№ 9/2019

Ekon Ukr. 2019 (9): 68–78https://doi.org/10.15407/economyukr.2019.09.068

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF THE NATURE MANAGEMENT

УДК 332.142.4:17.023.2

ILINA Maria¹, SHPYLIOVA Yulia²

¹Institute of Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development of the NAS of Ukraine, Research ID : http://www.researcherid.com/rid/ID: 1259674
OrcID ID : https://orcid.org/https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5555-1614
²Institute of Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development of the NAS of Ukraine

SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL IMPERATIVES OF RURAL AREAS’ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Low standards of people’s living and economic depression in rural areas in Ukraine make it difficult to achieve the systemic integrity of economic, social and environmental components of the sustainable development. The imbalance between these components causes worsening of the environmental harms and deteriorates conditions for the human capital’s reproduction. The purpose of the article is to substantiate with theoretical and practical means the content and structure of social and ecological imperatives, which are represented as norms and standards relating to economic activities aiming to improve the policy of natural resources use and protect the ecosystem’s integrity of the territories.
Economic imperatives reflect a set of rules applied to all economic entities operating within the current regulatory framework. It takes into account various factors and immanent actions. Key challenges, which are most urgent for a society at a certain time and form guidelines for solving problems of social relations and interactions, determine structure and content of social imperatives. Ecological imperatives regulate anthropogenic activity formally and informally and cause changes in the natural environment. They are dynamic and can vary depending on the level of the development of a society, its technologies, welfare, and institutional framework. Laws and principles of the development, summarized in the form of the imperatives, outline the target benchmarks and national priorities on modernization of the economy and improvement of living standards.
Spatial differentiation of the territories takes into account their proximity to urban centers, the degree of economic capacity, the availability of social infrastructure of the proper quality, and meeting environmental standards. One more significant parameter is the availability of assets, which are defined as a set of resources of a territory, the potential and opportunities for their use. The achievement of the national priorities in Ukraine currently is complicated with inefficient use of territorial assets. Social and ecological imperatives are the solid value and normative ground for the development of local policy. One of its obvious steps is the mutually linked differentiation of the priorities, types of the territories and available assets of them.

Keywords:social-ecological imperative; rural area; economic activity; national priority; asset; spatial differentiation; economic development

Бібл. 15; рис. 1; табл. 1.

Article original in Ukrainian (pp. 68 - 78)

Download

Downloads :495

The article was received by the Editorial staff on April 8 , 2019

References
1. Moiseev N.N. SovremennyiAntropogenez i TsyvilizatsyonnyeRazlomy (Ekologo-PolitologicheskiiAnaliz) [Modern Anthropogenesis and Civilizational Faults (Ecological and Political Analysis)]. Moscow, PH of MNEPU, 1994 [in Russian].

2. Berry T. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. New York, Bell Tower, 1999.

3. Habermas J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1990, pp. 43-115.

4. Moe-Lobeda C.D. Healing a Broken World: Globalization and God. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2002.

5. Suchocki M.H. The Fall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology. New York, Continuum, 1999.

6. StolyarchukYa.M. Global'niAsymetriiEkonomichnohoRozvytku [Global Asymmetries of Economic Development]. Kyiv, KNEU, 2009 [in Ukrainian].

7. Woodward R. 'Deprivation' and 'the rural': an investigation into contradictory discourses. Journal of Rural Studies, 1996, Vol. 12 (1), pp. 55-67.
doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(95)00048-8

8 Cruickshank J. A play for rurality - modernization versus local autonomy.Journal of Rural Studies, 2009, Vol. 25 (1), pp. 98-107.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.06.005

9. Funtowicz S.,Ravetz J.R. Emergent complex systems. Futures, 1994, Vol. 26 (6), pp. 568-582.
doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(94)90029-9

10. Levin S.A. Self-organization and the emergence of complexity in ecological systems. Bioscience, 2005, Vol. 55 (12), pp. 1075-1079.
doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[1075:SATEOC]2.0.CO;2

11. Bar-Yam Y. Dynamics of Complex Systems. Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Reading, 1997.

12. Ambrosio-Albalá M.,Bastiaensen J. The New Territorial Paradigm of Rural Development: Theoretical Foundations from Systems and Institutional Theories. Antwerp, University of Antwerp, 2010.

13. Forrester J.W. Industrial Dynamics. Portland, Productivity Press, 1961.

14. Kostiuk V.O. PrykladnaStatystyka[Applied Statistics]. Kharkiv, KhNUMH named after O.M. Beketov, 2015 [in Ukrainian].

15. Ilina M.V., ShpyliovaYu.B. Metodolohichnyipidkhid do prostorovoidyferentsiatsiisil's'kykhterytoriiUkrainy [Methodological approach to spatial differentiation of rural territories of Ukraine].NaukovyivisnykKhDU. Ser.: Ekonomichninauky - Scientific Bulletin of the KhSU. Ser.: Economic Sciences, 2018, Iss. 31, pp. 63-67 [in Ukrainian].