Property - economic basis system of society, its main element. It determines the economic way of connecting the worker with the means of production, the purpose of the functioning and development of the economic system, social structure society, the nature of the incentives for labor activity, the way the results of labor are distributed.

Taking on the surface of phenomena the appearance of a person's relationship to a thing (the thing is mine or the thing is not mine), property is always the relation of the "owner" to the "non-owner". The reason is the division of labor, which encourages people to exchange activities and their results and enter into a relationship of appropriation and alienation. If appropriation means the possibility of owning, disposing and using an object of property at one's own discretion, then alienation is the deprivation of such an opportunity.

There are different approaches to property in Marxist and classical economic theory.

According to the Marxist approach, property occupies the main place in a particular mode of production, and their change is carried out in accordance with the change in the dominant forms of ownership. Marxism saw the main evil of capitalism in the existence of private property. Therefore, he associated the reformation of bourgeois society with the replacement of private property with public (public) property. The implementation of this approach in practice has led to the substitution of the public property of the state, to the total nationalization of property and management. As a result, a super-monopolized economy appeared, the main features of which are hidden unemployment, suppressed inflation, the absence of economic motives for work, a general shortage of goods and services, the dominance social dependency etc. Therefore, the transition to a more efficient, market type of economy requires the replacement of monopoly state property by its non-state types.

In Western economic theory, the concept of property is associated with the limited resources compared to the needs for them. This contradiction is resolved by excluding access to resources, which provides ownership. Ownership is the right to control the use of certain resources and share the resulting costs and benefits.

Subjects and objects of property are distinguished.

Subjects of ownership - the carrier of properties, characteristic features and powers that determine the features of the use of the object. These include:

• - individuals - individual individuals who own consumer goods, means of production, other property.
• Collectives are an association of people who jointly own, manage and use this property.
• - society (state) - the largest subject of ownership, it manages and disposes of property belonging to all citizens of a given country.

Objects of property are what property relations are formed about (means of production, commodities, resources, labor force). Thus, according to the Law on Property in the Republic of Belarus, the objects of property are land, its subsoil, water, airspace, buildings, structures, equipment, flora and fauna, the results of intellectual work, information, money, securities and other property.

The composition of property objects does not remain unchanged. It changes under the influence of scientific and technological revolution, the development of productive forces. Material goods are increasingly being replaced by objects of intellectual property: discoveries, inventions, scientific knowledge, information. At the same time, no matter how the objects of property change, among them one can always single out the main, key ones, the possession of which gives real economic power. These include the means of production. Their owner is the real owner of production and its results.

There are two types of property: private and public.

Private property expresses the relations of appropriation of means and results of production by private individuals.

Types of private property:

• 1. Labor: from entrepreneurial labor activity, from running one's own economy and other forms based on the work of this person.
• 2. Unearned: from receiving property by inheritance, dividends from shares, bonds and other securities, income from funds invested in credit institutions, and other sources not related to labor activity.

Public ownership means the joint appropriation of the means and results of production.

Types of public property:

• 1. collective (subject of ownership - a team of workers).
• 2. state (subject of ownership - all citizens of the country).

Forms of collective ownership:

• 1. Collective (people's) - the result of the transfer of all property of a state enterprise into the hands of the collective, the redemption of leased property.
• 2. Cooperative - a kind of collective property, the common property of all members of the cooperative who have pooled their funds and labor to carry out joint production or other activities.
• 3. Joint-stock (the most common in a market economy) - the result of combining capital for joint activities, the sale of shares and bonds, as well as economic activity.3,64

The subject of state property is all the people of a given country. Management and disposal of property here is carried out on behalf of the people by state authorities. The peculiarity of this type of property is the indivisibility of its objects between subjects - taxpayers. In different countries, state property occupies a different share. In countries with a state economy, for example, in former USSR, it was up to 90% or more. In countries with market economies, its share is much smaller.

RUSSIAN STATE SOCIAL UNIVERSITY

Branch of the state educational institution of higher vocational education"Russian State Social University" in Togliatti, Samara Region

Department of Economics, Finance and Accounting

Specialty: Finance and credit

Full-time form of education

COURSE WORK

Discipline: Economic theory

Topic: "The structure of ownership in the economy developed countries»

2nd year student of group FD-09

Dikalenko M.I.

Scientific adviser:

Baranov A.A.

Head's signature________

Introduction

On present stage development economic relations among economists, a tradition has been established to classify forms of ownership as a kind of amorphous set that is not amenable to rigid formalization. Moreover, in the course of historical development, there was a constant transformation of property relations: some forms of ownership were replaced by others. The change in forms of ownership took place at a revolutionary pace and in conditions when the very concept of "property" was interpreted in different ways. Such a total change in the form of ownership without a simultaneous deep rationalization of the relations of ownership, use and management of objects of property not only does not solve the problem of improving the efficiency of the functioning of the economic system, but also aggravates the situation.

At present, the question of the economic efficiency of each form of ownership is of particular relevance. Since the wrong and unreasonable choice of the form of ownership can reduce both the efficiency of the functioning of each individual market entity separately and reduce the country's economic growth.

The purpose of the work is to analyze the essence and consider the variety of forms of ownership in the conditions of the global market economy mechanism.

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set and solved:

To reveal the essence of the concept of "property" as an economic category;

Consider the system of forms of ownership,

Give them a description;

Consider the evolution of forms of ownership;

To analyze the transformation of forms of ownership in developed countries in the context of the transition to market relations;

Consider the concept of state policy in the field of development of property relations.

The subject of the study is property, the object is the forms of ownership in the conditions of the economy of developed countries.

The object of the study is the developed countries of the world.

When writing the work, the material of textbooks, periodicals and Internet resources was used.

1. PLACE AND ROLE OF PROPERTY IN THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM

1.1. "Property" as an economic category

Property relations form the basis of any economic system. Thus, for more than 80 years, property relations have developed in Russia, which formed the basis of the administrative-command system of the economy. Functioning market economy means the presence of various forms of ownership. Three key points in the development of property relations can be singled out: 1) with the help of relations of appropriation of the means of production, the right of certain subjects to be owners of the corresponding means of production is established and legally fixed; 2) relations of economic use of the means of production arise in the event that their owners lease them into temporary possession and use by others; 3) relations of economic realization of property are revealed through the receipt of income by their owners.

The quantitative aspect of property is a variety of objects: factories, means of labor, land, money, securities, patents, licenses, etc. The most important object of property is the means of production. Depending on in whose hands they are concentrated (slave owner, feudal lord or capitalist), an appropriate social mode of production is formed.

The qualitative aspect of ownership is the relationship between people, enterprises, the state, between the state and other subjects regarding the appropriation of the means of production, the created product, securities, etc. in all spheres of social reproduction. The theoretical expression of economic property relations is the totality of such economic categories as “cost”, “price”, “money”, “capital”, “wages”, “profit”, “tax”, etc.

The qualitative aspect of ownership means the relationship of appropriation that a person enters into with other people. If he works in a capitalist enterprise, then part of the results of his labor is appropriated by the capitalist-entrepreneur, a person, as a result, turns into a hired worker, appropriates the necessary product or its share in the form of wages, while the capitalist - all the additional and part of the necessary product. Their relationship is also revealed in the fact that the capitalist controls the process of work, manages production and property at the enterprise, determines the forms and systems of wages, and so on.

Economic property is a historical category. Thus, relations between people regarding the appropriation of labor power arose only with the time of the birth of the capitalist mode of production, and regarding the appropriation of services - mainly at the highest stage of the development of the latter.

At the same time, a complete definition of property requires clarification of its other aspects.

The legal side of the sociological concept of property is most closely connected with economic property. Legal property is a general condition for production, the manifestation of the will of a certain class and the legal registration of this will in legal acts and norms, in the right of ownership. Since legal property is an expression of volitional relations between people associated with a certain type of material or intangible goods or things, then it, like economic property, also has two sides: 1) the volitional relationship of a person to another person, or a group of people to another group ; 2) the relation of man to things. In the latter case, things (means of labor, consumer goods, etc.) belong to certain persons, turning into the sphere of manifestation of human will, and constitute the object of their possession, their property, and people are the owners of this property.

At the same time, the volitional attitude of a person to things is established. She puts her will into a certain thing. In this regard, legal property means the attitude of an individual to things as to his own, that is, as to himself, or extending himself to external objects, drawing them into his orbit, power over things, if the owner can dispose of them at his own discretion. In this case, things are personified, personified and contrasted with other things that are either not in any possession at all, or are in the possession of other subjects. Free access to such things by other members of society is not allowed. Certain things as objects of possession constitute the property of a particular person, become a monopoly sphere of manifestation of the exclusive will of their owner. In the consciousness of the latter, this process is displayed in his attitude to things as to his own, which is not in the sphere of manifestation of the will of other individuals. In the minds of such persons, this is displayed as an attitude towards other people's things, not as their own property. The most important categories of legal property are possession, disposal, use.

In addition to the economic and legal aspects, other aspects should be highlighted in ownership.

Thus, the social aspect of property reveals the process of formation and development of classes, social strata and groups and the interaction between them, depending on the attitude towards the means of production, methods of obtaining a certain part of the national wealth. So, in Russia in the 90s. actively formed the class of the bourgeoisie, the so-called "new Russians", who enriched themselves mainly at the expense of state property, evading taxes, and other illegal methods.

The political aspect of property characterizes the impact on the policy of the state, depending on the presence of a certain part of the property, the appropriation of various forms of national wealth. For example, the class of “new Russians” is also formed as a result of “excessive inflation” of the state apparatus, theft of state property, the receipt of bribes by officials, fashionable apartments at low prices, and so on.

The psychological aspect of property reflects the presence of a sense of the owner in a human worker or its absence, the attitude to property as one's own, no one's or someone else's. As a result of the total nationalization of property in the former USSR, the vast majority of workers treated it as someone else's, which was revealed in the massive plunder of this property.

1.2. The system of forms of ownership and their characteristics

Among Russian jurists and economists, a tradition has been established to classify forms of ownership as a kind of amorphous set that is not amenable to rigid formalization. In this set, public, state, municipal, republican, federal, private, cooperative, corporate, joint-stock, etc. are intricately intertwined. forms of ownership. There are no criteria for the subordination of these forms, types and subtypes of property.

Based on this, the following historically known forms of ownership can be distinguished - private and state (public).

Private property -

Since the property relations of citizens are regulated by civil (private) law, their property is called private property. In a legal sense, any non-state property can be called private.

Private property implies that the means of labor and the external working conditions belong to private individuals. However, “depending on whether these individuals are employees or non-employees , the nature of private property itself is changing” (K. Marx).

It is in the developed capitalist economy that phenomena are observed when direct workers become owners of shares, participate (through trade unions) in the management of production, decision social problems, exercise control over working conditions, employment, etc. At the same time, capital itself acts as a complex system of corporations, management, and rentiers, which is due to the evolving specification of property rights. In addition, the state itself contributes to the expansion of the boundaries of disposal and appropriation to the scale of the whole society.

This is confirmed by the redistribution of part of the income received by the state in the form of various taxes (to the state budget) and their use (expenditures) for public needs. First of all, this concerns government spending on arms purchases; road construction; payment for the services of judges, firefighters, teachers; environmental protection, etc. At the same time, transfer payments related to the social security of the population make up significant funds: unemployment benefits, social insurance and security payments (for the elderly, singles, disabled people, etc.), food stamps, etc.

Thus, in the developed capitalist countries, the general trend in the evolution of private property is a gradual transition from relations of private appropriation to relations of collective, public appropriation.

In developed capitalist countries, in general, about 10-15% of the material factors of production are in individual private ownership, 60-70% - in associated forms of private ownership and 15-20% - in state ownership.

AT modern world there is not just the coexistence of different forms and types of property, but also their interpenetration and complementarity. So, within a state enterprise, structures of private entrepreneurial and cooperative content can be formed; the state enterprise itself can be transferred to trust ownership (trust) or leased, etc. Joint ventures, holdings, concerns, financial and industrial groups - this is by no means a complete list of combining various forms and types of ownership based on the appropriate specification of ownership.

1.3. The evolution of ownership

Private property emerged as a consequence of the development of productive forces and commodity production. It is known that the slave and feudal property that preceded capitalism was also a private form of property, but the worker was legally dependent on his master. Under capitalism, he is legally free. In addition, capitalism is characterized by the separation of workers from the means of production. If for the slave owner the ownership of a slave as a tool of labor was of fundamental importance, then for the feudal lord the legal dependence of the peasants, and for the capitalist the legal relationship to the wage worker is of no importance. Economic dependence is important here.

The initial stage of the development of capitalism was characterized by the dominance of individual private property. This was due primarily to the fact that the scale of production was relatively small. Machine production grew out of manufacturing and could not be large-scale. Only after it had reached the stage when machines themselves began to be produced by machines, did the process of concentration of production, the growth of its scale, sharply intensify. The concentration of production at a certain stage itself led the economy to the emergence of a monopoly and monopoly unions in industry. Individual private property has been replaced by monopoly property, and sole property has been replaced by collective joint-stock and corporate property.

The formation of monopoly property was also prepared by the development of the productive forces.

New types of machines, technology and forms of labor organization, qualitative structural changes in the economy - all this has sharply increased the process of concentration of production. The monopolies that arose on this basis were economic associations exercising control in the market for the sale of goods through the concentration in their hands of material and financial resources. Monopoly associations have become the dominant form of production. Individual private property increasingly began to be supplanted by group property. In the initial period of monopolization of the economy, monopolies covered mainly one branch of industry, in extreme cases, several related ones, but subsequently diversification concerns began to be created, i.e. monopolistic associations with diversified industries. This became necessary to expand the range of products and services produced in order to reduce dependence on market conditions. The emergence of monopoly unions gave a powerful impetus to the development of private property. The following, most important factors in the growth of monopoly property can be singled out: the strengthening of the process of concentration of production, the emergence of a system of monopoly prices, the export of capital, in contrast to the export of goods, neo-colonialism.

State property has a long and quite independent history of development. Its formation proceeded on the basis of state feudal property. Even in the period of the birth of capitalism, the state showed concern for its economic well-being and therefore organized manufactories, workshops, mints itself, entered into an alliance with merchant and usurious capital, creating joint companies with them for colonial conquests, search for cheap markets for their goods. With the advent of monopoly capital, the state keeps pace with the times, creating monopoly unions in the sphere of its economic interests. With the appearance of state-monopoly tendencies in the economy, state property acquires a new quality and becomes an integral part of the system of state-monopoly capitalism. This process is especially rapid during the period of crisis, when the contradictions of the economy become aggravated. However, even under these conditions, state property retains its own significance in the economy. It is wrong to believe that in modern conditions state property is self-liquidating, on the contrary, its importance is increasing.

cooperative property, its appearance is associated with the development of the cooperative movement. Cooperative ownership arose in Great Britain at the end of the 18th century. in the form of cooperative factories owned by workers, as well as consumer cooperatives. Cooperative factories did not last long, they could not stand the competition with private capital and turned into its variety. Consumer cooperation turned out to be more vital. Cooperative ownership is quite significant in developing countries, its share reaches 30%, along with private and state property.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE OF OWNERSHIP IN THE ECONOMY OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AT THE PRESENT STAGE

2.1. General characteristics of the ownership structure in the economies of developed countries

After consideration theoretical aspects property in Russian Federation Naturally, the question arises: on what type of appropriation is the modern developed, capitalist society based? Novoklassiki put forward as an axiom (truth that does not require proof) the following proposition. Under capitalism, material resources (means of production) are the property of private individuals, not the state. Is this statement true now?

At the initial stage, capitalism contributed in every possible way to the great historical transition of mankind to industrial production. But in this way he opened the way for enormous qualitative and quantitative changes in technology and the organization of production at enterprises. The consequence of this process was an evolutionary (lat. evolutio - deployment) path of consistent development of property relations. That is, a gradual and non-violent transformation of some forms of appropriation into others began to take place. The fact is that scientific and technological progress in the machine industry (in particular, the transition at the beginning of the 20th century from the “age of steam” to the “age of electricity”) gave rise to a new trend in the development of organizational and economic relations. Namely: the scale of cooperation between labor and production has rapidly increased, thereby giving rise to a tendency to strengthen the real socialization of production. This trend took the form of rapid concentration of production (increasing the size of enterprises) and its centralization (combining several enterprises into one).

It is noteworthy, for example, that in Germany large enterprises with more than 50 workers in 1907 accounted for 1% of the total number of firms, but they concentrated 39% of all workers and 3/4 of the power of steam and electric engines used in industry.

As a result, macroeconomics has taken on a completely new look. Against the background of many small enterprises, economic giants began to stand out noticeably, which were rapidly gaining strength and trying to take a dominant position in the production and sale of products in all sectors. national economy. Therefore, the initial stage of capitalism was replaced by the stage of domination of finance capital, in which large-scale industrial and large-scale banking capital inseparably merged. Having thrown off the obsolete form of sole proprietorship, big capital quickly took possession of a completely new - the second type of ownership.

American economist Professor John Galbraith studied the tendencies of consolidation of industrial production, which led to the formation of giant corporations (joint stock companies). In 1967, he noted the following facts: “Seventy years ago, corporate activities were limited to those industries in which production must be carried out on a large scale (railway and water transport, steel production, oil extraction and processing, some mining industries). Corporations now cover grocers, flour milling, newspaper publishing, and entertainment businesses - in a word, all activities that were once the lot of an individual owner or a small firm.

So, in the first half of the XXI century. it was not individual capitalist property that began to dominate, but its general share form - joint-stock and financial capital. In this second phase of the evolution of the bourgeois economy, the sharply increased size of appropriation made it possible to widely use the latest technology in production and to organize the mass production of all the benefits vital to society. The achieved stage of economic development became an intermediate stage for the subsequent socialization of both the means of production and a part of consumer goods.

Speaking about the public sector of the economy, the following should be noted. Surprising as it may seem, the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck took the first step towards the nationalization of part of the economy. At the end of the XIX century. he nationalized (transferred from private ownership to state ownership) the Prussian railways (to save the railway companies from collapse during the crisis of 1873) and put the production and sale of tobacco under state control (to generate additional income). Such an attack on the private sector of the economy was regarded by many owners as the introduction of socialism. True, there were some mocking talk about the transition to "tobacco socialism."

By the way, in many countries the formation of state property is identified with socialist appropriation. But in this case, it is not taken into account that state property can acquire a completely different socio-economic content, depending on who actually appropriates material goods and in whose interests the state acts. In the middle of the XX century. with the beginning of the scientific and technological revolution and the transition to a post-industrial society, the countries of the West took a major step towards changing organizational and economic relations: a new trend arose towards the real socialization of a significant part of the macroeconomy. The state sector of macroeconomics arose through the nationalization of many enterprises and large sectors of the economy. However, nationalization was carried out not by means of forcible confiscation (compulsory and gratuitous seizure of property), but with the purchase of the material resources of enterprises.

Characteristically, in 2003 the final consumption of state institutions in the gross national product was: in the USA - 10%, France - 11%, Sweden - 12% and Great Britain - 13%. In the orbit of state appropriation in many countries, as a rule, many basic industries (energy production, metallurgy, etc.), the military-industrial complex, the most important financial institutions(eg, central banks issuing money) and infrastructure - industrial (railway, air, pipeline transport, power supply network, etc.) and social (health, education, social security, etc.).

Consequently, after the era of classical capitalism and the period of domination of finance capital in the West, a new phase in the evolution of property began, in which private-property capitalism was once again pushed aside by the state sector of macroeconomics.

Consequently, in macroeconomics, special economic relations have developed between the state, households and enterprises. They are associated with the circulation of income of these economic entities, which is schematically displayed in Table 1.

Table 1 - Circulation of income in macroeconomics in 2009

The macroeconomic ownership structure of a given country can best be judged by facts and statistics. For this purpose, we will take from US statistics information on how farms are distributed in the non-state sector of the country by form of ownership and, accordingly, by organization of production (Table 2).

Table 2 - Forms of economy in the USA

Continuation of Table 2

The tabular data show that common shared ownership - partnerships (partnerships) and corporations - is less than 1/3 of all non-state enterprises. The vast majority of them are in individual possessions. It is easy to conclude that the United States is a country of small proprietors.

And now let's compare this conclusion with information about the share of individual and other firms in their entire gross (total) income (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 - Gross income of US enterprises

Figure 1 shows a very different picture: individual holdings (that is, most firms) account for only 5% of gross income. And the share of joint-stock companies gets 91% of the total gross income. Would it be fairer to say; The US economy is a corporate economy.

We can now draw a number of more general conclusions. Cardinal (major) changes in the macroeconomic structure of ownership were expressed in the fact that by the end of the 20th century. individual property has ceased to be the backbone of the modern economy. The property of classical capitalism to be “pure capitalism” (“pure” from the participation of the state in the national economy) has been completely lost. A strong place in macroeconomics was occupied by the public sector of the economy.

Now all three types of appropriation known to us coexist simultaneously with their various forms:

Private ownership of the means of production of workers (farm and other individual property);

Private capitalist;

Shared share (partnerships, corporations);

General joint (state).

In other words, an unusual economy has developed, consisting of several modes (forms of economy).

Perhaps the only thing that can be said more confidently about the socio-economic system in the West is that it is a mixed system based on a multi-structural economy. At the same time, in different countries there is a completely different combination of all types and forms of appropriation. Let's say that in the UK's mixed economy, 26% of the workforce is employed in the country's public sector, and 74% in the non-state sector; in Sweden, about 40% of all employees work in the public sector.

2.2. Analysis of forms of ownership on the example of the USA

The US economy has various forms of private ownership, as well as state and cooperative ownership. Dominant is private property. Thus, the net volume of the accumulated reproducible material wealth, which is in private ownership (including the personal material reproducible property of citizens), amounted to in 2007. $19.8 trillion Similar property, which was in the possession of the state in the same year, amounted to 5.1 trillion. dollars. If, however, from the total accumulated private wealth we deduct that part of it that is in the personal property of citizens and does not serve the purposes of production (housing and consumer goods long-term use), then the amount of private accumulated material wealth (6.3 trillion dollars) turns out to be quite comparable with state material wealth, which, however, for the most part also does not serve the purposes of production.

The ratio of private and state property is indicated, for example, by the size of public and private assets, which, in addition to material, includes intangible resources, including financial ones, as well as land. Thus, the assets of only corporations (joint-stock companies) and partnerships (partnerships) amounted to in the USA in 2006. 32.3 trillion dollars, and together with the assets of households and non-profit organizations, 75.3 trillion. dollars. At the same time, the financial assets of the federal government in 2008 amounted to only 139.4 billion dollars. For comparison, we point out that the financial assets of corporations in 2006 amounted to 5.4 trillion. dollars Comparison is clearly not in favor of state ownership.

US statistics provide detailed data on federal tangible property, both at home and abroad. The total volume of this property, as of September 30, 2008, amounted to 244.3 billion dollars. This includes buildings (126.8 billion dollars - 55.3% of the total), facilities and equipment (84.4 billion dollars, or 36.7%) and land (18.3 billion dollars, or 8%) (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - U.S. federal tangible property

The data above does not include tangible property owned by states and local governments.

Federal facilities and equipment include systems for the production and distribution of electricity, communication systems and navigation equipment, energy and gas supply systems, research equipment, roads and bridges, railways, irrigation and irrigation systems, airfield pavements, port facilities, military property and equipment, memorials and monuments.

State property in the United States is about 20% of the country's national wealth, which is lower than in France, but higher than in Germany. The state undertakes to finance the construction of capital-intensive facilities, invests in those sectors and sectors of the economy that are not of commercial interest to private capital. State funds also finance the development of the latest high-tech industries - the nuclear industry, electronics, laser and space industries.

characteristic feature American model management of the public sector is the transfer of US state-owned enterprises in the operational management and operation of private corporations.

In addition to the main state can provide its manager and working capital. As the owner of the enterprise, the state at the same time takes care of the sale of its products, provides the relevant orders.

Private property - the main form of ownership in social production - is classified in the United States on several grounds. First, depending on the legal form of the organization. On this basis, all US firms are divided into three main categories, presented in table 3.

Table 3 continued

While since 2005 the number of firms in the US almost doubled (from 13 million to 23 million); the proportions between the number of corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships changed little in 2009, at 21%, 11%, and 68%, respectively. Those. over the past five years, with a practically unchanged share of the number of corporations, the share of partnerships has slightly decreased and the share of individual enterprises has increased.

The distribution and role of various organizational forms enterprises (property) when analyzing the volume of their sales. In 2006 corporations accounted for 89% of the total sales of all economic entities, partnerships 6%, individual enterprises 5%. In 2000, corporations accounted for the same 89% of sales, but partnerships and sole proprietorships were reversed, with partnerships lower (4.5%) and sole proprietorships higher (6.5%).

The value of a particular organizational and legal form of ownership is indicated by the volume of sales, and not by the quantitative distribution of certain enterprises. It follows from the above that corporate private property has been the dominant form of private property in the United States over the past two decades.

This situation differs markedly from the period at the beginning of the century, when the dominant form of private ownership was the individual ownership of an enterprise.

All of the listed forms of private property mark the stages of its evolution, reflecting the development of productive forces, and are characterized by fundamental differences, as well as advantages and disadvantages in terms of doing business. Without dwelling on this in more detail, we note that a corporation capable of accumulating funds from outside investors became, at a certain stage of development, an adequate response to the socialization of production and the growth of its scale. It is precisely the fact that a corporation, through the issuance of shares, is able to raise practically unlimited funds to increase investment and develop production, as well as the fact that it was under this form of private ownership that the separation of property capital from the management function for the first time occurred, are the main advantages that ensured it. dominant position in the market.

2.3 Analysis and characteristics of forms of ownership in the development of European countries

The modern mixed economy of developed countries can serve as a guideline in developing the concept of Russia's economic development, since it combines the conditions for efficient production, ensuring the welfare of the vast majority of the population and guaranteeing the rights of the individual. But the successful use of this experience in the domestic economy is impossible without taking into account objective differences in the current level of the production base, social psychology, and national characteristics of the Russian way of life.

A mixed economy is characterized by a variety of forms of ownership. In developed countries, along with private (leading) property, there is also state property. The share of the public sector in developed countries is different. It is extremely small in the USA and Japan, while European state-owned enterprises produce from 10% (Germany) to 30% (Austria) of gross domestic product. They employ from 4% (Great Britain) to 20-25% (Austria, Germany, France) of the workforce. State-owned enterprises carry out from 1/6 (Germany, Great Britain) to 1/3 (France) and even 1/2 (Austria) of gross capital investments in the economy. In the US, about 1/3 of all land is owned by the federal government.

Consequently, the state in a modern mixed economy is both an entrepreneur, and a major investor, and an R&D organizer, and a consumer of final products, it is directly involved in the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services.

The public sector in the economy performs two interrelated functions: it serves as a source of budget revenues and acts as a regulator of a wide variety of market processes (from mitigating employment problems to maintaining competition in profitable sectors of the economy).

It usually covers low-income industries (energy, part of transport, post, etc.) and social infrastructure (education, science, health care, social security). Among state enterprises, enterprises of the metallurgical, coal, and electric power industries are of particular importance. In many countries, up to 100% of electricity generated comes from state-owned power plants. Even in the US, with its relatively small public sector, 2% of electricity is produced by state-owned enterprises. a huge part public sector represent military enterprises.

The process of privatization in developed countries has changed the position of state-owned enterprises in the economy. This was reflected in the simplification of the relationship between enterprises and state authorities, in less strict control by the state. In Germany, ministers are prohibited from directly participating in the administrative boards of state-owned companies. The Ministry can be represented by only 2 employees, and the total number of representatives of the state administration cannot be more than 40% of the total number of the management of the enterprise.

In the first years of the XX century. worldwide privatization has reached significant proportions. In the UK, the share of GDP produced by state-owned enterprises fell from 9% in 2000 to 3% in 2009. The share of workers in state-owned enterprises decreased over this period by 1.3 million people, amounting to 8% of all employed in 2009. In total for 2005-2009. 20 state-owned companies were transferred to private ownership (out of 51 in 2005). Despite the nationalization of some large industries by Labor, the UK economy remained a market economy with a predominance of private economic activity and a well-developed banking and financial infrastructure.

The privatization carried out in different countries is more successful if it is a process organized from above, like the economic policy of the state.

In this regard, the French experience of privatization is instructive, where it was carried out through a combination of centralized regulation and market reforms. In France for 2006-2008. 15 large companies were privatized. All authority to carry out privatization was in the hands of the head of the Ministry of Economy, which transferred to the minister all the rights to make practical decisions. In the approved general list of enterprises to be privatized, the minister determined only the deadlines and methods for the privatization of each of them. The assets of enterprises were sold according to the scheme: foreign investors- 10-15, the personnel of the privatized enterprise - 10% of the shares. The rest of the shares were sold on the open market. A special role in the success of privatization was played by the centralized regulation of the process of selling shares: the fixed and low price of shares, which ensured the full sale of issued shares and an increase in the number of individual investors. Market levers were used to a limited extent, mainly for the distribution of part financial assets among individual investors.

Thus, in general, in Europe the following picture appears:

Table 4 - Distribution of enterprises and organizations by form of ownership (as of January 1, 2009), %

A source

Thus, we can conclude that the country with the largest share of state ownership is England. The country with the most private ownership among the European countries listed is France.

CONCLUSION

Summing up, we note that property is the relationship between people, classes and social groups of society, as well as business entities regarding the appropriation of resources, production conditions, technical and technological, scientific and intellectual potential, material and spiritual values ​​produced in society.

Two types of property can be distinguished: private and state (public).

Private property - these are property relations in which the subject performs the functions of disposal and appropriation independently of others, and all the main powers are with him.

State (public) property is a property relationship in which various entities jointly carry out the functions of disposal and appropriation, and are also endowed with certain powers of the owner. Within the framework of public property, its various types arise: 1) collective property; 2) state property. State property, in turn, can be: public, regional, municipal.

Thus, society and its power structures faced a most difficult dilemma: privatization carried out according to the scheme adopted in the country became a brake on economic development, but returning to the starting point in order to use more effective privatization models is a utopia.

The success of the privatization process is largely determined by its clear legal framework and the state's flexible privatization policy.

In total, the world experience of privatization includes 22 different ways of partial or complete transfer of state property and its functions to the private sector. N. Ridley, the “chief architect” and conductor of the British privatization program, argued that privatization is indeed a means of making the economy more efficient, because state enterprises work for themselves, not for the consumer.

Summing up, we note that the ultimate goals of privatization in developed countries are:

Reducing public sector debt;

Market development;

Stimulation of entrepreneurship;

Expanding individual freedoms;

The development of "people's" capitalism.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1. Zhavoronkov S. Inefficiency of state property management (for example large enterprises) // Questions of Economics 2004, No. 9, pp. 44-52

2. Kazantsev S.V. Change of formation // ECO 2003, No. 3, P.61-85

3. Krasin Yu.A. property in Russia. What's next? // Sotsis 2006, No. 6, pp. 122-126

4. Microeconomics. Theory and Russian practice: A textbook for university students studying in economic specialties and areas / Ed. A.G. Gryaznova and A. Yu. Yudanov. 2nd ed.. - M .: ITD "KnoRus", "Publishing house GNOM and D", 2001. 544 p.

5. Nosova S.S. Economic theory: A textbook for students studying economic specialties / S.S. Nosova. - M .: Humanit ed. Center VLADOS, 2005.

6. Nureev R.M. Microeconomics course: A textbook for universities. - 2nd ed., rev. – M.: Norma, 2004.

7. Petrakov N. Ownership Relations: Analysis of Transformation in a Transitional Economy // Problems of Theory and Practice of Management 2005, No. 2 P. 13-20

8. Popadyuk I. Is Private Private Property in Russia? (Probable Business Development Scenarios) // Questions of Economics 2006, No. 1, pp. 144-156

9. Rumyantseva E. Valuation of property in the course of privatization in Russia //Problems of theory and practice of management 2005, no. 1, pp. 117-121

10. Property in the life of Russians: speculation and reality. Analytical report. Institute for Comprehensive Social Research. M., 2005; Sociol. research 2005. No. 11. S. 3-18

11. Sulpovar L., Rodionov D. Problems of state property management in Russian economy// Problems of the theory and practice of management 2005, №5 P. 52-57

12. Taranukha Yu.V., Zemlyakov D.N. Microeconomics: Textbook / under. ed. prof., d.e.s. A.V. Sidorovich - M: Moscow State University, publishing house "Business and Service", 2002.

13. Fedorovich V.O., Fedorovich T.V. State property: management of structural changes and capitalization of large corporate entities // ECO 2006, No. 7, pp. 28-33

14. Horvard K. Ernashvili N.D., Nikitin A.M. Economic theory: Textbook for universities. - 2nd ed., revised and additional. - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2000. - 398 p.

15. Economics: Textbook for universities / Ed. E.N. Lobacheva. - M.: Publishing house "Exam", 2003. - 592 p.

16. Economic theory (for economic universities): Textbook / ed. O.S. Belokrylova. - Rostov n / a: Phoenix, 2006.

17. Economic theory / SV. Fomishin, S. V. Mocherniy- Rostov n / a: Phoenix, 2006. - 509, p. - (Higher education).

18. Economic theory. Microeconomics. Macroeconomics. Megaeconomics. / under. ed. A.I. Dobrynina, L.S. Tarasevich: Textbook for universities 3rd ed. St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Peter", 2001

19. Economic theory: Tutorial for students of non-economic specialties of higher educational institutions / Bazylev N.I., Bazyleva M.N. - Minsk: Book House, 2005 - 320 p.

20. Economic theory: Textbook for students of economic specialties of higher educational institutions / Bazylev N.I., Bazyleva M.N. - Minsk: Book House, 2004 - 608 p.

21. http://www.eg-online.ru/

22. http://www.fingazeta.ru/

23. http://www.economuch.com/page/ekonomt/ist/ist-5--idz-ax268--nf-12.html

The concept, essence and structure of the economic system of society. Classification of economic systems.

As you know, one of the most important scientific methods is a systematic approach, which can be fully applied in the study of economic processes, phenomena in their complex interrelation and interdependence.

In the most general sense, the term "system" (from the Greek "systema" - a whole made up of parts) means a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, forming a certain integrity, unity.

With this in mind, the economic system can be defined as an ordered set of economic ties and relations that are established in the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material and intangible goods. With this approach, subjects and objects of economic relations, various forms of relations between them should be distinguished.

Today, in Russian and foreign literature, there is no single definition of the concept of an economic system. As a rule, the authors point to the existence of a certain set of mechanisms and institutions that ensure the functioning of production, the distribution of income and consumption in certain territorial limits. Sometimes the definition includes a wider range of factors that determine the economic behavior of participants (laws and rules, traditions and beliefs, positions and assessments).

Thus, we can conclude that the economic system is a complex multidimensional formation that has the integrity and unity of all its constituent parts (elements).

In principle, the term "economic system" is applied at different levels of analysis. In this sense, even the simplest formations (for example, individual households or business entities) can be considered an economic system, but most often this term is used in the framework of the macroeconomic approach, when the patterns of functioning of the national economy as a whole are considered.

Any economic system presupposes a certain level of development of social production, therefore, it is usually characterized in two aspects:

1. Techno-technological - expresses the relationship "man - nature", i.e. presupposes those relations which are denoted by the category "productive forces";
2. Socio-economic - expresses relations between people, includes those relations that are designated by the category "relations of production".

The economic system has a complex structure, but at the same time all its constituent elements are subordinate to the whole.

From a practical point of view, it is advisable to single out separate subsystems (for example, financial system, industry, the agricultural sector, etc.), which have a certain content of their own, but in unity form a new quality of the economic system (the whole is not identical to the simple sum of the properties of individual elements). Between the subsystems there is a system of connections that determine the nature of their subordination (subordination).

In general, the economic system reflects the special structure of society that arises from the practice of managing in specific conditions. It presents economic skills, traditions, the spiritual state of the people, their dominant values ​​and the originality of their understanding of the world. At first glance, this does not imply the existence of identical systems (they are always specific, identical to the culture they reflect), however, one can try to identify some common features, features and properties, build a classification of economic systems.

The development of social production, the openness of economic systems for constant exchange with the external environment contribute to the enrichment of the original with new material, which causes the need for internal system changes. The result of them may be an updated model of the economy. In economics, the concept of "economic model" is used - a cast from reality, the result of knowledge, to one degree or another corresponding to the original.

In the course of historical development human society Several types (models) of economic systems have developed, differing primarily in ways and means of solving the main economic problems (what, how and for whom to produce) 1 . More specific distinguishing features by which they can be compared, compared, are:

• prevailing forms and types of ownership,
• economic power and how to exercise it,
• business forms,
• place and role of the market and market relations,
• character state regulation economic life.

1. Pure capitalism (market economy) is an economic system, the hallmarks of which are private property, free competition and pricing in the markets based on the laws of supply and demand, the priority of personal selfish interest (the desire to maximize one's income), the minimum level of economic power of individual entities (the impossibility drastically affect the market situation), the minimum degree of state intervention in the economy. This type of economic system is best described by A. Smith, who proclaimed the law of the "invisible hand", i. self-regulation of the market mechanism, when the desire to extract one's own benefit simultaneously leads to ensuring the interests of the whole society. In conclusion, it should be noted that the term "pure capitalism" is conditional, it is used only in theory, in reality there was a capitalism of free competition. Moreover, today “pure capitalism” is even more absurd than “pure socialism”.
2. command economy(communism) - an economic system in which opposite principles are implemented: rigid centralization of economic power by the state - the main subject economic life, including on the use of resources at all levels; the behavior of subjects is determined by national goals, the public interest dominates over the private. All resources are owned by the state, are not available for free use and are distributed in a directive way according to plans. As a result, production often acquires an autonomous character, does not meet social needs, technical progress is hampered, and economic stagnation sets in.
3. A mixed system is an economy in which a combination of some properties of the first and second systems takes place. A mixed system has formed in many industrialized countries, where effective market mechanism is complemented by flexible contour state regulation. The role of the state is reduced, first of all, to the creation of favorable conditions for conducting entrepreneurial activity, improving market infrastructure, providing certain social guarantees for the population, solving national problems and tasks. In general, this type of economic system makes it possible to combine the advantages of the market mechanism with state regulation, which eliminates market failures and minimizes its negative effects on society.
4. Traditional economy- this type of economic system should be considered separately, since it takes place in countries defined as underdeveloped. Its most characteristic features are: economic activity is not perceived as a primary value; the individual belongs to his original community; economic power is combined with political power. Almost all questions - what to produce, how, on the basis of what technologies, how to distribute the products produced - all this is determined by the prevailing customs and traditions. The same applies to needs that do not perform a stimulating function here for the development of production. The traditional economy is immune to the achievements of technological progress and is difficult to reform.

Thus, on this moment humanity has gone through a long historical path of development, during which several types of economic systems have developed at different stages - market, command, mixed, and also traditional. The criteria for their separation are, first of all, the form of ownership and the type of coordinating mechanism (plan or market). Modern analysis shows that a mixed system has become the most attractive for society, allowing to supplement the advantages of the market with a flexible system of state regulation.

In modern conditions in industrialized countries, a mixed economy is increasingly replacing pure capitalism. Its main advantage is that it does not have the extremes inherent in the above two models. The main producers of products and buyers of production conditions there are large corporations, so economic power is not dispersed here, but at the same time it is not totalitarian in nature, it is not carried out by administrative and bureaucratic methods. Under such conditions, distribution relations do not suppress exchange relations, but supplement them; ownership of material resources can be public, state, private; the behavior of each subject is motivated by his personal interest, but at the same time, priority goals are also defined in society. The state performs an active function in the economy, there is a system for forecasting, planning and coordinating the activities of the public and private sectors.

The means of evolutionary transition to a mixed system is reform, during which the economy finds itself in a transitional state (transitional economy). It should be noted that the transition from one system to another does not always mean the need to change the form of ownership. For example, by the beginning of the 20th century, the economic model based on market mechanisms and regulated by the free market had exhausted itself. The free market mechanism was replaced by a regulated one: the system of state regulation of the economy arose during the First World War, its dismantling after the war led to a severe economic crisis (1929–1933). J. M. Keynes and his followers realized this and substantiated the need to reform the economy and strengthen the role of the state. F. Roosevelt's course in the USA confirmed their conclusions in practice.

Thus, the form of ownership does not prevent even more drastic changes economic course. Transition from one economic model to the other is greatly facilitated by the fact that all modern economic systems have a common basis - commodity production, although the systems themselves differ in the level of its development, as well as the type of economic power and the forms of its implementation, and what place economic activity occupies in the value system of a given society.

It is also important that each economic system has special properties that must be taken into account when reforming the economy. On the one hand, it looks like an open system interacting with the external environment (does not prevent the exchange of world experience, the approval of general patterns of production development, allows updating its elements, changing models). On the other hand, being a reflection of the cultural layer of a particular civilization, the economic system is primarily focused on the reproduction of this type of civilization, i.e. appears as a rigid closed system, when the possibilities of using the model developed in one economic system in other systems are limited.

The problems of property are the object of study of a number of social sciences, each of which develops its own idea of ​​the essence and content of property. The category "property" historically entered into scientific circulation before political economy was born as a special branch of scientific knowledge. First of all, property has become an official object of legal (juridical) nature and philosophy. Thus, Roman law already defined the concept of property and the basic relations associated with it (possession, use, disposal). The emergence of property relations to the forefront of scientific thought is not accidental: transformations in property relations are immediately evident, affect everyone, and are visible on the surface of phenomena. That is why, along with the further development of social production and the emergence of new forms of entrepreneurial activity, property acquires great importance in its economic aspect.

Today in Russian the term "property" has two main meanings:

1. as a designation of any property (in the form of any items - objects of property);
2. as a reflection of the fact that some property belongs to the subject of ownership.

Obviously, these two meanings are closely related. On the one hand, if there is property as such, then there is also a relation of belonging (property cannot be outside this relation - it always either belongs or does not belong). On the other hand, if there is belonging, then there is also an object in relation to which it takes place. With this in mind, the subjects and objects of property will be distinguished.

The subject of ownership (owner) is the active party of ownership relations, which has the opportunity and the right to possess the object of ownership. In the strict sense of the word, the subjects of property are obviously animate persons, although they are often replaced by categories such as "state", which leads to "subjectless" property, which is an abstraction. In principle, the “state” can be reduced to a group of persons that form the apparatus of state administration, however, its understanding as a social institution representing the whole society is more accurate (in this sense, the scope of the concepts “society” and “state” coincide).

The object of property is the passive side of property relations in the form of objects of nature, matter, energy, information, property, intelligence, wholly or to some extent belonging to the subject.

At the same time, the main, defining of the two meanings of the term "property" is the second - property is, first of all, not a thing, but a relationship - a relationship between people about a thing. It is the relation between people about a thing, and not the relation of a given concrete person to a given concrete thing. For example, the statement “this car is mine” contains not only a direct statement (an indication of who exactly owns the car), but also an indirect denial of the ownership of other persons.

Thus, taking the appearance of a person's relation to a thing, property is always a social connection: the relation of the "owner" to the "non-owner". Property is an exclusively social relation; it arises in society and outside of society is simply unthinkable. Although outwardly property appears as a relation of a person to a thing, it is a social relation, a relation between people. In other words, property exists when and only when it is disputed - when another person can at least theoretically claim that something belongs to the first person.

Property is not only a key economic category, but also one of the basic legal categories. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the legal and economic aspects of the content of the property.

From the legal side, property is the relationship of owners, subjects of property to its objects. They are defined in detail by private law (in the Russian Federation this is Civil Code), according to which the legal powers of the owner are the right to own (actually possess), use (extract useful properties for themselves) and dispose (determine the legal fate of the good, for example, sell, exchange, donate, transfer by inheritance, give as a pledge, rent) property.

Since the main subjects are the citizen and the state, the main legal forms of ownership are private and state. In a legal sense, any non-state form of ownership is private. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Civil Code, the following are recognized in our country: legal forms ownership: private, state (federal and subjects of the federation), municipal and other forms of ownership.

Thus, in the traditional sense, property is most often interpreted as legal concept, reflecting the legislative regulation of property relations, fixing what belongs to whom and in what quantity. The legal content of property is described by the traditional rights of possession, use, and disposal since the time of Roman law. In general, the rules of law reflect the statics of property and regulate its dynamics, i.e. turnover.

The economic content of property acquired importance as social production developed and new forms of entrepreneurial activity emerged.

1. subject composition, i.e. owners, parties (participants) of property relations;
2. object composition, i.e. a complex of tangible and intangible goods, about which relationships are formed between people;
3. the actual system of relations between subjects;
4. economic realization relationships between subjects.

In economic terms, property relations will remain a mere abstraction if they are not connected with the relations of appropriation and alienation.

Appropriation is a term that reflects the economic relationship between people, which establishes their relationship to things as their own.

Appropriation is the acquisition of something in one's power, in one's belonging. “Assignment” means to behave actively in relation to the property object.

Any production is nothing but the appropriation of natural matter and energy by people in order to satisfy their needs. Consequently, if appropriation is impossible without production, then production always proceeds within the framework of a certain form of ownership.

Assignment is expressed in the fact that no one can use certain things (including the conditions, factors and results of production) without entering into relations with their owner.

One should not equate property relations with appropriation, since there is its opposite - alienation.

Alienation is the deprivation (voluntary or forced) of a given person of the opportunity to use a certain object in production or consumption.

Alienation, in particular, occurs in the process of buying and selling an object of property.

Alienation also occurs when one part of society seizes all the means of production, while the other part is left without any sources of subsistence.

Thus, property is the relationship between people regarding the appropriation of certain benefits (products of nature, mediated or not mediated by labor).

Since methods of appropriation vary from epoch to epoch, it is possible to give more precise definition: property is a relationship between people about a specific historical way of appropriating material and spiritual goods. In other words, property is a concrete historical way of appropriating material and spiritual goods.

The economic approach to the maintenance of property has the following features:

1. Economic science, first of all, studies the acquisition and movement of goods (funds and results of economic activity) in the course of production, distribution, exchange, consumption. Therefore, economic science is not directly interested in the acquisition of goods by conquest, donation, inheritance, search for treasures, theft, etc., although all these methods in themselves may have a certain economic importance.
2. For the economic approach, the object of acquisition is fundamental. The division of all objects into factors, conditions and means of production, on the one hand, and consumer goods, on the other, is of decisive socio-economic importance. Thus, a person who monopoly acquires specific conditions of production (unique non-reproducible or difficult-to-reproduce production conditions or licensing rights) receives a special social status in relation to other people who have the same rights and freedoms, but do not have such an opportunity. The owner of unique operational information in the monetary, financial and other markets finds himself in the same special position.
3. For revealing the economic content of property, the nature of the combination of labor power with the means of production is of particular importance. In this process, the economic power of some participants in property relations inevitably gives rise to economic dependence others. The latter can gain access to the necessary conditions of economic activity, connect with the means of production (which are monopolized in one way or another), only with the knowledge of the person who owns these means of production, and on the terms that suit him.
4. The concepts of "appropriation" and "alienation", through which the essence of property relations is revealed, mean the acquisition of a good by one subject and the loss of this good by another subject. If an equivalent amount of another good moves in the opposite direction, "appropriation - alienation" has the form of an exchange. If the movement of goods is one-sided or there is a forcedly non-equivalent counter then the appropriation is gratuitous in nature and is based on gratuitous alienation. An example would be the production of a slave, a serf, or a legally independent wage worker on a farm owned by another person.
5. In legal and economic approaches, the concept of “order” is used, but in different senses. In the legal aspect, the possibility of determining the fate of a thing (sale, donation, destruction, etc.) is implied, and the economic meaning of the order is to create conditions for the real appropriation of the results of activity - the distribution of income.
6. The most important economic form of realization of property, its effectiveness and external economic sign of property are incomes. Forms of income (wages, profits, rent, interest) are associated with the position of the owners as a consequence and a cause. The principal thing is that incomes (“fruits of property”) belong to the one who appropriated the very process of their formation. In the legal approach, the actual process of appropriation, which leads to the creation of goods, is not considered.

Economic theory defines some common features inherent in property in any society, predetermining its role and place in any economic systems.

1. Property is a general economic phenomenon that exists at all historical stages of social development. Ownership relationships form economic mechanism any society.
2. Ownership is a social relation. It is not only generated by society, but can actually exist only within society. To determine property, it is necessary that the subject of property enter into relations with other persons regarding its object.
3. Ownership is the main (system-forming) relation, since it is property that binds production relations into a single whole, turning them from a “totality” into a “system”. Property relations determine one or another type of economic system.
4. The subjects of property (owners) can be "individual" (person, citizen), "group" (family, collective), "society" (people) with a practically unlimited number of objects of property (means of production and consumer goods). This means that property relations affect the interests of all strata of society.

It should be noted that earlier, in Soviet times, the key (dominant) object of ownership was considered to be the means of production. The proposition about the decisive role of ownership of the means of production is true, but only under certain historical conditions. The allocation of property relations to the means of production as dominant obscures other objects and factors, the importance of which is constantly growing.

As an economic category, property exists independently of the will and consciousness of people. So, already in the writings of Solon (594 BC) and Cleisthenes (509 BC) it was said that laws do not create property relations, they only consolidate relations that have already developed. Accordingly, one can distinguish between property in the economic sense, or de facto property (in fact, in fact), and property in the legal sense, or de jure property (legally, by right).

Relationships between subjects and objects of property are revealed in the categories of "ownership", "use", "disposition", acting both as legal (legal) and as economic categories.

For example, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation emphasizes that the owner has the right to own, use and dispose of his property (Article 209). The subjects of property rights are also defined there: they can be citizens (individuals), legal entities, the state and municipalities (Article 212).

Possession is the physical possession of a thing. Legal ownership of property has a legal basis (law, contract, administrative act). However, possession, taken separately, is not yet property in the socio-economic sense of the word. Sometimes possession turns into a formal right that the owner does not use or does not know how to use and does not seek to do so.

Use - means the use of the object of property in accordance with its purpose and at the discretion and desire of the user. Possession and use can be combined in the hands of one subject or be divided between different subjects, when it is possible to use a thing without being its owner (owner). For example, a hired worker uses the means of production without being their owner. The boundaries of the right to use are determined by law, contract or other legal basis(for example, a will).

The order is the highest way to implement the relationship between the object and the subject of ownership. The order implies the right and opportunity to act in relation to the object in any desired way, up to the transfer to another subject, a deep transformation, transformation into another object, or even liquidation. It is carried out most often by making various transactions (purchase and sale, exchange of one thing for another, donation, etc.). In fact, the owner becomes such, having received the rights and real opportunity the power to dispose of the property.

Thus, the categories "possession", "use", "disposition" reveal the structure of rights. If the subject or subjects are declared owners, but the powers of possession, use, disposal are not clearly assigned to them or transferred to someone else, then such subjects are not actually owners.

It should also be noted that the triad "possession" - "use" - "disposition" does not exhaust the entire wealth of possible functions of ownership. Economic practice testifies to the diverse application of property rights. This led to the formation in the western economic thought economic theory of property rights (60-70s of the XX century). Such well-known economists as D. North and R. Coase, as well as A. Alchian, R. Posner and others contributed to its development. Its authors pointed out that economic entities use a “bundle of rights”, powers.

The complete "bundle of rights", sometimes called "Honoré's list", includes eleven elements:

1. Ownership, i.e. the right of exclusive physical control over the thing;
2. The right to use, i.e. the right to use the useful properties of a thing for oneself;
3. The right to manage, i.e. the right to decide who and how will use the thing (the right to turn and benefit from it);
4. The right to income, i.e. the right to enjoy the results from the use of the thing;
5. The right of the sovereign (the right to transfer power over property), i.e. the right to alienate, consume, change or destroy things;
6. The right to security, i.e. the right to protection from expropriation of things and from harm from the external environment;
7. The right to inherit;
8. The right to indefinite possession;
9. The right to liability in the form of recovery, i.e. the possibility of transferring things as collateral or collecting in payment of a debt;
10. The right to a residual character, i.e. the right to the restoration of violated property rights (i.e. the right to the existence of procedures and institutions that ensure the restoration of violated rights);
11. The right to prohibit the harmful use of a thing (i.e. in a way that is harmful to the external environment).

Property rights are understood as socially sanctioned behavioral relations between people that arise in connection with the existence of goods and relate to their use. Property relations are derived from the scarcity of resources: without some premise of scarcity, it is meaningless to speak of property.

Property is always sanctioned by society, either positively or negatively. Positive sanctions mean approval by society of the existing structure of access rights to property (resources), negative - disapproval of them, which implies the need to change this structure for the better for society. Therefore, property relations are a system of exclusions from access to tangible and intangible resources (benefits). To exclude others from free access to resources means to specify ownership rights to them. The purpose of the specification is to create conditions for the acquisition of property rights by those who value them more, who are able to benefit from them more.

Consequently, the structure of property rights is dynamic and mobile, and can be "moved forward" by the sanctions of society, i.e. a worse rights structure can be replaced by a better one.

In the theory of property rights, it is not clearly defined what kind of property rights in question, another thing is important: any property right is always in a certain bundle of rights and, if necessary, can easily be alienated from this bundle. As a result, there is a constant restructuring of the set of powers that a particular subject of ownership has.

If the very nature of property rights is indifferent, then the structure of rights, their mutual arrangement and coordination come to the fore. At the same time, it is important to avoid dilution of property rights. It occurs when either the powers themselves, or their objects, or the subjects that own these powers are not clearly defined.

With the erosion of property, one should not confuse its splitting - a normal process of gradual fragmentation of property into more and more small powers, an increasing increase in the number of rights in the existing bundle. Splitting, in contrast to the erosion of property rights, leads to an increase in the efficiency of the use of property.

The means of combating blurring is precisely the specification - the establishment of each of the powers and its assignment to a specific subject.

In general, the specification makes it possible to exclude "ownerlessness" and "no man's ownership" in the possession of property. Property can be “specified” both by the owners themselves by mutual agreement, and by some external force (for example, the state). Ultimately, the specification leads to a more efficient use of property, to increase its returns and reduce costs.

Thus, the theory of property rights is applied in nature, its main idea is the implementation of the principle of economic efficiency. The more effective - in terms of reducing costs and increasing results - the structure of property rights sanctioned by society, the better.

It should be noted that all supporters of this concept spoke in favor of private ownership. It is private property, in their opinion, that makes it possible to minimize the process of erosion of property rights and to carry out their specification as efficiently as possible.

In modern economic theory, the division of property and management rights is analyzed as the relationship between the owner of a good (resource) and its user. These relations are asymmetric: the owner usually knows his good and its properties better than the potential user (at least before the transaction takes place). Therefore, he may overestimate the price at which he is ready to transfer the object for use. This, in particular, is the basis for the tendency to overstate the wages of workers with high qualifications, who own a complex profession. First of all, we are talking about professional managers, managers hired by the owners of capital and acting at the moment as users.

Relationships "owner - user" in relation to managers (managers) develop according to the same pattern both in a market economy and in a planned economy. The problem - how to interest them in a loyal attitude towards the owner - is solved in approximately the same way. Managers, especially top managers, are somehow included among the owners. In a market economy, this is done by giving them part of the property rights to the capital they are hired to manage. In a planned economy, there were no legal means of involving managers in the disposal of state property. There the problem remained unresolved, more precisely, its solution was the disappearance of the planned economy.

Thus, the category "property" reflects the ability of the subject of ownership to dispose of its objects. In contrast, management as an economic category refers to a process, not a state. This is its main difference from the category "property", which characterizes the state. Management is the process of expedient use of goods by subjects. Therefore, for the analysis of economic behavior, the owner and the economic entity are clearly distinguished.

Although theoretically the categories "property" and "management" differ as a state and a process, in real life there may not be such boundaries between the owner of a production factor and an economic entity (firm, enterprise). Moreover, the owners of factors of production necessarily act as economic entities, for example, when deciding on the use of their property - in the process of their own management or through their transfer to the use of other economic entities with the receipt of an appropriate fee for this.

If the owner of a factor of production decides to transfer his property to another economic entity, then he receives factor income ( wages, profit, interest or rent). At the same time, in a qualitative aspect, factor income is a payment to the owner of a factor for transferring the right to use it to an economic entity; in a quantitative aspect, it is the result of the interaction of supply and demand.

An example of a combination of ownership and management is an ordinary share. It is, on the one hand, the holder of the owner's voting right when making an economic decision, for example, on the distribution of the direct result (profit), and on the other hand, the right to receive a dividend as a result of economic activity.

As a result of historical development, a variety of forms of ownership has gradually developed - first of all, personal, family, state. At the same time, there were also forms of ownership associated with slavery, serfdom, in which people were the objects. Under capitalism, the means of production become the property of the owner of capital, and private property develops dynamically. In further development, private property evolves, a joint-stock form of ownership arises, and the importance of state property increases.

Thus, in the course of the historical development of human society, an evolutionary change in property relations and its forms took place. In some countries, attempts were made to transform, transform relations and forms of ownership in a revolutionary way. For example, socialist revolutions had as their goal the destruction of private property, its replacement by public, state property. However, practice has shown that under the conditions of domination, the monopoly of state property, the economic system is inefficient. The modern world recognizes the necessity and expediency of diversity (pluralism) of forms of ownership, their coexistence.

Considering the problem of identifying forms of ownership, one can notice the lack of a unified terminological base and approaches due to confusion in the basic concepts. Currently, there is no clear subordination of categories of property relations.

• First, various forms of ownership are often denied such a sign as "public". Thus, private property is not considered a variety of public property, but is considered as the opposite type of property.
• Secondly, such forms of ownership as “national”, “state”, “public”, “collective” are perceived by some authors as synonyms, by others as different concepts.
• Thirdly, there is no clarity and unanimity of opinion regarding the problem of the relationship between the concepts of "individual", "private", "personal" property.

First of all, let's define what "forms of ownership" are and the criteria by which they are distinguished.

The form of ownership is its type, characterized on the basis of the subject of ownership, i.e. those who are the owners. The form of ownership determines the belonging of objects of ownership to a subject of a single nature (say, a person, family, group, collective, population).

At first glance, one can distinguish as many forms of ownership as there are subjects of ownership, i.e. to distinguish between personal, family, group, collective, territorial, national, administrative property, etc. In fact, they often single out a narrower set of them, sometimes even limiting it to two forms - private and its antipode - public (actually - state).

As part of the analysis of specific historical forms of ownership, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the categories of "public", "nationwide", "state", "private" property. When determining the subordination of categories, the following circumstances must be taken into account:

Firstly, the categories "private", "collective", "state" and "nationwide" are signs arising from the nature of the appropriation of the conditions and results of production, while the category "public" is of a general social, universal character. Thus, the category "public" is broader in scope and universal in meaning. It expresses the actual existence of human society. Since property relations do not function outside of society, then any form of ownership should initially be considered public (including private and all other forms of ownership).

Secondly, any one of the forms of ownership can dominate in the system of social production, but this does not exclude the presence (appearance) of all other forms of ownership, and each of them is backed by a certain team or individual worker who is a member of this society, and there is no objective grounds not to consider their activities as public, to limit society to some particular part of it.

Thirdly, any form of ownership essentially solves the same social problems, although in different ways, namely: organizing and increasing the efficiency of social production in order to obtain the benefits and services necessary to meet people's needs, i.e. any form of ownership initially bears a social burden.

Fourthly, in any society, the development of forms of ownership occurs in certain concrete historical conditions, i.e. it is determined by the level of real socialization of production, which leads to the coexistence of various forms of ownership, their interpenetration, integration.

Thus, the category of "public property" is universal and implies the whole variety of forms of ownership that operate in a given economic system. In exceptional cases, such a situation is possible when the category "public property" is equal in content with any other of the specified categories (for example, "public property"), but this happens only when there is a single form of ownership in a particular society.

Considering the diverse forms of ownership characteristic of a developed economy, first of all, let us dwell on the definition and justification of the need for state ownership.

State property is an integral element of the economic systems of industrialized countries and is fundamentally different in purpose, functions and role from all other forms. From a theoretical point of view, "state property" is a conditional and collective concept. So, it is customary to include federal, regional and municipal property in its composition. At the same time, it is considered that the state is the subject of ownership, although it is not entirely clear what meaning should be attached to this concept. For example, Louis XIV claimed “the state is me”, V.I. Lenin introduced a new understanding - “the state is we”. It is probably more correct to consider the state property that is owned by the legislative and executive authorities at all levels.

The role of state property in the economic system can be traced in several directions.

First, it is necessary in those areas and industries that remain outside the sphere of activity of private business, the investment of private capital. Usually these are those industries and industries in which it is difficult or impossible to obtain an average rate of return, where the return on investment is low or a positive effect occurs after a long period of time. Examples include, first of all, such capital-intensive industries as energy, communications, transport, as well as sports, medicine, education, culture, which are unattractive for private investors.

Secondly, the role of state property is especially clearly seen in the production of so-called public goods. This includes, in particular, the maintenance of the country's defense capability, the maintenance of law enforcement agencies, the road network, etc. All these goods and services are necessary for society as a whole, the marginal cost of their production is not related to the number of consumers, and it is more expedient for the state to take care of this.

Thirdly, the need for state ownership in the economy may be dictated not so much by the desire to make a profit, but by the need to solve the problems of carrying out structural adjustment, sanitizing industries through the nationalization of unprofitable enterprises. For example, the market mechanism stimulates the introduction and effective use of the already existing results of scientific and technological progress, but usually poorly provides strategic breakthroughs in science and technology, development fundamental research in a wide variety of areas.

Fourthly, the presence of state property makes it possible to ensure a single economic space in the country, the functioning of the economy as a single national economic complex. For example, this especially applies to such elements as a unified energy system, main railway lines, etc. In this case, the existence of state property contributes to a certain economic policy.

In general, foreign experience shows that state ownership is necessary and can be effective. Its presence in the economy contributes to the implementation of the economic policy of the state, optimization of the structure of the economy, etc. In a market economy, the state does not care about expanding its own sector, but about the development of all the productive forces of society, stable economic growth, ensuring maximum economic efficiency and increasing standard of living population. At the same time, it should be taken into account that state ownership is far from always being more effective than other forms, i.e. its role should not be overestimated.

Individual (personal and private) property is property within which the subject of property is personified as individual, an individual who has the full right to dispose of the object of property belonging to him. Within individual property, depending on the nature of the object of property and the nature of its use by the owner, one can distinguish between personal and private property. The distinction between personal and private property was characteristic, first of all, for domestic science. In Western economic theory, a different approach has developed, according to which private property is understood as any non-state property, which, accordingly, includes the property of all entities except the state.

From a theoretical point of view, personal property can be separated from private property on two grounds.

First, personal property covers objects of individual property used, consumed only by the owner himself or provided by him to other persons for free use. Accordingly, private property is objects of individual property provided for use and consumption for a certain fee to other persons. This definition is applicable to objects in the form of property and commodities.

Secondly, another approach to private property is that these are objects of individual property used with the use of someone else's, hired labor, while personal property covers only objects used with the use of the owner's personal labor. This definition applies, of course, mainly to the means of production.

Today, personal ownership of the means of production, based on the use of the labor of the owner himself, as the most “favorable”, although it has legal rights to exist in a market economy, is the most primitive form. Even K. Marx himself argued that such forms of initial unity between the worker and the conditions of his labor "are childish forms, equally unsuitable for developing labor as social labor and increasing the productive power of social labor."

AT economic literature notes the fact that personal property can be used to obtain additional income. This is of particular importance for countries with a low level of economic development, in which incomes received in social production do not always provide a person with even living wage. In this case, personal property goes beyond the sphere of consumption and also extends to the sphere of production. Because of this, it can be represented by two varieties: personal ownership of household property and personal ownership of the means of production. The second variety is distinguished from labor private property according to the following criterion: if the means of production owned by citizens serve for production activities that are auxiliary to its participants, then in this case it is personal property. In other words, they receive their main income in the system of social production, carry out the reproduction of living conditions at the expense of these funds, and only part of their needs are satisfied through the production use of objects of personal property (for example, working in a personal subsidiary plot).

Thus, as can be seen, in practice, knowledge of the subject to the object of property does not in itself make it possible to distinguish personal property from private. One and the same object can be both personal and private property, depending on the nature of its use, application, consumption. At the same time, using one of the definitions or both together, it is impossible to clearly define the line separating personal property from private and unequivocally establish the very fact of using personal property as private.

Consequently, from a purely economic standpoint, one should speak of private property as one of its main forms that have a significant impact on economic processes, while personal property characterizes rather personal consumption and relates more to sociology than to economics itself.

Private property, like any other form, has its own characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. Its main characteristic features are, firstly, spontaneous development, and secondly, higher efficiency (compared to state ownership). Private property stimulates initiative, enterprise, responsible attitude to work. At the same time, it also has negative features (spontaneity, desire for profit at any cost, exploitation).

However, one should not exaggerate the shortcomings of private property. First of all, let us note two not entirely fair theses regarding private property.

Firstly, with private ownership of the means of production, as stated in the works of K. Marx and V. I. Lenin, exploitation arises, appropriation of the results of someone else's labor. On this basis, they concluded that private ownership of the means of production is inadmissible under the conditions of an economic system called socialism. In this regard, it can be objected that the exploitation of someone else's labor, understood as the withdrawal from the worker of a part of the surplus product (profit) created by his labor, takes place under any form of ownership. It is not a fact that the share of surplus value withdrawn by the real owner of the means of production under the conditions of all other forms of ownership of the means of production (including state ownership) will be less than under conditions of private ownership.

Secondly, it should be noted the fallacy of the prevailing ideas that private property occupies a leading place in a market economy. If it was, it was a very long time ago. The current market economy is characterized mainly by joint, collective, mixed forms of ownership. In a fairly typical capitalist economy market type 10-15 percent of the means of production are in private ownership, 15-20 percent - in the state, 60-70 percent - in the collective-corporate, stock.

Collective (otherwise - joint or group) property - occupies an intermediate place between state and private property. In the strict sense of the word, already family property can be considered joint, although social groups, labor collectives, and the population are usually considered subjects of collective property. With this understanding, joint property originates in narrowly collective, group property and extends to public property, in which the subject of property is not singled out as an individual, personality, and the right of property extends to all citizens.

The collective form of ownership has several characteristic features, signs, features.

First, its main feature is the collective-group nature of the appropriation of the means and results of production.

Secondly, within the limits of the joint (collective) form, the subject of ownership is not personified as an individual, but is a collection, a community, a collective of owners. The subject of ownership can act as an authorized person or group of persons expressing the proprietary interests of the entire partnership, but much more often acts and is officially formalized as a single legal entity.

Thirdly, in collective forms, there may be direct direct participation and control by the owner over the use of the property, but it may be that the impact on the direction of use of the property on the part of the owner (for example, the people) is significantly indirect.

In general, talking about joint ownership, one should proceed from its broadest understanding as a variety of forms of ownership, covering the range from family to public. It is any inherently integrative form. Its varieties are cooperative and joint-stock property. In joint stock ownership, the most rational combination of individual and collective interests is achieved, which is why it has become one of the main, leading ones in a market economy.

It must be emphasized that there is not and cannot be an absolute separation of forms of ownership, derivative and mixed forms of ownership are inevitable, including transitional ones from one form to another. For example, if ownership of labor power is individual, ownership of the means of production is collective, and ownership of land is state-owned, and all these factors of production are combined in one enterprise, then the ownership of the enterprise will certainly become mixed. It follows from this that it is necessary to recognize the interpenetration and common existence of different forms of ownership. All this gives grounds to speak about the existence of a system of forms of ownership.

The need for a variety of forms of ownership. Denationalization and privatization: content and correlation of concepts

When characterizing the place and role of various forms of ownership in a market economy, one has to operate with such related concepts as forms of organization of entrepreneurial activity, which undoubtedly depend on forms of ownership, but at the same time have independent significance.

The genesis of each new form of entrepreneurship, their evolution correspond to a certain stage in the development of the productive forces and the laws of the market, i.e. they are directly linked to the transformation of the forms and relations of property. It can be seen that such simple forms of ownership as individual and family ownership are characteristic of small businesses. In the future, the development of the productive forces of society required the unification of labor and capital, which led to the implementation of two directions: first, private property based on hired labor; secondly, collective (joint) forms of ownership, the most characteristic of the modern market economy.

None of the forms of ownership and management contains only positive or negative sides. The logic of the diversity of forms of ownership and management inevitably leads to their mutual rivalry and competition. At the same time, complex economic systems are characterized by such a type of unity, which is achieved not by moving towards the identity of the elements of the system and eliminating the differences between them, but through integration, strengthening the interconnections and mutual transitions of different forms. It is thanks to such integration that the entire system of forms of ownership is able to acquire common guidelines, and this ensures not only complementarity, but also the neutralization of the negative properties of each of them.

For the economy, it is important not to single out a separate form of ownership, no matter how effective it may seem, but to create and maintain a mobile system within its framework, including a whole range of organizational structures of entrepreneurial activity based on different forms of ownership. The diversity of modern social needs can be fully satisfied only on the basis of the totality of forms of ownership. Thus, the entire economy should be a unity of interconnected and competing forms of ownership.

The main reasons for the need for a variety of forms of ownership are:

• firstly, the need to eliminate the monopoly of the social structure headed by the state, i.e. overcoming nationalization public life in various forms and spheres of its manifestation;
• secondly, the unequal level of socialization of labor and production in various spheres and branches of the economic system;
• thirdly, the differentiation of scientific and technological progress and technological support in various industries, the unequal level of technical equipment;
• fourth, elementary common sense determines the expediency of making wider use of all forms of economic activity that demonstrate efficiency in certain areas (sectors) of the economy.

Thus, the potential for the diversity of forms of ownership is enormous, and therefore one of the main directions of the state's economic policy should be the maintenance of such diversity. When forming the optimal structure of the economy, a system of market regulation is necessary, and each form of ownership and management must find its place on the basis of competition.

In the context of the transition to a market economy, it became necessary to overcome the monopoly of state property and universal nationalization. The way to overcome nationalization is to carry out denationalization and privatization.

Regarding the subordination of the categories "denationalization" and "privatization", it should be noted that denationalization is a more general concept than privatization.

In itself, denationalization in the economic literature is understood in two ways:

1. Denationalization is the removal from the state of the function of direct economic management, the transfer of relevant powers to the level of enterprises, the replacement of vertical ties with horizontal ones, which can occur without a change of owners.
2. Denationalization is a set of measures to transform state property, aimed at eliminating the excessive role of the state in the economic system, i.e. it is the transformation of state ownership into private, collective and other, including mixed and transitional forms.

On the whole, denationalization is intended to overcome monopoly, promote the development of competition and free enterprise.

Privatization (from Latin "privatus" - private) is a narrower concept, since it is one of the areas of denationalization, which consists in the transfer of state property to private hands, i.e. individual citizens and legal entities.

The goals, methods and conditions for denationalization and privatization are largely determined by the peculiarities of the economic development of individual countries. In this regard, it is necessary to study the experience in this area of ​​both industrialized countries (USA, Western Europe) and countries with economies in transition (Central and of Eastern Europe), in which different models of privatization were implemented in practice.

First of all, it is necessary to understand the difference between the goals and objectives of privatization in countries with developed market economies and in former socialist countries. In the first case, they are usually referred to as: reducing public sector debt, further liberalizing the economy, stimulating entrepreneurship, developing market principles and expanding individual freedoms, and so on. In the second case, privatization contributes to the solution of the following tasks: the formation of a layer of private owners, the restoration of a competitive environment and the development of market relations, demonopolization and overcoming the nationalization of the economy, increasing the efficiency of management and social security of the population.

Privatization should be carried out on the basis of certain general principles, among which are the following:

• an integrated approach to privatization is needed, a forecast of the socio-economic consequences of its implementation in all spheres of society (including economic, political and social aspects);
• it is necessary to take into account all forms of privatization known to world practice, choosing those that best correspond to the specifics of a given subject of ownership and provide maximum economic efficiency;
• privatization should, on the one hand, exclude the infringement of the rights of employees of this enterprise, and on the other hand, all other citizens of the country who participated in the creation of national wealth with their labor;
• a possible outcome of privatization is a complication of the socio-economic situation, so the negative effect should be minimized by creating a system of social protection and the operation of a stable legal mechanism for denationalization and privatization;
• the feasibility and acceptability of specific privatization methods should be determined taking into account the size and type of enterprises (large, small, medium-sized enterprises should have different privatization methods, especially considering their role in the economy).

It must be said that there are many alternative points of view on the procedure for denationalization and privatization.

First, the problem of choosing the concept of privatization is debatable - a centralized approach (privatization "from above") or decentralized (privatization "from below"). The first approach means that the state privatizes enterprises without asking their consent. The second approach assumes that the state only establishes the necessary rules, and the enterprises themselves are engaged in privatization.

Secondly, no less difficult problem is what kind of privatization should be - paid (reimbursed) or not.

Ownership is central to . It determines the economic way of connecting the worker with the means of production, the purpose of the functioning and development of the economic system, the social structure of society, the nature of the incentives for labor activity, the way the results of labor are distributed. Property relations form all other types of economic relations, are backbone and therefore basic.

Essence and content of property

Allocate the following property content:

• economic;
• legal.

The economic essence of property It is built on the relationship between the subject - the owner and the object - the property. As a rule, property is the property on which the production process depends - economic resources, factors of production.

- historically developing social relations regarding distribution (appropriation), describing belonging to a subject that has the exclusive right to dispose, possess and use an object of property.

The system of economic relations of ownership includes the following elements:

1. Assignment of property. It is an economic process that certain person acquires the exclusive right to use a certain thing or good.
2. Use of property for business activities. It can be carried out directly by the owner or transferred to another business entity.
3. Transfer of ownership. It can be carried out by force (theft, seizure, nationalization) or voluntarily (sale, lease).

Economic relations associated with property affect the essence and nature of the entire production process in the economy. On this occasion, people can come into conflict with each other, and therefore property cannot be only economic category. It must be regulated by legal norms - a system of generally accepted rules for the ownership and disposal of property.

Legal nature of ownership assumes generally accepted rules of property regulation at the legislative level.

- this is the most complete set of rights that a subject of law may have in relation to his property. A number of theories also recognize the ownership of certain rights. The Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation recognize and guarantee any form of ownership, while three forms are legally established: state (federal and subjects of the Russian Federation), municipal and private property.

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation distinguishes the following types of property entities (owners):

• bodies of state and municipal administration. In accordance with this, state and municipal property are distinguished;
• entity;
• citizen is an individual.

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation distinguishes the following types of property objects (property):

• intellectual property;
• movable property(for example, securities, banknotes, money, precious metals);
• real estate(e.g. land, industrial and residential buildings).

If the rules provided for at the legislative level are met, the subject is vested with the right of ownership of the object of ownership.

includes:

• the right to dispose of property. This is the right to use a thing or good, to transfer this right to another owner;
• the right to own property. This is the right of physical possession of a thing or good, fixed and protected at the legislative level;
• the right to use the property. This is the right, fixed and protected at the legislative level, to use a thing or a benefit for economic activity or to satisfy personal needs and needs.

The combination of the economic and legal essence of property constitutes its modern understanding. The relations of ownership, use and disposal of property without legal consolidation would be chaotic. And without economic content, the legal consolidation of property rights would not matter.

There are two diametrically opposed approaches to ownership:

• socialist, proceeding from the fact that all property is public and belongs to the state, expressing the interests of the whole society. This approach excludes the right of property of citizens and legal entities. As the practice of implementing this approach shows, the artificial elimination of the economic essence leads to the stagnation of economic development and a decrease in the efficiency of social production;
• capitalist, recognizing all three types of property rights - state, physical and legal entity. With the organic combination of all of them in the national economy, it is possible to achieve high rates. State ownership dominates in social and cultural sectors that are significant for society. Private ownership allows you to increase the efficiency of production.

In Russia, until 1990, an exclusively socialist approach to property was used. As a result of the collapse of the USSR, the situation was changed, and three types of property were introduced - state, physical and legal entities.

Ownership structure in the economy

The ownership structure is of great importance for it, since it determines the nature and essence of the processes occurring in it - production, consumption, distribution.

Ownership structure in the national economy reflects the nature of the existing relationships between objects and subjects of ownership. It is specific to each specific country and is formed under the influence of a combination of historical, cultural, and psychological factors. Due to various circumstances in Russia until 1990 there was only one form of ownership - state ownership, and for this reason the ownership structure was extremely simplified.

The modern ownership structure of Russia is characterized by:

• dominance of shadow property relations. The state seeks to regulate at the legislative level the relations of ownership, disposal and use of property. When shadow economy these relations are not regulated by the state, but proceed outside the legal field (this is a set of unregulated and unaccounted for at the legislative level of economic relations). The shadow economy is distinguished by illicit enrichment, most often by the forcible appropriation of property and the redistribution of national wealth. According to unofficial data, more than half of the relations between objects and subjects of ownership proceed within the framework of the shadow economy, that is, they are not regulated by the state;
• the process of denationalization, i.e. ownership. The experience of developed countries shows that active economic growth can only be realized in a situation where business entities have a direct interest in the results of their work. One of the significant incentives for business entities is the right of ownership. In order to increase the economic interest of economic entities, the process of privatization was launched - the transfer of property rights to individuals and legal entities, which previously belonged to the state. This process was chaotic in Russia and contributed little to economic growth. The mistakes of the privatization program led to the concentration of property rights in a small number of people - the oligarchs;
• underdevelopment. In developed countries, the economy is based on small enterprises with private ownership of the means of production. In Russia, due to the lack of the necessary conditions for this, it practically does not develop.

The main problem of the modern property structure in Russia is to create conditions for such an implementation of property rights that would combine the interests of social stability, justice and active economic development.

Own- a complex and multifaceted category that expresses the totality of social relations: economic, social, legal, political, national, moral and ethical, religious, etc. It occupies a central place in the economic system, since it determines the way the employee is connected to the means of production, the purpose of functioning and development of the economic system, the social and political structure of society, the nature of the incentives for labor activity and the way the results of labor are distributed (Fig. 3.7).

Expressing the deepest connections and interdependencies, property thus reveals the essence of the socio-economic existence of society.

What is property as an economic category?

At first, property was considered as a relation of a person to a thing, i.e., as the physical presence of this thing in a person and the possibility of using it. However, with the development of society and the accumulation of scientific knowledge, the idea of ​​property changed, became more reasonable and meaningful.

Things in themselves are not yet property, just as gold or silver by their nature is not money. They turned into money only under certain economic conditions.

This also applies to property. Its main characteristic is not a thing and not the attitude of people to a thing, but by whom and how this thing is appropriated, and how such an appropriation affects the interests of other people. A known thing becomes property only when, in connection with its appropriation, people enter into certain economic relations with each other. Accordingly, property expresses the relations between people regarding the appropriation of things.

In other words, the socio-economic essence of property is revealed and realized not in the system of relations "man - thing", but in the plane of interaction "man - man" regarding the appropriation of objects of property.

Assignment - it is a process that arises as a result of the combination of the object and the subject of appropriation, that is, it is a concrete-social way of mastering a thing. It means the relation of the subject to certain things as to his own. Assignment forms and expresses a specific feature of a particular form of ownership and its types.

The main object of appropriation in the economic system, which determines its socio-economic form, goals and interests , is the appropriation of the means of production and its results.

Own- this is a set of relations between economic entities regarding the appropriation of the means of production and its results.

Appropriation relations cover all spheres of the reproduction process - from production to consumption. The starting point of appropriation is the sphere of production. This is where the object of ownership and its value is created. Whoever owns the means of production, he appropriates the result of production. After that, the process of appropriation continues through the spheres of distribution and exchange, which act as secondary and tertiary forms of appropriation.

Alienation- this is the deprivation of the subject of the right to own, use and dispose of one or another object of property.

Appropriation and alienation are paired categories that. exist simultaneously as a unity of opposites. The appropriation of a certain object of property by one subject simultaneously means its alienation from another subject. If one subject stated that "it's mine", it's the same as saying to other subjects: "it's not yours". Therefore, next to the owner there is always a non-owner.

So, the process of appropriation and alienation are two dialectical aspects of the essence of property relations. The contradiction in the "appropriation - alienation" system is an internal source of self-development of property relations. This is precisely the powerful positive charge of this dialectical connection.

Thus, accepting the semblance of a person's relation to a thing, property always expresses a connection: the relation of the "owner" to the "non-owner".

Property relations form a certain system, which contains three types of relations (Fig. 3.8):

• - relations regarding the appropriation of objects of property;
• -relationship regarding the economic forms of the sale of property objects (i.e., receiving income from them);
• - relations regarding the economic use of property objects.

The owner can use his own property for economic purposes. In this case, he simultaneously acts in two guises (persons): as an owner and as an economic entity. Now, when production has become extremely complicated and has acquired a significant social character, the main person in economic life is not the owner, but the subject who uses other people's property for production on the basis of lease, leasing, concession, credit. Thus, two subjects appear: the subject-owner and the subject-economic entity, which distribute powers and functions among themselves.

Property relations are realized through objects and subjects of property.

Property objects- this is everything that can be appropriated or alienated:

• - means of production in all spheres of the economy;
• - real estate (houses and structures, separated water bodies, perennial plantings, etc.);
• - natural resources (land, its subsoil, forests, water, etc.);
• - personal and household items;
• - money, securities, precious metals and products from them;
• - intellectual property, i.e. intellectual and spiritual and informational resources and products (works of literature and art, achievements of science and technology, discoveries, inventions, know-how, information, computer programs, technology, etc.);
• - cultural and historical values;
• - work force.

Subjects of ownership are personalized carriers of property relations:

• - a separate natural person (individual) - a person as a bearer of property and non-property rights and obligations;
• - legal entities - organizations, enterprises, institutions, associations of persons of all organizational and legal forms;
• - the state represented by government bodies, municipalities (bodies local government and self-government);
• - several states or all states of the planet. Property also has a legal aspect, acting as a legal category. The legal aspect of ownership is realized through the right of ownership.

Ownership- this is a set of rights legalized by the state and norms of economic relations between individuals and legal entities that arise between them regarding the appropriation and use of property objects.

Due to this, the economic relations of property acquire the character of legal relations, i.e. relations, the participants of which act as carriers of certain legal rights and responsibilities.

The right of ownership has been defined since the time of Roman law by three basic powers - possession, use and disposal. This is the so-called property rights triad (Figure 3.9).

Accordingly, the full realization of property rights is possible only in the presence and interconnection of relations of ownership, use and disposal. Subjects who temporarily acquire the right to own and use someone else's property (for example, a tenant) without the right to dispose are not full owners.

In modern economic science and economic practice in the developed countries of the West, a broader and more detailed system of property rights is used. Thus, the English lawyer - a representative of institutionalism A. Honore proposed a system of property rights, which provides for 11 powers.

• 1. Ownership.
• 2. Right of use.
• 3. The right to manage (the right to decide who and how will ensure the use of benefits).

• 4. The right to income (the right to own the results of the use of goods).
• 5. The sovereign's right to capital value (the right to use, alienate, change or destroy a good).
• 6. Right to security (right to be protected from expropriation or damage to the environment).
• 7. The right to transfer the object to the inheritance.
• 8. The right to indefinite ownership of the object.
• 9. Prohibition to use the property in a way that is harmful to the environment or subjects.
• 10. The right to responsibility (the possibility of collecting the object in payment of the debt).
• 11. The "returnable" nature of property rights, i.e., the return of the powers transferred to someone after the expiration of the agreement or ahead of schedule, in case of violation of its conditions, etc.

Such detailing of legal property rights is not self-sufficient, but aims to guarantee the subject the necessary and sufficient rights to make optimal economic decisions.

So, there is a close relationship between property as an economic category and as a legal category.

Property as legal category expresses the legislative consolidation of economic relations between individuals and legal entities regarding the possession, use and disposal of property through the system legal laws and norms.

Thus, property expresses the dialectical relationship of economic and legal relations.

Historically, economic relations of ownership were of a primary nature, while legal ones were of a secondary nature. In the process of social development, to an ever greater extent, the change in the economic relations of appropriation requires a preliminary renewal of property rights.

The most difficult problem economics is the problem of forms of ownership. There are two approaches to the classification of forms of ownership: vertical-historical and horizontal-structural.

The vertical-historical approach defines historical forms of ownership that arise in the process of the long evolution of society and the change from one form of ownership to another. Each stage in the development of human society corresponds to a certain form of ownership, which reflects achieved level development of productive forces, especially the appropriation of the means and results of production and the main subject, concentrating property rights.

In the early stages of development, mankind has been using collective forms of ownership, first in the form of tribal, and then - communal property. The low level of development of the productive forces predetermined that people could only jointly (collectively) obtain the means of subsistence and consume them jointly. Only in this way could humanity secure its right to life.

Over time, the development of productive forces, the improvement of the person himself, changes in his living conditions lead to the formation of a new type of property - private. These two types of property (public and private) at different stages of the historical development of society appeared in various concrete historical forms, reflecting the socio-economic nature of the dominant social order (Fig. 3.10).

For primitive communal form property were characterized equal rights all members of the community to the dominant object of ownership - land, as well as to the means of labor and the results of production.

slave form property is characterized by the absolute concentration of property rights of the slave owner on the means of production, the results of labor and on the worker (slave).

feudal property provides for the absolute property rights of the feudal lord to the land and limited rights to the worker (serf).

capitalist property characterized by the concentration of entrepreneurial property rights on the means of production and the results of labor, but the lack of ownership of the employee, who has personal freedom.

However, the legal equality of all citizens of capitalist society does not mean equality in the distribution and concentration of property rights. This gives rise to the economic power of some and the economic dependence of others.

The elimination of private property in the former socialist countries and its replacement with the so-called public property in order to equalize all people in the rights to the means of production and the results of their use, caused a break in the natural evolutionary process of development of property relations, which became one of the causes of the crisis and collapse of the socialist system .

Horizontal Structural Approach determines the classification of economic forms of ownership, as well as its types and types.

The conditions and criteria for the indicated classification are: the level of development of the productive forces, the nature of the connection of the worker with the means of production, the degree of authority of the subject regarding resources, the results and management of production, the mechanism for distributing income, etc.

There are two main types of property: private and public.

Private property- this is a type of property when the exclusive right to own, use and dispose of the object of property and receive income belongs to a private (natural or legal) person.

The private type of ownership acts as a combination of individual labor, family, individual with the use of little labor, partnership and corporate forms of ownership (Fig. 3.11).

Rice. 3.11. Modern forms of private property

Private property in all its forms is a powerful factor in the development of society, since it stimulates the owner's entrepreneurial initiative, interest in increasing personal and, consequently, social wealth, provides him with economic freedom of choice, a certain status in society, self-respect, the right to inherit, asserts real property responsibility, etc.

Individual labor property characterized by the fact that an individual in entrepreneurial activity simultaneously uses his own means of production and his labor.

If the farm uses the labor of family members, such property has the form of family labor property (for example, a family farm).

An individual private owner can also use the labor of an employee on the farm (permanently or seasonally).

Partner property is a combination of capital or property of several individuals or legal entities for the purpose of carrying out joint business activities. Each participant in a partner enterprise retains his share of the capital or property contributed by him in partnership ownership.

Corporate (share) property is the property formed by issuing and selling shares. The object of ownership of a joint-stock company, in addition to the capital created through the sale of shares, may also be other property acquired as a result of economic activity.

The peculiarity of corporate property lies in the fact that it combines the features of individual private and collective property. On the one hand, the shareholders are the individual private owners of the share of capital that corresponds to the nominal or market price their shares, as well as the income from them. At the same time, due to the fragmentation of the block of shares, ordinary shareholders do not have a real right to participate in the disposal of the entire capital of a joint-stock company. Only those who own a controlling stake have a real right to dispose and manage the company's capital.

If we consider the implementation of corporate property through the relations of ownership, disposal and management, then the bearers of the relations of ownership of their share are individual owners of shares who receive income (dividends) on them. The relations of disposal and management are not implemented separately (ie, by each shareholder), but by the owners of the controlling stake, who dispose and manage the capital of the joint-stock company as a single property.

Thus, the share capital combines private individual property and the collective form of its use, optimally taking into account the personal and collective interests of shareholders. On the one hand, corporate property, thanks to the ownership of shares by individuals, preserves everything positive that private property carries (entrepreneurial interest, initiative, freedom of choice, unrestrained pursuit of the accumulation of personal, and hence joint capital, the right of perpetual inheritance, etc. ). On the other hand, private property, being in the general structure of the corporation, realizes itself through a more mature - collective form of production organization. There is a qualitative evolution of the mechanism for the implementation of private property, it is shifting towards collective management in order to ensure the efficient use of private resources. In this sense, joint-stock ownership goes beyond classical individual private ownership and overcomes the limitations that are inherent in it. It acts in the form of associated (integrated) property. This is its dignity, universalism, attractiveness and reasons for its prevalence.

The corporate sector in Ukraine unites 17 million individual shareholders, including over 14 million small ones, which appeared as a result of mass privatization. This sector occupies a significant place in the Ukrainian economy, accounting for almost 75% of GDP production.

public property means the general appropriation of the means of production and its results. The subjects of public property treat each other as equal co-owners. Under these conditions, the distribution of income becomes the main form of individual appropriation, and the measure of its distribution is work.

Public property exists in two forms: state and collective (Fig. 3.12).

State property- this is a system of relations in which the absolute rights to manage and dispose of property are exercised by the bodies (institutions) of state power.

Rice. 3.12. Modern forms of public property

State property is divided into national and municipal (communal).

public property- this is the common property of all citizens of the country, which is not divided into shares and is not personified between individual participants in the economic process.

The property is necessary for the state to fulfill its economic, social and defense functions. The objects of state property may be natural resources (land, its subsoil, forests, water, air space), energy, transport, communications, roads, educational establishments, institutions of national culture, fundamental science, defense and space IT facilities. P.

Municipal (communal) property is the property that is at the disposal of the regional government agencies(regions, cities, districts, etc.).

Collective property includes the following types of it.

cooperative property- this is the joint property of the members of a separate team, created on a voluntary basis for the implementation of joint activities. The property of the cooperative is formed as a result of the pooling of property, monetary contributions of its members and income received from their common labor activity. Each member of the cooperative has the same rights to management and income, which is distributed according to the share made and the labor contribution of the members of the cooperative.

There are about 30,000 cooperatives in Ukraine, among which the most powerful and organized link is consumer cooperation, which unites over 1.1 million members in 1,700 consumer societies and 265 unions of various levels.

The property of the labor collective- common property transferred by the state or another entity to the disposal of the enterprise team (under the terms of redemption or lease), which is used in accordance with the current legislation. Collective property can exist in different forms depending on the source of the ransom. If the enterprise is redeemed at the expense of accumulated profit, then an indivisible property of the enterprise collective is created. If the company was purchased by personal income its employees, then share property is formed.

Property of public and religious associations is created at its own expense, donations from citizens or organizations, or by transferring state property. Parties, trade unions, sports societies, churches and other public organizations are the subjects of such property.

mixed ownership unites different forms of ownership - private, state, collective, cooperative, etc., including the property of foreign entities (Fig. 3.13).

Combined forms of ownership. In the developed countries of the West, in order to ensure the effective functioning of production, there is a process of merging enterprises of different forms of ownership, however, on condition that each of them retains its basic quality. As a result, combined forms of ownership are created: concerns, trusts, holdings, financial and industrial groups and other associations. Each participant in such an association delegates to the governing body such a scope of its powers that does not lead to the loss of the basic properties of its inherent form of ownership.

In Ukraine, as a result of reforming property relations on the basis of denationalization and privatization, the following forms of ownership have developed and are legally fixed:

• - private;
• - collective;
• - state.

The existence of mixed forms of ownership, ownership of other states, ownership of international organizations and legal entities of other states.

As a result of the policy of denationalization and privatization in Ukraine for last years the structure of forms of ownership has changed significantly. The monopoly domination of state property was replaced by a real polyformism of property, which created an objective basis for the formation and effective development market economy in the country. At the beginning of 2006, the share of objects of non-state forms of ownership in the country was about 80% (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1. Number of objects of different forms of ownership in Ukraine in 2005-2006 (at the beginning of the year)

Modern trends in the development of property relations. The modern economy of developed countries is on the threshold of post-industrial development and is characterized by dynamism and the latest trends in the development of property relations.

The result of these processes is:

• - further expansion of the pluralism of forms of ownership - private (large, medium, small, family), corporate, collective, cooperative, state, etc. These forms interact and complement each other, each of them finds its own "niche" of productive functioning and maximum realization of opportunities embedded in it. This ensures competition and the efficient functioning of the economy as a whole;
• - significant distribution of mixed and combined forms of ownership, where the leading role belongs to corporations and large firms;
• - strengthening the processes of democratization and socialization of property relations: associated forms of ownership of labor collectives are created, the share of shares among employees of firms increases, they are involved in the management and distribution of income, they are provided with housing, medical care(corporate health insurance) etc.;
• - progressive change in the structure of property objects: such objects of property as scientific knowledge, information, computer programs, new technologies, space objects, highly skilled labor force, spiritual benefits, etc. become priority;
• - the forms and objects of international property are expanding on the basis of deepening the international division of labor and strengthening economic ties between countries.