as fairness, approaches. Based on the generalization of existing approaches analyzed method of estimating social justice in the distribution and the possibility of its application. The structure of the article includes the following sections: 1.Views on terms of efficiency and equity in the distribution of resources and income; 2. Classical and modern approaches to combining efficiency and equity in the distribution; 3. Conflicts combination of the principles of fairness and efficiency in the distribution of incomes policy. The authors also noted that the uneven distribution of income acts as an objective reality, and the question is to prevent dangerous indicators of this unevenness. Market income distribution does not guarantee every person an acceptable level of income. The causes of irregularity are: differences in abilities, mental as well as physical; differences in possession of the property, in the educational level and group reasons associated with luck, chance, surprise win more. This is a definite social injustice market. State, taking a significant share of responsibility for maintaining a basic human right to a dignified life, organizes redistribution.
Keywords: economic efficiency; social justice; market income distribution; contradictions income distribution.
Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Economics, 2015; 2 (167): 18-23 330.341.1
JEL M21, O 21
DOI: dx.doi.org/ 10.17721/1728-2667.2015/167-2/3
. , - . , .,
. , .
,
,
, , ґ
-є ' .
К : ; , є ,
-.
.
Є . є
Є ,
2000
[1].
-, є, ,
,
.
є 'є
- .
-є ,
,
-,
-. '
, є , є
.
-є
.
, ,
-,
-- . 'є
є
-'є .
є ,
-є , ґ є
.
є -,
,
-ґ
-,
-є .
. ,
-, є
-. ,
, є,
-,
,
–
-, .
-є ,
– є. . є,
-, – ,
-,
[2]. , є, є,
є , ,
-, ,
. ,
. є , ,
, ,
,
[3]. ,
-, є
-,
.
. . є , . I. ,
. I. i . [4, . 5], ,
-,
,
-є
. , ,
, " є
,
, . Є. . . , є
–
є " [5, . 11]. є
[6, . 21],
є
, ,
– .
-є є
-,
-є –
-, , [5, . 12].
,
,
-є
,
' .
.
.
є ,
-. ,
,
-,
-.
є
–
,
-є
-. ,
,
-- ,
-, '
. ,
-, є ,
-є , ,
'
( ,
( , ,
-).
-,
'є ,
-є 'є
-. –
, є
,
-.
-є є
-,
. ,
,
-,
є , є
є є [7, . 501].
-,
, ,
,
. 'є
, ,
, 'є
-, ' , 'є
-,
'є .
-, ,
, '
, .
'є ,
-, є
є
-. –
-є є
,
-, ,
,
. ,
3- 4- ,
1970- , є
' ,
-є ,
, ,
, '
-є ,
[8, . 32]. ,
3- (
, , ,
) 57,9 %,
4- ( , ,
-, ) – 38,2 %,
є: 5- – 3,8 %, 6- – 0,1 %, . 1.
. 1.
Ⱦɠɟɪɟɥɨ: [9]
96,5 % , є
, є .
3- 4- є
[9].
, є
-,
є
' ,
є
-. 5-
є , ,
,
-, ,
-,
-. ,
-,
є
. ,
-, , є
-є
є ,
-є . ,
є, є
, , є
-. ,
,
2001–
2007 5,8–7,0 %,
2008 , 2012
2013 3.3 % [10].
85–90 % є
є [11].
'
-є
-є .
є є
-,
,
,
-.
,
2009–2012 є
є ,
. 2. є , 2000 – 2013 є , %
Ⱦɠɟɪɟɥɨ: [10]
-є
-, є
-, є
-, є
-,
-є , 41 % є , –
[12]. , ,
-, є
-.
3- ,
є
-, є
-. , , є
,
-є
, ,
-,
-. ,
-є є ,
є . 2013
0,2 %
11,7 % -.
2014 2013
є
5,3 % [10].
--
-є
-. є
: є
є
7,3 – 22847
2002 3138 – 2013 ;
є
2013 2011
62 %;
2010
2009 63,6 % – 479 [10].
є . , є
,
є
-,
-є ,
-.
,
-є , є
,
,
,
-. ' ,
,
-є ,
-є
-. ,
21 2010
№ 2632-VI " : "
2010–2020 " [13],
є
,
-,
є ,
-,
-, є
-, є ,
, ,
, є
.
,
-.
10
-, ,
.
-є 1,9 %,
-є 5 %[14].
–
. є
' ,
-, ,
-, .
20 1,3 %
.
0,5 % . 2013 .
0,29 % [15].
- є ,
-є Є , ,
є ,
. 2000–2002
Є
1,9 % , –
2002 , є
3,0 % 2010 [16].
, 24–25 2010 , Є
-Є –2020,
-, Є є
-,
3 % 2020 [17].
' , є
-, ,
-є -
-, є
-, є
– ,
,
є .
-є
-, є
-.
-є ,
-, 1991–1999
248 ( . . 40 %
-), 104
, ,
-, ,
, [18], , є
[19].
( , , )
-, ,
-,
,
, .
, є
, , , "
є
-.
- ,
,
.
-.
,
10 . 100 ,
6 . . [18].
–
-,
-- -
-, ,
-. ,
6,1 . є , , ,
5 – , 11 – , 22 –
, 25 – [20].
є 2000–
2010 – V
4,5 . ,
0,2 . ;
0,7 . ,
– 1,4 . .
1,2 . [21].
,
.
є . 2005–2010
(– 3,7 %),
Є –27 2,6 % [22].
,
-,
-,
-.
. , ,
-є .
, є
є
-. ,
,
-є .
,
, ,
,
-,
є , ,
, ,
є
-,
,
-, . ,
-,
.
. -
-'є
, '
-,
-.
є
, є
-, є
-.
-,
-, '
-,
-.
1. Innovation Policy: updating the Union's approach in the context of the Lisbnon strategy. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels. – 11.03.2003.
2. . , , / . //
: . . – .: , , 2003. –
. II. – . 73–106.
3. . / . // . – .:
, , 2003. – . II. – . 129–167.
4. - : [
-] / . . є , . I. , . I. [ i .]. – .: . , 2005. – 189 .
5. . Є. є :
: [ ] / . Є. , . . . – -: , 2011. – 136 .
6. . . : [ .
] / . . . – .: - , 2001. – 446 .
7. Є. . : [ ] / Є. . . – .:
. - , 2006. – 704 .
8. . .
/
. . , . . // . – 2014. – № 2. –
. 31-39.
9. . .
/ . . , Є. . // . –
2013. – № 1. – . 3-20. – : http://nbuv.gov.ua/j-pdf/ ekmk_2013_1_3.pdf.
10. [ ]. –
: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua.
11. є . . :
-, , / . . є //
-.– 2014. – № 1 (35). – .168-170.
12. .
/ . //
: , , . – № 4-5. 2010. – . 65-71.
13. : "
2010-2020
-": [
21.10.2010 № 2632-VI] // ( ). –
2011 . – № 11. – . 72.
14. . [
-]. – : http://www.nas.gov.ua/tradeunion/
news/Documents/ %20%20 %20 %20 %20
%2014.03.13.pdf.
15.
13 2013 .: "
- " [
]. – : http://www. kno.rada.gov.ua/komosviti. 16. Є – : http://www.eurostat.com.
17. " 2020" –
2020 [ ]. –
: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/documents/ eurobulletin/eurobulet_04_2010_uk.pdf.
18. є . .
/
. . є // .
: . – 2012. – . 12. – . 100-106.
19. . .
/ . . , . . // : . – 2008. – №2 (37). – . 15-23.
20. "
-№ 3 "
2013 ". [ ]. – :
http://rada.gov.ua/.
21. : :
/ . . . ;
. . . . – :
" ", 2012. – 412 . – . 167-168.
22. "
-№ 3 "
2013 ". [ ]. – :
http://rada.gov.ua/.
3 0 . 0 1 . 1 5
. , - . , .,
. , .
, ,
,
-, ,
-.
К : ; , ,
-.
V. Zianko, Doctor of Sciences (Economics), Professor, V. Zianko, PhD student,
Vinnytsia National Technical University, Vinnytsia, Ukraine
CONTRADICTIONS IN FORMATION OF AN INNOVATIVE MODEL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF UKRAINE
In the article has been investigated the basic economic contradictions inherent to the current stage of formation in Ukraine model of innovative development, their causes and consequences for the national economy were analyzed; reasonable ways of enhancing the development of innovative business solutions as a basic condition of existing economic contradictions were corroborated.
