№ 11/2017

Ekon Ukr. 2017 (11): 48–72

ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT: THEORY AND PRACTICE

УДК 338.2:330.111.4

JEL:

KINDZERSKYI Yurii¹

¹Institute for Economics and Forecasting of the NAS of Ukraine, Research ID : http://www.researcherid.com/rid/D-5626-2018
OrcID ID : https://orcid.org/https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4432-6526

DEINDUSTRIALIZATION AND ITS DETERMINANTS IN THE WORLD AND IN UKRAINE

The main determinants that caused deindustrialization in the world and in
Ukraine, as well as the forms and results of their manifestation in the global and national economic systems, are identified. Two approaches are used to identify these determinants.
Using the first approach (the resource one), which considers only the level of providing
the development with resources and is used by UNIDO, the nature of deindustrialization
in developed countries is analyzed. It is shown that deindustrialization is primarily due to
technological determinant and its peculiarity is the accretive social regression of society
on background of technological progress and leadership of developed countries, associated
with scientific and technological achievements of the Third and Fourth Industrial Revolutions. Among negative social consequences of these Revolutions are the withdrawal of a person from the process of economic activity and creation of a new value.
The limitations of the resource approach to identifying the determinants of
deindustrialization of economies of inversion type, which include the economy of
Ukraine, are shown. An alternative approach (institutional and structural one) is
suggested; according to this one, emergence and interdependence of the manifestation
of determinants are presented in the institutional context in terms of not only the fact
that society has resources for development, but also the level of effectiveness of its
institutional system to manage these resources. With this approach, institutional and
political, organizational and managerial, foreign economic, structural and production, financial and investment, innovation and technological and social determinants of deindustrialization in Ukraine are singled out; the logic, hierarchy, variations and results
of their interaction for economy and society are disclosed.
The main features of these determinants include: (i) a deforming the institution of
property, which caused the formation of oligarchy and the subordination of the state to its
interests; (ii) an insecurity and blurriness of property rights against the backdrop of excessive
external openness of the economy and, as a consequence, structural primitivization of
production along with growing demands for consumption and formation of a debt
consumption model in the state, business and the population; (iii) a change in the
integration vectors of the country’s development, together with the change of its industrial
specialization in foreign markets into agrarian and raw materials one; (iv) an impossibility of commercializing the socium on an innovative basis with the formation of an ineffective paternalistic system of social protection of the population. The recommendations to incorporate determinants outlined when determining the directions of the national economy development are proposed.

Keywords:deindustrialization, “industrial renaissance”, social regress, proprietary rights, public administration, impoverishing development, external dependence

Article original in Ukrainian (pp. 48 - 72)	Download	Downloads :627
Article original in Russian (pp. 48 - 72)	Download	Downloads :401

The article was received by the Editorial staff on July 17 , 2017

References
1. Raizberg B., Lozovskii L., Starodubtseva E. Sovremennyi Ekonomicheskii Slovar’;
[6- izd., pererab. i dop.] [Modern Economic Dictionary, 6th ed., revised and augmented].
Moscow, INFRA-M, 2011 [in Russian].
2. Barro R.J. Determinants of economic growth: a cross-country empirical study.
NBER Working Рaper No. 5698, Cambridge, National bureau of economic research,
1996.
3. Bobukh I., Baranovs’ka I. Makroekonomika. Pidruchnyk. Tema 28. Ekonomichnyi
rozvytok i zrostannya [Macroeconomics. Textbook. Topic 28. Economic development and
growth]. Ekonomichna teoriya – Economic theory, 2015, No. 2, pp. 99–117 [in Ukrainian].
4. Scott R.E. Growth in U.S. – China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015 cost 3.4
million jobs. Here’s how to rebalance trade and rebuild American manufacturing.
Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., 2017, January 31, available at: http://
www.epi.org/114752.
5. McMillan M., Rodrik D. Globalization, Structural Change and Productivity
Growth. NBER Working Paper No. 17143, 2011, available at: www.nber.org/papers/
w17143.pdf.
6. Lichtblau K., Matthes J., Fritsch M. et al. Industry as a Growth Engine in the
Global Economy. Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Kоln, Cologne, IW Consult GmbH,
IW Kоln, 2013.
7. Vishnevskii V.P., Amosha A.I., Zbarazskaya L.A. et al. Promyshlennaya Politika i
Upravlenie Razvitiem Promyshlennosti v Usloviyakh Sistemnykh Disbalansov: Kontseptual’nye
Osnovy [Industrial Policy and Management of Industrial Development in the Context of
Systemic Imbalances: the Conceptual Framework]. V.P. Vishnevskii, L.A. Zbarazskaya
(Eds.). Donetsk, Institute of Industrial Economics of the NAS of Ukraine, 2013 [in
Russian].
8. Rotman D. How technology is destroying jobs. MIT Technology Review, 2013, June
12, available at: www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-i-
destroying-jobs/.
9. Hitchcock А., Laycock K., Sundorph E. Work in Progress. Towards a Leaner,
Smarter Public-sector Workforce. London, Reform, 2017, available at: www.
reform.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Work-in-progress-Reform-report.pdf.
10. Metz C. The AI threat isn’t skynet. It’s the end of the middle class. Wired, 2017,
February 10, available at: www.wired.com/2017/02/ai-threat-isnt-skynet-end-
middle-class.
11. Sappington D., Stiglitz J. Privatization, information and incentives. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 1987, Vol. 6, Iss. 4, pp. 567–585.
12. Baranovskyy O., Sidenko V. Problemy vlasnosti ta lehalizatsii kapitaliv i dokhodiv
v Ukraini [The problems of ownership and legalization of capitals and incomes in Ukraine].
Natsional’na bezpeka i oborona – National security & defense, 2004, No. 2, pp. 2–13 [in
Ukrainian].
13. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. Pochemu Odni Strany Bogatye, a Drugie Bednye.
Proiskhozhdenie Vlasti, Protsvetaniya i Nishchety [Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power,
Prosperity, and Poverty]. Moscow, AST, 2015 [in Russian].
14. Kindzers’kyi Yu.V. Instytutsiina pastka oliharkhizmu i problemy ii podolannya
[Institutional trap of oligarchism and problems of its overcoming]. Ekonomika Ukrainy –
Economy of Ukraine, 2016, No. 12, pp. 22–46 [in Ukrainian].
15. Kindzers’kyi Yu.V. Destruktyvy promyslovoi polityky v Ukraini ta mozhlyvosti ikh
podolannya [Destructive points of the industrial policy in Ukraine and possibilities of
overcome them]. Ekonomika Ukrainy – Economy of Ukraine, 2012, No. 12, pp. 4–16 [in
Ukrainian].
16. Perkins J. Ispoved’ Ekonomicheskogo Ubiitsy [Confessions of an Economic Hit
Man]. Moscow, Pretext, 2005 [in Russian].
17. Werner K., Weiss H. Chernaya Kniga Korporatsii [The Black Book of
Corporations]. Ekaterinburg, Ul’tra. Kul’tura, 2007 [in Russian].
18. Korablin S. Model’ vidstayuchoho zrostannya: ekonomichni faktory ta naslidky dlya
Ukrainy [The “lagging growth” model: economic factors and consequences for Ukraine].
Ekonomika i prognozuvannya – Economy and forecasting, 2016, No. 2, pp. 74–85 [in
Ukrainian].
19. Otsinka Vplyvu Uhody pro Asotsiatsiyu/ZVT mizh Ukrainoyu ta ES na Ekonomiku
Ukrainy: nauk. dop. [Assessment of the Impact of the Association/FTA Agreement between
Ukraine and the EU on Ukrainian economy: scientific report]. V.M. Heyets, T.O. Ostashko,
L.V. Shinkaruk (Eds.). Kyiv, NAS of Ukraine, Institute for Economics and Forecasting of
the NAS of Ukraine, 2014 [in Ukrainian].
20. Heyets V.M. Instytutsiina obumovlenist’ innovatsiinykh protsesiv u promyslovomu
rozvytku Ukrainy [Institutional conditionality of innovative processes in Ukraine’s industrial
development]. Ekonomika Ukrainy – Economy of Ukraine, 2014, No. 12, pp. 4–19 [in
Ukrainian].
21. Heyets V.M. Osoblyvosti vzayemozv”yazku ekonomichnykh i politychnykh
peredumov rekonstruktyvnoho rozvytku ekonomiky Ukrainy [Peculiarities of the interrelation
of economic and political preconditions of a reconstructive development of Ukraine’s
economy]. Ekonomika Ukrainy – Economy of Ukraine, 2016, No. 12, pp. 3–21 [in
Ukrainian].
22. Bogdan T.P. Zovnishne borhove navantazhennya ta vyklyky dlya valyutno finansovoi
polityky Ukrainy [External debt burden and challenges for the currency-financial policy
of Ukraine]. Ekonomika Ukrainy – Economy of Ukraine, 2016, No. 7, pp. 21–32 [in
Ukrainian].
23. Zymovets’ V. Deformovana finansova model’ vedennya biznesu v Ukraini:
instytutsiinyi aspect [Deformed financial model of doing business in Ukraine: institutional
aspect]. Proceedings from: Korporatyvni finansy: problemy ta perspektyvy innovatsiіnoho
rozvytku. I Vseukr. nauk. prakt. konf. [Corporate finance: problems and prospects for
innovation development. I All-Ukrainian scientific and practical conference]. Kyiv,
KNEU, 2016 [in Ukrainian].
24. Ormotsagze M. Ukrainskaya ruletka: grazhdane i biznes poteryali v bankakh
bankrotakh svyshe 300 mlrd griven [Ukrainian roulette: citizens and business lost more
than 300 billion hryvnia in bankrupt banks]. Forbs Ukraina – Forbes Ukraine, May 27,
2016, available at: forbes.net.ua/business/1416943-ukrainskaya-ruletka-grazhdane-
i-biznes-poteryali-v-bankah-bankrotah-svyshe-300-mlrd-griven [in Russian].
25. Skolotyanyi Yu., Ivchenko R. Povtorne rozgrabuvannya, abo U shcho derzhavi ta
platnykam podatkiv obkhodyat’sya bankrutstva bankiv [Repeated looting, or What banks’
bankruptcies cost to the state and taxpayers]. Dzerkalo tyzhnya – Week’s Mirror, 2017,
No. 27 [in Ukrainian].