Efficiency of use of fixed capital. Analysis of the efficiency of use of fixed capital To analyze the efficiency of use of fixed capital, calculate

Keywords

regional production functions / productive investments / efficient fixed assets / economic analysis/ regional production functions / production investments / effective fixed assets / analysis of economics

annotation scientific article on economics and business, author of the scientific work - Vladimir Konstantinovich Gorbunov, Vladimir Pavlovich Krylov

Effective production assets of a region or country are funds that actually participate in the creation of products. In accordance with the neoclassical principle of rationality of economic agents, it is effective funds that should be taken into account in production functions representing mathematical models of large production facilities (industrial associations, industries, economies of regions and countries). The presence of an adequate production function allows you to perform a deep economic analysis of the object and solve planning and forecasting problems. However, researchers, as a rule, have access to information about balance sheet funds, which often poorly reflect the real state of the economy. The fuzzy concept of effective funds can be formalized and quantified within the framework of the production function (PF) method based on the model of V.K. Gorbunov and A.G. Lvov (2012) for constructing standard macroeconomic PFs, one of the factors of which is capital, according to statistical information about production investments. Effective funds are assessed together with the PF parameters and the main indicators of fund dynamics: depreciation and initial value. In this article, an additional coefficient of investment feasibility is introduced into the dynamics equations, representing the share of real use of allocated production investments. The results of a comprehensive assessment of the PF parameters and effective funds for the economies of the Volga and Ural Federal Districts using several classes of two-factor PFs are presented. Labor and energy consumption are alternatively considered as a second factor. As a result of constructing the regional PF, macroeconomic indicators are calculated: average and marginal returns of factors, factor elasticities, marginal rate of factor substitution and elasticity of substitution. This improves the quality of quantitative analysis of regional economies and the objectivity of their comparison.

Text of scientific work on the topic “Evaluation of the Efficiency of fixed capital of enterprises using the production function method”

334 MODERN ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT...

For citation: Economics of the region. - 2015. - No. 3. - pp. 334-347

doi 10.17059/2015-3-27 UDC 332.01; 330.14; 330.322.2; 519:254

V. K. Gorbunov, V. P. Krylov

Ulyanovsk State University (Ulyanovsk, Russian Federation)

ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FIXED CAPITAL OF ENTERPRISES USING THE PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS METHOD1

Effective production assets of a region or country are funds that actually participate in the creation of products. In accordance with the neoclassical principle of rationality of economic agents, it is effective funds that should be taken into account in production functions representing mathematical models of large production facilities (production associations, industries, economies of regions and countries). The presence of an adequate production function allows you to perform a deep economic analysis of the object and solve planning and forecasting problems. However, researchers usually have access to information about balance sheet funds, which often poorly reflect the real state of the economy. The fuzzy concept of effective funds can be formalized and quantified within the framework of the production function (PF) method based on the model of V.K. Gorbunov and A.G. Lvov (2012) for constructing standard macroeconomic PFs, one of the factors of which is capital, according to statistical information about production investments. Effective funds are assessed together with the PF parameters and the main indicators of fund dynamics: depreciation and initial value. In this article, the investment feasibility coefficient is additionally introduced into the dynamics equations, representing the share of real use of allocated production investments. The results of a comprehensive assessment of PF parameters and effective funds for the economies of the Volga and Ural Federal Districts using several classes of two-factor PFs are presented. Labor and energy consumption are alternatively considered as a second factor. As a result of constructing the regional PF, macroeconomic indicators are calculated: average and marginal returns of factors, factor elasticities, marginal rate of factor substitution and elasticity of substitution. This improves the quality of quantitative analysis of regional economies and the objectivity of their comparison.

Key words: regional production functions, industrial investments, efficient fixed assets, economic analysis

Introduction

The cost of fixed production assets (capital) is one of the main indicators of regional development. However, this numerical measure of the basic concept of economic analysis and forecasting the development of complex production facilities (industry, region) is fuzzy and ambiguous due to the known problems of aggregating economic indicators. An indicator of economic development accessible to researchers is the book value of production assets. However, this indicator does not reflect economic reality well due to the difficulties of bringing the various components of the funds of a complex object to common prices and assessing the degree of their deterioration.

1 © Gorbunov V.K., Krylov V.P.. Text. 2015.

Another drawback of the indicator of balance sheet funds is their incomplete use, which is typical for a market economy and especially characteristic for the Russian economy of the post-Soviet period. In the new reality, a significant part of production assets is not used and is destroyed; reported statistical data do not always correspond to the assumption of rationality (in the legal sense) of the use of production factors. The reasons may be both the irrationality of the behavior of new actors (owners and managers) and the discrepancy between the reporting information and the true state due to various reasons, including the corrupt appropriation of part of the allocated investments that determine the dynamics of the funds, and the illegitimate reduction in the cost of work on their development. The problem of corruption in the Russian economy is beginning to attract researchers to the institutional model.

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

WWW.ECONOMYOFREGiON.COM

V. K. Gorbunov, V. P. Krylov 335

at this level, and the production function method can make a specific contribution to this problem.

Production functions (PFs) are mathematical models of fairly large production facilities, industries, regional and national economies. PFs allow solving problems of economic analysis that are inaccessible to calculation methods. The main argument (production factor) of the production function is the cost of production assets (capital), and, in accordance with the neoclassical concept of rational production, these should not be balance sheet assets, but actually used assets. Accordingly, information on balance sheet funds will in many cases be a poor basis for constructing PFs and using them in quantitative economic analysis. The discrepancy between the available measure of funds and book value - a hidden but meaningful measure of effective funds (EF) - caused skepticism regarding the PF method already at an early stage of its development.

The problem of estimating EF can be solved if production investments during the period of collecting statistical information about the object are known. Investments tend to reflect market conditions, are well-defined, and are marketed (if rational) as efficient funds. The dynamics of EF during the period of observation of the object depends on their initial level, actual production investments, the speed of their development and depreciation of embodied capital. Investment is a “flow” type quantity, and capital is a “stock” type quantity. In the absence of investment, production can operate for some time at the expense of accumulated capital. Despite these differences, some researchers construct investment PFs that differ from traditional capital PFs by simply replacing the “capital” factor with current investments.

The work of V.K. Gorbunov and A.G. Lvov proposed the development of the least squares method (LSM) for constructing stationary capital PFs in a situation where investments in production are known. At the same time, during the observation period, the dynamics of not balance sheet, but effective funds is reconstructed. At the same time, the parameters that determine the speed of investment development and the depreciation of funds can be assessed. A new, more complex problem of least squares estimation of an extended set of parameters in the general case is

an ill-conditioned (incorrectly formulated) nonlinear programming problem that requires the use of effective optimization methods, as well as regularization based on meaningful additional (expert) information. To overcome computational difficulties, production functions are constructed in successively more complex classes, starting with the simplest Cobb-Douglas class. Assessing (reconstructing) the dynamics of EF over the observation period requires setting the initial value of effective funds, as well as the depreciation coefficient. Such values can be estimated using calculation methods. These methods require the use of detailed information about the economy and are quite labor intensive, but this work must be done in full only for the initial period.

This article develops the approach in the following respects. In the equations of capital dynamics, an additional coefficient of investment feasibility is introduced, representing the share of real use of allocated production investments. As an additional means of overcoming the computational complexity of MLS problems, the transition to index PFs is used with the subsequent restoration of function parameters in absolute forms (relative to the absolute values of the variables). The developed method was applied for a comparative analysis of the economies of two federal districts of Russia.

The first section of the article examines two-factor PFs in absolute and - briefly - in index forms. The production characteristics derived from the production functions are presented, and the PF classes used in the calculations are also presented. The second section sets out the task of constructing capital pension funds with the reconstruction of effective funds based on investment information. In the third, the results of solving this problem for the statistical data of the Volga and Ural federal districts are presented and discussed. Labor and energy consumption are alternatively considered as a second factor. The fourth section is conclusions.

1. Production functions in absolute and index forms

Production functions are mathematical models of the objects under study, such as a black box, representing the dependence of product output on the costs of production factors in the preferred

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

336 MODERN ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT...

laying down their rational use. Production functions describe a complex object in a simplified manner based on identifying its most significant (for a specific study) cost indicators that have quantitative measures, and establishing a specific functional relationship that is assumed to exist between costs and output.

Let us consider stationary two-factor capital PFs of various parametric classes

Y _ F (K, L; w), (1)

where the gross output of the modeled production facility Y for a reporting unit of time (usually a year) is determined by the level of use of effective funds (effective capital) K and labor L, the variable w _ (wp ..., wp) represents the vector of parameters of the corresponding PF class, selected from some sets № with Rp of the parameter space of a given class of functions. Instead of labor, the indicator of production energy use E is also (alternatively) used. This replacement is significant only for specific calculations.

When considering theoretical issues, the dependence of the PF on parameters is not highlighted: Y _ F (K, L). Entry (1) assumes that the main variables (Y, K, L) have dimensions: gross output Y and funds K are measured by cost, and labor input L is measured by cost, time or number. We will call functions with meaningfully measured variables (1) given in absolute form. To overcome the computational problems of constructing a PF based on production statistics, production functions in index form are also used, that is, functions similar in structure, but relative to the indices of the corresponding indicators, that is, the ratios of the values of the variables (Y, K, L) to their basic values (Y0, K0 , L0):

and _-, k_-, X_-

The index function F(k, X; w) is related to the absolute F(K, L; w) by the equality F(K, L; w) = Y0F(k, X; w). The connection between the parameters of the absolute and index forms w and w is established by structural analysis of this equality for specific classes of functions. The index form was studied in connection with criticism of the PF method regarding “incorrectness”, from the point of view

In accordance with modern ideas about the rationality of production, the production function F(K, L) should be monotonically increasing and quasi-concave in the economic region of the space of factors (K, L). The quasi-concavity of the function F(K, L) means that the upper sets of its levels (K > 0, L > 0: F(K, L) > c) must be convex sets of the factor space.

The production function in absolute form F(K, L) allows you to calculate the fundamentally observable production characteristics: the average efficiency of factors Y/K and Y/L, the marginal efficiency dF(K, L) / dK and dF(K, L) / dL, their relations - factor elasticities

e dF(K, L): Y _d ln F(K, L)

S K = dK " K = d ln K ’

DF(K, L): Y _ d ln F(K, L) e L dL ■ L d ln K " c)

The sum of factor elasticities cKL _ eK + + eL is the elasticity of production to scale.

In the language of percentages, factor elasticities indicate by what percentage (approximately) output will increase if the use of the relevant factor increases by 1%. The elasticity of production shows that with an increase in all factors by 1%, output will increase by approximately |aKL%

The production function also allows us to calculate deeper characteristics of the factor substitution process that maintains the level of output:

Marginal rate of substitution (MRS) of labor with capital

dF (K, L) dF (K, L) dL " dK

Elasticity of substitution of labor for capital

F(K, L) _ const.

The value of PNZ (4) shows by what percentage the use of capital K needs to be increased or decreased when the used labor L decreases or increases by 1%. Elasticity of substitution (5) represents the relationship between the capital-labor ratio K/L and the marginal rate of substitution, showing how long

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

WWW.ECONOMYOFREGiON.COM

V. K. Gorbunov, V. P. Krylov 337

cents, the capital-labor ratio changes with a change in the production cost by 1%.

Implicit characteristics of the PF, which can complement the analysis of the adequacy of the PF to real objects, are the functions of factor demand, supply, profit and costs, determined by the tasks of rational production - maximizing profits or minimizing costs.

1. Cobb-Douglas function (CD):

with restrictions on the parameters w = (A, a, b) > 0. This function is positively homogeneous of the degree q = a + b, which also represents elasticity with respect to the scale of costs. It is known that degrees a and b represent the factor elasticities of production (3), and the elasticity of substitution (5) is equal to st = 1. These indicators do not depend on the quantities of factors used, and the CD functions can be called functions of constant factor elasticities.

2. Function of constant elasticity of substitution (CES)

A (vK-р + (1 -v) £-р)-к/р (7)

with restrictions (A, q) > 0, -1< р ф 0, 0 < v < 1. Эта функция положительно однородная степени ц (эластичность производства). Ее эластичность замещения не зависит от количеств используемых факторов и равна ст = 1 / (1 + р). В пределе р ^ 0 функция ПЭЗ (7) переходит в функцию КД (6).

3. Solow function:

A (vK a+(1 -v) LP)T, 0

There are no general restrictions on the parameters of the Solow function that ensure its increase and quasi-concavity. When practically estimating the parameters of function (8), these properties should be controlled by constructing isoquants. This function is also heterogeneous. When a = b< 1 эта функция относится к классу ПЭЗ (7), где р = -а, ц = ау.

The sequence of the above and other functions is useful to use in the procedure for gradually increasing the complexity of a class of functions when constructing them using production statistics, passing the values of the estimated parameters to form an initial approximation of the parameters of a more complex class.

If we limit ourselves to the index form of the PF, as in the work, then from the given characteristics it is possible to determine only constants

factor elasticities (3), using the CD function (6), as well as elasticity of substitution (5) and scale elasticity μ, using the PEZ function (7).

2. The task of constructing a pension fund with the reconstruction of effective funds

Statistics of production sectors and regions in recent years usually contain data on output Yt, allocated (reported) production investments It and labor input L t:

(Y, It,L: t = 0,T). (9)

In the works mentioned above and the works of other authors, investment functions were introduced, where instead of capital K, investments I or the corresponding indices are used:

Y = F(I, L; w). (10)

Due to the failure to take into account the process of accumulation and depreciation of capital, it is difficult to expect sufficient adequacy of investment PFs (10) with economic reality, therefore they are not considered further as a tool of economic analysis.

In general, actual investments take time to be absorbed and capitalization occurs over several observation periods. We will assume that capital gains are determined by the actual investments of the current and previous periods in some proportion. This is sufficient to describe the dynamics of capital in the absence of significant capital construction. Let us denote the share of actual investments disbursed in the current period as Oe. Accumulated capital is subject to depreciation. Let us accept the usual simplifying assumption about the constancy of the depreciation rate, denoting it so.

To take into account the factor of investment appropriation and its expert assessment, we introduce the investment feasibility coefficient r e (0, 1], representing the share of real use of investments It allocated for the restoration and development of funds. Accordingly, real investments are represented by the value rI, and part (1 - r) It is appropriated by corrupt officials and unscrupulous performers of work. Under the assumptions made, the equation for the dynamics of the EF has the form:

Kt =(1 -m)Kt-i+r[^ +(1 -ОIt-i], t = IT. (11)

To determine the values (K1, ..., KT), you should set the initial value of the effective

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

338 MODERN ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT...

fed K0. Now the dynamics of capital is determined, in addition to the values of formal investments known during the observation period (I0, ..., IT), also by unknowns - the initial capital K0, the depreciation rate m and the investment feasibility coefficients r and their development - %. Accordingly, the values (K, ..., KT) are functions of the new parameters (K0, m, r, %), and the list of estimated parameters is expanded to a vector:

z = (w,...,wp, Ko, m, r, %). (12)

Let us introduce the quadratic discrepancy function of the system of approximate equalities of statistical and calculated values of outputs Yt and F(Kt, L; w) on data (9) and simulated values of indicators of effective funds (11):

j(z) = L w - F (K, L; W)]2. az)

The task of estimating the parameters w of the capital PF (1) and the dynamics of effective capital (11) based on data (9) is to minimize the functional (13) subject to condition (11) and restrictions on the parameters (12):

w e W, K0 > 0, 0< m < 1, 0 < r < 1, 0 < % < 1. (14)

Expanding the list of parameters of the fund dynamics model (11) complicates the problem, but makes it more adequate to the problem of modeling production and allows us to estimate the actually used capital (effective funds) (K, ..., Kt) taking into account new factors."

Estimates of the parameters K0, m, r, %, as well as the corresponding capital values (K, ..., Kt), will depend on the choice of parameterization class P(K, L; w). The final class of functions will be determined by the achieved best quality of approximation of equality (1) on data (9).

It is easy to see that the restored values of capital (11) with m = r = % = 1 take the values of investments It, and the capital function (1) coincides in statistical data (9) with the investment function (10). This means that the capital and investment functions are identical, if the introduced funds operate for one period (m = 1), there is no corruption

1 A similar task of comprehensive assessment of the parameters of the PF and the parameters of the dynamics of funds is mentioned in. In this work, the main problem is modeling the non-stationary process of depreciation of assets at similar enterprises using the panel data method.

(r = 1) and investments are absorbed in one period (% = 1). Accordingly, the problem of constructing an investment PF (10) based on data (9) is a special case of a new problem of comprehensive assessment of economic dynamics.

Due to the nonlinearity of the complex estimation problem and the typical “smallness” of the number of observations of production facilities within the framework of the stationary theory, the set of standard econometric criteria for the quality of constructing a PF is small. We consider the main criterion to be the least squares measure of approximation of observed outputs (Yt) by model outputs [P(Kg, L; w)), that is, functional (13). As additional statistical criteria, we use the coefficient of determination R2 and the Durbin-Watson criterion for identifying autocorrelation of regression residuals rt = Yt- .Р(Кг, L; w), corresponding to the estimated parameters w. According to this criterion, it is necessary to calculate the value

DW = f(rt - P_!)2 / f2.

Possible values of the coefficient DW are in the range from 0 to 4. If there is no autocorrelation of the residuals, then DW is 2.

The described problem of complex estimation of the parameters of the capital production function (1) and the dynamics of the economic efficiency (11) is highly nonlinear and may turn out to be computationally ill-conditioned even for the simplest class of Cobb-Douglas functions. In this case, almost the same level of minimum residual j(z) can be achieved with different combinations of the set of parameters (12). Here we will limit ourselves to pointing out the advisability (or necessity) of moving to index variables (2). In this case, the dynamics equation (11) is divided by the value of K0 (the estimated parameter of the problem) and investment indices are introduced - the share of annual investments relative to the initial estimate of production assets 1/K0. Index variables (k, X, u), in contrast to absolute ones (K, L, Y), have the same order of values (about one), which greatly facilitates the search for the minimum of the functional (13) under conditions (11) and (14). In this case, as in the work, the success of solving this highly nonlinear problem is achieved thanks to a special modification of the continuation method (§ 11.3 in).

To regularize the task of comprehensive assessment of PF parameters and fund dynamics, it is necessary to attract expert information on economically significant

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

WWW.ECONOMYOFREGiON.COM

V. K. Gorbunov, V. P. Krylov 339

parameters - initial effective funds K0, depreciation t, investment feasibility coefficient r, investment development parameter £,. The expert values of these parameters (K0xp,mexp,rexp, £,exp) can be refined when solving the problem.

3. Analysis of the economies of the Volga and Ural federal districts

The outlined method for constructing capital PFs with the assessment of effective funds based on investment information is applied to data regarding the economies of the Volga and Ural Federal Districts (VFD and UFD) for the period 2000-2012. from the statistical collections “Regions of Russia: Socio-economic indicators” (for 2010-2014), available on the websites of the Federal State Statistics Service. About 30 million people live in the Volga Federal District, and about 12 million live in the Urals Federal District.

However, they are comparable in terms of gross regional product (GRP). This is explained by the fact that the Ural District includes the main oil and gas provinces of Russia (Tyumen and Khanty-Mansiysk), and this, taking into account oil and gas rent, which sharply increased during this period due to external conditions, predetermined the high cost of its GRP and other economic advantages.

Table 1 presents statistics of annual indicators for the Volga Federal District and Ural Federal District: GRP Yt (for year t), fixed assets at full accounting value K( (at the end of year t), investments in fixed assets I, introduction of new fixed assets K"V (all in billion rubles), depreciation rates of fixed assets, residual book value of assets K, number of employees on average per year according to sample surveys of the population on employment problems Lt (thousand people), industrial consumption

Table 1

Initial data, book value of assets and production electricity consumption

Year t k( kV Ht Kb Lt

2000 1037 3570 207 - 0,466 1907 14243 133820

2001 1293 4255 268 - 0,473 2242 14225 134929

2002 1483 5137 295 - 0,526 2435 14457 136223

2003 1808 6047 351 - 0,486 3108 14280 137808

2004 2285 6439 464 322 0,482 3335 14378 139376

2005 2799 7462 609 437 0,494 3776 14537 138823

2006 3513 8457 784 548 0,502 4211 14734 146792

2007 4330 10204 1148 697 0,495 5153 14888 158671

2008 5324 11864 1485 888 0,495 5991 14835 156292

2009 4923 13203 1279 917 0,505 6535 14531 140534

2010 5709 14793 1437 966 0,521 7086 14664 143535

2011 6988 17166 1703 1255 0,527 8120 14801 151642

2012 7911 17907 2013 1311 0,531 8398 14883 155343

2000 866 2495 251 - 0,407 1481 5720 106132

2001 1121 3845 331 - 0,458 2085 5642 108444

2002 1336 5070 383 - 0,481 2633 5734 108456

2003 1659 5812 446 - 0,476 3048 5975 115231

2004 2235 6267 534 367 0,481 3250 5939 122387

2005 3091 7936 593 476 0,492 4028 6019 129491

2006 3721 9209 801 531 0,510 4511 6037 142396

2007 4236 10955 1113 737 0,522 5232 6123 145186

2008 4816 13270 1483 978 0,524 6314 6222 152048

2009 4360 14527 1338 1001 0,521 6952 5988 145375

2010 5119 16840 1493 1200 0,528 7947 6005 154953

2011 6270 19435 1838 1655 0,563 8485 6102 157260

2012 7091 22295 2038 1887 0,534 10389 6159 158225

Source: Data from the Federal State Statistics Service - http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_ main/rosstat/ru/statistics/^aTa access: 02/09/2015); collections “Regions of Russia” for 2010-2014; http://cbsd.gks.ru/# (access date: 02/09/2015)).

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

340 MODERN ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT...

energy Et (million kWh). From these indicators, the book value of the funds is calculated using the formula Kbt = (1 - q,) Kf, and production energy consumption is defined as the difference between the statistical indicators “total electricity consumption” and “electricity consumption by the population and electricity losses in power grids”.

An analysis of Table 1 shows that the economy of the Volga Federal District exceeded the economy of the Ural Federal District in terms of GRP in 2000 by 19.7% and by 2012 by 11.5%. At the same time, the ratio of the values of the balance sheet funds of the Volga region and the Urals was 1.28 in 2000 and 0.81 in 2012, that is, in the Urals Federal District there was an accelerated growth of balance sheet funds. Higher GRP values in the Volga Federal District correspond to significantly higher labor costs, which throughout the entire period in the Volga region exceeded costs in the Ural District by approximately 2.5 times, which corresponds to the size of their population. The rapid growth of funds in the Ural District is explained by large investments in fixed assets.

However, the tabulated dynamics of balance sheet funds (column Ktb) does not agree well with the dynamics of the input of funds (column KV). If we calculate the values of annual increases K^ - Kb, then they will differ significantly (not explained by inflation and depreciation) and irregularly (sometimes more, sometimes less) from the indicators of input of funds K. This confirms the imperfection (perhaps irremovable) of the indicator of balance sheet funds, noted by the authors.

The data in Table 1 also shows significantly lower values for the introduction of new funds compared to investments in funds for both regions. Considering that industrial investments in Russia mainly come down to the purchase of foreign equipment and road construction, we can neglect the development lag and give some assessment of the investment implementation parameter r by comparing the total values of investments and introduced funds for the same period 2004-2012. For the Volga region we obtain the value r = 7341: 10922 = 0.672, and for the Ural district r = 8832: 11231 = 0.786. This demonstrates a higher relative level of corruption in the Volga Federal District, which is less rich in raw materials.

Thus, direct analysis of data on the economies of the Volga region and the Urals demonstrates the qualitative superiority of the Ural economy. This, of course, is explained by the fact that the liberal integration of the Russian economy into the world market

with climate and transport costs much higher than those of the world market leaders, as well as an unprecedentedly high rental profit on raw material exports in the period under review, predetermined the depression of agricultural and processing economies, which to a greater extent include the Volga region, and, on the contrary, the extensive development of resource-based economies , which mainly includes the Urals, after the deindustrialization of the 90s. All this is a demonstration of the so-called Dutch disease, that is, depression of the main part of the sectors of material production and agriculture with ultra-high profits in the extraction of oil and gas resources, which (extra-high profits) took place in Russia until mid-2014.

The construction of production functions in absolute form based on the data in Table 1 allows us to deepen the analysis of economic data. Production functions determine the substantive characteristics of production given in the first section: average and marginal productivity of factors, factor elasticities (3), marginal rate of substitution of factors (4) and elasticity of substitution (5).

We use two types of two-factor PFs with the factors “capital-labor” F(K, L; w) and “capital-energy” F(K, E; w). The latter are distinguished by replacing the factor L with production energy consumption E, and using statistics (Yt, I, Et) instead of statistics (9). This, in addition to expanding the set of factors under study, makes it possible to increase the objectivity of the main problem of this article - the assessment of effective production assets.

To construct the PF using our method, it is necessary to bring the cost indicators of Table 1 - GRP Yt and investments It - to uniform prices. Table 2 presents data on the annual indices of indicators Yt, It and their values in 2000 prices (billion rubles).

The problem of complex assessment of the full set of parameters (12) is ill-conditioned, so we fixed the economic parameters (m, r, Q, giving them conditional expert values. On the depreciation of fixed assets, there are all-Russian data on annual values from 2005 to 2012, and depreciation coefficients generally increase over this interval from the value m2005 = 0.047 to m2012 = 0.065 '.

1 According to http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_ main/rosstat/ru/statistics/enterprise/fund/ (access date:

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

WWW.ECONOMYOFREGiON.COM

V. K. Gorbunov, V. P. Krylov 341

Annual indices and values in 2000 prices of GRP and investments

table 2

Year t Volga Federal District Ural Federal District

Y / Y g ±t-1 Yt 1 / 1-1 1 Y / Y t" 1t-1 Yt 1 / 1-1 1

2000 1037 207 866 251

2001 1,069 1108 1,137 235 1,089 943 1,202 301

2002 1,026 1137 0,992 233 1,042 983 1,019 307

2003 1,069 1216 1,042 243 1,084 1065 1,054 324

2004 1,058 1286 1,138 277 1,067 1137 1,057 342

2005 1,045 1344 1,147 317 1,102 1253 0,947 324

2006 1,079 1450 1,147 364 1,075 1347 1,198 388

2007 1,091 1582 1,261 459 1,055 1421 1,210 470

2008 1,052 1664 1,079 495 1,034 1469 1,116 524

2009 0,925 1540 0,835 413 0,920 1352 0,896 470

2010 1,055 1624 1,081 447 1,068 1443 1,091 512

2011 1,068 1735 1,101 492 1,046 1510 1,142 585

2012 1,041 1806 1,095 539 1,015 1532 1,064 623

2012 / 2000 - 1,74 - 2,57 - 1,77 - 2,45

Source: data from the Federal State Statistics Service - http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/^aTa access: 02/09/2015), and collections “Regions of Russia” for 2010- 2014

can be taken as guidelines for expert assessment of the parameter m for the objects under study. Taking into account the higher economic development indicators of the Urals, we assigned depreciation coefficients for the Volga Federal District m = 0.055 and for the Ural Federal District m = 0.075.

The above estimates of investment realization coefficients - for the Volga region r = 0.67 and for the Urals r = 0.79 - lead to too large (several times) excess of the final values of effective funds KT relative to their initial estimate K0, which does not correspond to reality. These coefficients were selected by variant calculations so as to approximately provide the given values of the KT / K0 ratios. For the Volga Federal District, this ratio is determined (conditionally) at 1.7 (an increase of 70%) and for the Urals Federal District, taking into account large investments and their smaller “disappearance,” at 2.4 (an increase of 140%). These conditions were approximately ensured by investment feasibility factors of r = 0.4 for the Volga region, and r = 0.45 for the Urals. The temporary development coefficient is assumed to be % = 0.9 for both districts, which corresponds to a low level of capital construction.

As noted, the problem was solved in two versions of modeling production functions: capital-labor (PFKT) F(K, L; w) and capital-energy (PFKE) F(K, E; w) classes KD (6), PEZ (7 ), Solow (8). All calculations are implemented in the Mathematica software system.

At the same time, the data in tables 1 and 2 used in the calculations are brought to a large scale: GDP (Y and investments (I) - in trillion rubles, number of employees (Lt) - in ml people, energy (Et) - in billion kW -h.

In both cases, the computational complexity of nonlinear and ill-conditioned problems of estimating the parameters of the PEZ and Solow functions is reduced by a sequential transition from the CD function to the PEZ function and then to the Solow function. In this case, the simply estimated parameters of the CD function (A, a, b) (solution of a system of three linear equations) determine a good initial approximation of the nonlinear problem of estimating the parameters of the PEZ: A0 = A, q0 = a + b, V0 = a / q0, p0 - small non-zero number. The obtained estimates of the PEZ parameters (A, μ, v, p) determine a good initial approximation of the Solow parameters: A0 = A, a0 = b0 = = ^ Y0 = -M/p.

In all cases, it was possible to obtain stable estimates of the parameters of the functions of the most flexible Solow class, for which the best approximation of the statistical values of the GRP |Yt) (Table 2) was achieved by the calculated values of the functions |F(K, L; w)) and |F(K, E; w)) relative to the discrepancy index (13).

For the Volga Federal District in the PFKT version, the criteria values j(z) = 0.0017, R2 = 0.97, DW = 1.4 were achieved and the production function was constructed

Y = 6.79 10-6 (0.114K-°-00295 + 0, 8 8 5 L0-00298 U™. (15)

The estimate of the initial effective capital in this option is K0 = 1.141 trillion rubles.

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

342 MODERN ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT...

Economic indicators of the Volga Federal District

Table 3

PFKT 2000 2012 increase, % PFKE 2000 2012 increase %

Y/K 0.909 0.909 0.0 Y/K 0.942 0.918 -2.5

Y/L 0.073 0.121 65.8 Y/E 0.008 0.012 50.0

dY/dK 0.558 0.537 -3.8 dY/dK 0.632 0.593 -6.2

dY/dL 0.348 0.558 60.3 dY/dE 0.009 0.012 33.3

SK 0.614 0.591 -3.7 eK 0.671 0.646 -3.7

eL 4.775 4.599 -3.7 SE 1.103 1.062 -3.7

Vkl 5.389 5.190 -3.7 Rke 1.774 1.708 -3.7

SLK 0.623 1.039 66.8 SEK 0.014 0.021 50.0

a 0.997 0.997 0 a 0.999 0.999 0

In the version of PFKE for the Volga Federal District, the criteria j(z) = 0.0016, R2 = 0.97, DW = 0.61 were achieved and the production function was constructed

Y = 0.00675(0.382K~0.000864 + 0.617E^000882)-189°. (16)

Estimation of initial effective capital K0 = 1.101 trillion rubles.

When solving problems of complex estimation of PF parameters and initial effective capital K0, subsequent EF values (Kr..., KT) are calculated using the equations of fund dynamics (11). The obtained estimates of effective funds of the Volga Federal District (in billion rubles) are given together with estimates of the EF for the Ural Federal District in Table. 7.

According to the Durbin-Watson criterion, a function of the PFCT type is more consistent with the assumption of independence of regression residuals (rt). Note that in both cases the parameter estimates for each function a and p are very close. This means that the constructed Solow functions are similar to the PEZ functions with parameters p = -(a + P) / 2 and q = -ur.

To assess the accuracy of modeling, it is of interest to analyze the discrepancies between the same type of indicators of the PFCT and PFCE models. Of the given parameters, this is the initial effective capital K0, for which the values (billion rubles) of 1141 and 1101 were obtained. Let us determine the relative discrepancy of this indicator as the ratio of the absolute values of their differences and the arithmetic average." In percentage terms, the discrepancy between the values of 1141 and 1101 is 3.6% .

Using functions (15) and (16) using EF estimates (Table 7), converted into trillion rubles, the indicators of the Volga region economy were calculated for the initial (2000) and final (2012) periods. They are shown in Table 3.

1 For two values A1 and A2 this value is S(%) = 200|A1 - A2| / / (A1 + A2).

Table 4

Discrepancies between Volga Federal District indicators (%)

Year Indicator

2000 3,6 12,4 8,9

2012 1,0 9,9 8,9

This table contains similar indicators obtained by two methods - PFCT and PFCE. These are the average Y/K and the marginal dY/dK of capital productivity, as well as the stock elasticity of output eK for boundary periods. The corresponding discrepancies are summarized in Table 4. The largest discrepancy - 12.4% - appeared in the estimate of the marginal capital productivity in 2000. This value gives an idea of the accuracy of other estimates.

The given characteristics show a slight decrease in average and marginal capital productivity, a noticeable increase in average and marginal labor productivity and energy productivity. Factor and scale elasticities decreased somewhat, and the marginal rates of substitution of labor and energy with capital increased significantly. The elasticity in terms of the scale of use of factors (K, L), that is, cK1, significantly exceeds the scale elasticity of factors (K, E), that is, cKE.

The almost coincidence of the power parameters a and p in both cases indicates the almost constancy of the corresponding elasticities of substitution, close to unity, which corresponds to the CD function. However, the use of a more flexible heterogeneous Solow function clarifies and reveals the dynamics of factor elasticities eK, eL, eE and elasticities of production and eKE.

For the Urals Federal District, the best values in terms of residual j(z), coefficients R2 and DW were obtained in both versions also for the Solow function. In the first version of the PFCT, the values of the criteria j(z) = 0.0020, R2 = 0.96, DW = 1.39 were achieved and the production function was constructed

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

WWW.ECONOMYOFREGiON.COM

V. K. Gorbunov, V. P. Krylov 343

Economic indicators of the Ural Federal District

Table 5

PFKT 2000 2012 increase % PFKE 2000 2012 increase %

Y/K 1.099 0.777 -29.3 Y/K 1.005 0.766 -23.8

Y/L 0.151 0.249 64.9 Y/E 0.008 0.010 25.0

dY/dK 0.436 0.306 -29.8 dY/dK 0.123 0.088 -28.5

dY/dL 0.475 0.779 64.0 dY/dE 0.009 0.010 11.1

eK 0.397 0.394 -0.8 eK 0.123 0.115 -6.5

SL 3.141 3.131 -0.3 SE 1.102 1.028 -6.7

Vkl 3.538 3.525 -0.4 Vke 1.225 1.143 -6.7

SLK 1.090 2.541 133.1 SEK 0.073 0.113 54.8

a 0.996 0.996 0 a 1.005 1.005 0

Y = 0.0054 (0.111KЧ1’00366 + 0.888L0.00366)-919. (17)

The estimate of the initial effective capital in this option is K0 = 0.788 trillion rubles.

In the version of PFKE for the Ural Federal District, the criteria j(z) = 0.0015, R2 = 0.97, DW = 0.73 were achieved and the production function was constructed

Y = 0.00835(0.106K0-00459 + 0.894£0-00478)237. (18)

Estimation of initial effective capital K0 = 0.862 trillion rubles. The discrepancy between the initial values of this indicator for the PFCT (788) and PFCE (862) variants is 9.0%.

The obtained estimates of the effective funds of the Ural Federal District (Kr..., Kg) (in billion rubles) are given together with estimates of the EF for the Volga Federal District in Table 7. Indicators of the economy of the Ural Federal District for the initial (2000) and final (2012) periods are given in table 5.

The discrepancies in the corresponding indicators in Table 5 are summarized in Table 6. Here, the accuracy

Table 6

Differences in indicators of the Urals Federal District (%)

Year Indicator

2000 8,9 112,0 105,4

2012 1,4 110,7 109,6

estimates of marginal capital productivity and capital elasticity of output are noticeably worse than similar indicators for the Volga Federal District (Table 4).

The nature of changes in economic indicators in the Urals Federal District generally repeats the nature of their changes in the Volga Federal District (Table 3). However, here there is a significantly greater decrease in the average and marginal return on capital (more than 20%) and a twice as large increase in the marginal rate of replacement of labor with capital (133.1% versus 66.8% in the Volga region). This is explained by significantly higher labor productivity in the Ural Federal District (about twice as high according to the average Y/L indicator) and

Effective funds (billion rubles)

Table 7

Year of Volga Federal District Ural Federal District

(K, L) (K, E) S (%) K (K, L) (K, E) S (%) K

2000 1141 1101 3,6 1121 788 862 9,0 825

2001 1171 1133 3,3 1152 862 931 7,7 896

2002 1200 1164 3,0 1182 935 999 6,6 967

2003 1230 1197 2,7 1213 1010 1069 5,7 1039

2004 1272 1241 2,5 1256 1087 1142 4,9 1114

2005 1327 1298 2,2 1312 1152 1203 4,3 1177

2006 1398 1370 2,0 1384 1238 1284 3,6 1261

2007 1501 1475 1,7 1488 1353 1396 3,1 1374

2008 1615 1590 1,6 1602 1485 1524 2,6 1504

2009 1695 1671 1,4 1683 1587 1624 2,3 1605

2010 1779 1757 1,2 1768 1697 1731 2,0 1714

2011 1876 1855 1,1 1865 1829 1861 1,7 1845

2012 1987 1967 1,0 1977 1971 2000 1,5 1985

Growth, % 74 79 - 76 150 132 - 141

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

344 MODERN ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT...

a significant decrease in capital productivity. Higher labor productivity in the Urals Federal District is explained by higher indicators of capital-labor ratio and energy-labor ratio. Thus, in 2012, for the Ural Federal District, the capital-labor ratio K/L was 322 thousand rubles per employee and the energy ratio E/L was 25.7 thousand kWh per employee. These figures for the Volga Federal District were, respectively, 133 thousand rubles. and 10.4 thousand kW-hour.

A comparison of the economic indicators of the Volga Federal District and the Urals Federal District also reveals a significant difference in the effectiveness of alternative (relative to models) factors. For both economies, the average and marginal labor productivity, as well as the labor elasticity of output eL, revealed by the PFKT model, significantly exceed the corresponding indicators for energy, revealed by the PFKE model. At the same time, the return on the scale tKL in the Volga Federal District is approximately equal to 5, and in the Urals Federal District exceeds 3, and the return on the scale tKE in the Volga Federal District is less than two, and in the Urals Federal District is slightly more than one. This difference indicates a significantly greater importance for the economies of the Volga region and the Urals of the “labor” factor relative to the “energy” factor.

Table 7 shows estimates of the EF of the Volga region and the Urals (billion rubles), obtained in two variants of production factors - “capital-labor” (K, L) and “capital-energy” (K, E). It also shows the values of 8 discrepancies (in percentage) of these indicators, calculated similarly to the values of tables 4 and 6, as well as their average (compromise) values K. The largest discrepancy of 9% can be considered acceptable for estimating the important, but not estimated by calculation methods, the value of effective funds .

The growth rate of EF in the Urals during this period (141%) was significantly higher than in the Volga region (76%). This corresponded to the high profitability of oil production, determined by global market conditions, and, as a consequence, a large increase in oil production over this period (the overall increase in Russia from 347 million tons in 2001 to 518 million tons in 2012, that is, by 49%) .

We demonstrated the new capabilities of the production function method in the quantitative economic analysis of large production facilities using the example of the economies of two federal districts of Russia. The novelty lies in a more adequate concept of the main production factor - capital as “effective capital”, or

“effective assets”, that is, the value of that part of the available production assets that actually participates in the production of products during the period of observation of the object (collection of production information). This concept is idealized and not directly observable (what part of production facilities is active at partial load?), but it is natural for the very concept of production functions based on the principle of rational behavior of economic subjects (owners, managers, administration). In our view, the number of effective funds is formed from investments during the period of observation of the object, taking into account their depreciation and realizability, as well as the assessment of the initial EF. The latter is obtained by solving the problem of complex assessment of the parameters of a dynamic model for the formation of effective funds (11).

The resulting estimates of effective funds, simultaneously with the construction of regional PFs, make it possible to calculate the main economic indicators: average and marginal capital productivity, labor productivity, factor elasticities, the marginal rate of labor substitution with capital and the elasticity of substitution. Note that the limiting characteristics and elasticities without constructing production functions can only be roughly estimated and with strict requirements for production statistics. In turn, capital PFs, as a rule, cannot be built according to standard production information representing balance sheet funds, which often do not reflect economic reality. The model for a comprehensive assessment of PF parameters and fund dynamics based on investment information basically overcomes this problem. This model is significantly more complex than the standard methodology for constructing a PF under idealized conditions, when balance sheet funds represented by statistics are efficient. Here, additional information is required to overcome the poor conditioning typical for problems of identifying non-trivial mathematical models of reality. At this stage, we introduced conditional expert information on capital depreciation and the level of realizability of reported investments. To increase the adequacy of the calculation results using the proposed method, it is necessary to involve professional experts and further develop the method of regularization of a new class of problems of economic analysis. We assume

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

WWW.ECONOMYOFREGiON.COM

V. K. Gorbunov, V. P. Krylov 345

We will devote a special article to computational problems and regularization of this problem.

Regarding the substantive results of the analysis of the economies of the Volga Federal District and the Ural Federal District, it should be noted that in the changed conditions of a sharp drop (by about half) in prices for oil and gas resources, they are retrospective in nature and should not be used for forecasting. The above-mentioned advantages of the economy of the Ural Federal District, which includes the main oil and gas provinces of Russia, are currently and in the foreseeable future significantly weakened. It is natural to assume that in order to maintain the high economic significance and prospects of this region of Russia, investment policy should be reoriented towards restoring what has been largely lost.

degree of potential of the processing and engineering industries. This will apparently be hampered by the desire of the actual owners to increase the level of production and export of cheaper resources, which are still more profitable than highly processed products. The solution to the relevant strategic problems is beyond the scope of our study, and we will limit ourselves to the remark that in order to overcome the well-known defect of a market economy - “myopia” - it will be useful to develop mathematical models of economic dynamics that use the apparatus of production functions, the main factor of which is effective funds. Such models will improve the objectivity of the analysis of alternative economic policy options.

Gratitude

The study was carried out with financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project No. 12-01-97029. The results were presented at the VI All-Russian Symposium on Economic Theory. Section 3.1.

List of sources

1. Bessonov V. A. Problems of constructing production functions in the Russian transition economy // Bessonov V. A., Tsukhlo S. V. Analysis of the dynamics of the Russian transition economy. - M.: Institute of Economics in Transition, 2002. - P. 5-89.

2. Bessonov V. A., Voskoboynikov I. B. On the dynamics of fixed assets and investments in the Russian transition economy // HSE Economic Journal. - 2006. - T. 10. - No. 2. - P. 193-228.

3. Voskoboynikov I. B. On adjusting the dynamics of fixed assets in the Russian economy // HSE Economic Journal. - 2004. - No. 1. - P. 3-20.

4. Voskoboynikov I. B., Dryabina E. V. Historical statistics of fixed assets of Russian industry in 1970-2004 // Questions of Statistics. - 2010. - No. 3. - P. 28-45.

5. Gorbunov V.K., Lvov A.G. Construction of production functions based on investment data // Economics and mathematical methods. - 2012. - Issue. 2. - pp. 95-107.

6. Gorbunov V.K. On the dimension problem in economics. Production function as a pseudo black box // Journal of Economic Theory. - 2014. - No. 1. - pp. 199-212.

7. Kane E. Economic statistics and econometrics. Vol. 2. - M.: Statistics, 1977.

8. Kleiner G. B. Production functions. Theory, methods, application. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 1986. - 239 p.

9. Lvov A.G. Development of methods for constructing production functions: diss. ...cand. econ. Sciences (08.00.13). - Ufa: UGTAU, 2012. - 109 p.

10. Makarov V. L., Afanasyev A. A. On the development of a simulation CGE-Model of monetary circulation of the Russian economy with the shadow and corruption sector // Strategic planning and development of enterprises. Section 2. Proceedings of the fifteenth All-Russian Symposium. Moscow, April 15-16, 2014; Ed. Corresponding member RAS G. B. Kleiner. - M.: CEMI RAS, 2014. - P. 131-133.

11. Xuan Yang. Factors and strategies for the development of small industrial businesses. Using the example of Russia and China: autoref. diss. ...cand. econ. Sci. - M.: CEMI RAS, 2007.

12. Khanin G.I., Fomin D.A. Consumption and accumulation of fixed capital in Russia. Alternative assessment // Forecasting problems. - 2007. - No. 1. - P. 26-51.

13. Doms M. Estimating capital efficiency schedules within production functions // Economic Inquiry. 1996. V. 34. Is. 1. - Pp. 78-92.

14. Hackman S. T. Production Economics: Integrating the Microeconomic and Engineering Perspectives. - Berlin: Springer, 2008. - 520 p.

15. Nocedal J., Wright S. Numerical Optimization. - New York: Springer, 2006. - 664 p.

16. Robinson J. The Production Function and the Theory of Capital // Review of Economic Studies. 1953. V.21 (2). - Rp. 81-106.

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

346 MODERN ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT...

Gorbunov Vladimir Konstantinovich - Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor, Leading Researcher, Ulyanovsk State University (Russian Federation, 432031, Ulyanovsk, Zarechnaya St., 27, apt. 104; e-mail: [email protected]).

Krylov Vladimir Pavlovich - research engineer, Ulyanovsk State University (Russian Federation, 432017, Ulyanovsk, L. Tolstoy St., 42; e-mail: [email protected]).

For citation: Ekonomika regiona. - 2015. - No. 3. - pp. 334-347

V. K. Gorbunov, V. P. Krylov

Region Effective Production Assets and Their Assessment By The Production Function Method

Keywords: regional production functions, production investments, effective fixed assets, analysis of economics

The research has been prepared with the support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Project No. 12-01-97029. The results have been presented in the VI All-Russian Symposium on the Economic Theory. Section 3.1.

1. Bessonov, V A. (2002). Problemy postroyeniya proizvodstvennykh funktsiy v rossiyskoy perekhodnoy ekonomike. Bessonov, V. A., Tsukhlo, S. V. Analizdinamiki rossiyskoy perekhodnoy ekonomiki. Moscow: Institut ekonomiki perekhodnogo perioda Publ. 5-89.

2. Bessonov, V. A. & Voskoboynikov, I. B. (2006). O dinamike osnovnykh fondov investiyv rossiyskoy perekhodnoy ekonomike. Economic zhurnal VShE, 10, 2, 193-228.

3. Voskoboynikov, I.B. (2004). O korrektirovke dinamiki osnocnykh fondov v rossiyskoy ekonomike. Economic zhurnal VShE, 1, 3-20.

4. Voskoboynikov, I. B. & Drabina, Ye. V (2010). Istoricheskaya statistika osnovnykh fondov rossiyskoy promyshlennosti v 1970-2004 godakh. Voprosy statistiki, 3, 28-45.

5. Gorbunov, V. K. & Lvov, A. G. (2012). Postroyenie proizvodstvennykh funktsiy po dannym ob investitsiyakh. Ekonomika i matematicheskie metody, 2, 95-107.

6. Gorbunov, V.K. (2014). O razmernostnoy probleme v ekonomike: proizvedstvennaya funktsiya kak psevdo chyornyy yash-chik. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoy teorii, 1, 199-212.

7. Keyn, E. (1977). Economic statistics and ekonometriya, 2. Moscow: Statictika Publ.

8. Kleyner, G.B. (1986). Proizvodstvennyye funktsii. Teoriya, metody, primenenie. Moscow: Finansy i statistika, 239.

9. Lvov, A. G. (2012). Razvitie metodovpostroyeniya proizvodstvennykh fuktsiy: diss.... kand. ekon. nauk (08.00.13) . Ufa: UGATU Publ., 109.

10. Makarov, V. L. & Afanasyeva, A. A. (2014). O razrabotke imitatsionnoy CGE-Modeli denezhnogo obrashcheniya rossiyskoy ekonomiki s tenevym i korruptsionnym sektorom. Strategicheskoye planirovaniye i razvitie predpriyatiy. Sektsiya 2. Mat-ly pyat-nadtsatogo vserossiyskogo simpoziuma. Moscow, April 15-16, 2014. . Edited by corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, G. B. Kleyner. Moscow: CEMI RAS Publ., 131-133.

REGIONAL ECONOMY No. 3 (2015)

WWW.ECONOMYOFREGiON.COM

11. Syuan, Yan (2007). Faktory i strategii razvitiya malogo promyshlennogo biznesa. Na primere Rossii i Kitaya: avtoref. diss. ... kand. ekon. nauk. Moscow: CEMI RAS Publ.

12. Khanin, G. I. & Fomin, D. A. (2007). Potreblenie i nakoplenie osnovnogo kapitala v Rossii. Alternativnaya otsenka. Problemy prognozirovaniya, 1, 26-51.

13. Doms, M. (1996). Estimating capital efficiency schedules within production functions. Economic Inquiry, 34(1), 78-92.

14. Hackman, S. T. (2008). Production Economics: Integrating the Microeconomic and Engineering Perspectives. Berlin: Springer,

15. Nocedal, J. & Wright, S. (2006). Numerical Optimization. New York: Springer, 664.

16. Robinson, J. (1953). The Production Function and the Theory of Capital. Review of Economic Studies, 21(2), 81-106.

Gorbunov Vladimir Konstantinovich - Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Senior Research Associate, Ulyanovsk State University (42, L. Tolstogo St., Ulyanovsk, 432017, Russian Federation; e-mail: [email protected]).

Krylov Vladimir Pavlovich - Research Engineer, Ulyanovsk State University (42, L. Tolstogo St., Ulyanovsk, 432017, Russian Federation; e-mail: [email protected]).

The effective operation of a company is possible if there are certain economic resources used to produce products or provide services. In economic literature, everything that a company has and uses in production activities is called property. Initially, the property of a company or enterprise is created at the expense of the total funds of the founders transferred to it in the form of contributions (contributions, shares, shares). In accordance with Art. 130 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, real estate includes land plots, subsoil plots, water bodies, buildings, structures, forests, as well as aircraft and sea vessels, inland navigation vessels, and space objects. Things not related to real estate, including securities and money, are recognized as movable property. The real estate part consists of non-current and current assets. In turn, non-current assets include fixed assets and intangible assets.

These are assets whose useful life is more than 12 months, or one operating cycle if its duration is more than one year.

According to N.A. Safronova, non-current assets characterize the totality of property assets of an organization that are repeatedly involved in the process of economic activity and transfer the used value to products in parts.

Blank I.A. states that non-current assets are part of an enterprise’s funds, which have the following features:

appointment. The funds are used to support the activities of the enterprise, serve as a source of economic benefits in the future and are not intended for resale;

term of use. The planned useful life of this property is usually at least one year;

)price. The lower limit of the value expression of an asset classified as a non-current asset is established.

According to O.I. Yakovleva, non-current assets can be called: fixed capital, real estate, illiquid assets, real assets, hard-to-sell assets.

Kovalev V.V. in his work notes that non-current assets in general represent funds that are used by an organization in its activities for more than one year. This definition, in our opinion, characterizes only the period of use of non-current assets of an enterprise, and accordingly the concept of non-current assets needs to be considered in more detail.

The group includes:

1) intangible assets – funds that were invested in intangible objects. Intangible assets are designed to have a long-term effect, that is, they will be able to generate income for the company after a certain period of time and will be used for a long period of time in the economic activities of the organization. This category includes the right to use land and natural resources, licenses, know-how;

2) fixed assets – represent financial assets that were invested in the fixed assets of the enterprise.

Fixed assets, depending on their importance in the production process, are classified into groups:

a) buildings and structures;

b) machinery and equipment;

d) vehicles;

e) other fixed assets not included in groups.

Fixed assets have the property of being reusable, that is, without changing their form, they are constantly used in production and thereby generate income for the organization;

3) the result of research and development;

4) profitable investments in goods and materials;

5) financial investments, the turnover of which is 1 year;

6) tax assets are overpayments of taxes to the budget;

7) other assets bearing characteristics non-current assets of the enterprise.

8) unfinished construction.

In other words non-current assets of the enterprise- these are means of labor. According to the ratio of current and non-current assets of the enterprise one can judge the direction of the enterprise.

Non-current assets of the enterprise require long-term financial investments, therefore the initial sources of their acquisition are the enterprise’s own capital, and to some extent borrowed funds related to long-term loans. There is a direct relationship between the size of non-current funds and the size of equity capital.

Non-current assets of the enterprise Unlike current assets, they have a lower degree of liquidity. This means that they are much more difficult to sell and convert into cash.

The section of the balance sheet that displays the non-current assets of the enterprise indicates assets that are the property of the company, received for operational management, trust management, leasing or rent in the form of an integral property complex.

Most enterprises operating in different industries are sooner or later faced with the need to objectively evaluate their assets.

The purpose of such an analysis is to study the composition of the enterprise’s property from the point of view of the effectiveness of its use in order to identify its property potential.

The variety of types and elements of non-current assets of an enterprise determines the need for their preliminary classification in order to ensure targeted management of them.

Table 1

Classification of non-current assets of an enterprise

Classification feature	Types of non-current assets
1. By functional type	a) fixed assets;
b) intangible assets;	c) unfinished construction;
d) profitable investments in material assets;	e) long-term financial investments;
f) deferred tax assets;	g) other non-current assets.

2. By the nature of servicing certain types of enterprise activities

a) non-current assets serving operating activities (operational non-current assets);

To a first approximation, the basis for analyzing the dynamics and structure of investments in non-current assets can be balance sheet models, the practical embodiment of which is the organization’s balance sheet. It reflects the organization’s fixed and current assets, its own and borrowed sources of their formation, the structure of which is presented at certain reporting dates. Quantitative characteristics of economic processes that determine the dynamics of the balance sheet are contained in the accounting registers, as well as in the annex to the annual balance sheet of the organization.

To determine the efficiency of using non-current assets at enterprises and sectors of the national economy, general indicators are used.

The most important of them is the capital productivity of fixed assets (FO), defined as the ratio of the cost of production (gross, marketable or sold) to the average annual cost of fixed assets

Capital productivity shows the overall return on the use of each ruble spent on fixed production assets, that is, the effectiveness of this investment. The capital productivity of the active part of fixed production assets, machinery and equipment is also used, characterizing the amount of production per 1 ruble. active part, machinery and equipment, respectively, and capital productivity, calculated in natural or conditionally natural terms, of all fixed production assets, their active part and main equipment.

The efficiency of using non-working capital shows how well the total volume of fixed assets corresponds to the scale of the business.

The investment activity coefficient characterizes investment activity and determines the amount of funds aimed at improving the existing assets of the enterprise

Investment activity coefficient

The investment activity coefficient characterizes investment activity and determines the amount of resources directed by the organization to modify and improve property and to make financial investments in other organizations.

Introduction
Conclusion
Applications

Introduction

Relevance of the topic. The problem of increasing the efficiency and intensity of capital use occupies a central place during Russia's transition to market relations. The solution to this problem determines the place of the enterprise in industrial production, its financial condition, and competitiveness in the market. Having a clear understanding of the role of capital in the production process, its physical and moral wear and tear, factors influencing the use of capital, it is possible to identify methods and directions by which the efficiency of using capital and the production capacity of an enterprise is increased, ensuring a reduction in production costs and an increase in labor productivity.

In the conditions of market relations, issues related to the use of capital, such as the technical level, quality, and reliability of products, come to the fore, which entirely depends on the quality of the equipment and its effective use. Improving the technical qualities of labor tools and equipping workers with them provides the bulk of the increase in the efficiency of the production process.

In market conditions, enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership, purchase equipment and build workshops using their own depreciation funds, profits, and loans. And in order for production to be efficient, and for the huge funds spent on the creation and acquisition of open-end enterprises not to be wasted in vain, capital must be used most fully and rationally. The profit of the enterprise, and, consequently, further development depends on how capital is used.

The role of capital and its effective use in various economic relations is always important. This is due to the fact that the main source of profit for any enterprise, the national wealth of the country, is the skillful, reasonable, fairly complete use of capital, with their timely modernization and renewal. In combination with human labor, developed management at various levels of production and marketing, maximum efficiency in the use of capital is achieved. This is especially important at present for every enterprise, region, and the entire country as a whole, because The Russian economy is now in crisis, a way out of which can only be achieved by increasing the volume of production, work, and services in all sectors of the national economy.

Due to high rates of inflation, enterprises lack a depreciation fund for renovation. RENOVATION (from the Latin renovatio - renewal, renewal), the economic process of replacing means of production that are retiring as a result of moral and physical wear and tear. The source of renovation is the depreciation fund. equipment. And enterprises equipped with outdated equipment, producing products using old, uneconomical technology, are not capable of producing competitive products.

The purpose of the work is to explore the concept of fixed capital of an enterprise.

Based on the research topic, the following tasks are solved:

Theoretical aspects of capital analysis;

Analyze the efficiency of using the organization’s capital;

Suggest ways to increase return on capital

Object of study: fixed capital of an enterprise and its features in modern economic conditions

The subject of the study is the cost of capital of the enterprise.

1. The essence, purpose and objectives of the analysis of the use of capital

1.1 Purpose, objectives and methods for analyzing the use of capital

Fixed capital is a general indicator that characterizes in monetary terms the entire capital of an enterprise or company, both physical and monetary. Fixed capital includes long-term tangible assets (land property, buildings, machinery, equipment), financial investments (own securities, investments in other enterprises, debts of other enterprises), intangible assets (patents, licenses, trademarks, projects).

The efficiency of capital use is determined by the results of its operation and the relationship with the costs necessary to obtain these results. Currently, the efficiency of capital use, as a rule, means the amount of profit received per ruble of invested capital.

Since the state of capital in the course of the enterprise’s activities is constantly changing, in our opinion, in addition to the indicator of the amount of profit received, the efficiency of the functioning of capital should also be determined by a more general indicator - the amount of capital growth for the period. Therefore, as the main criteria when assessing the efficiency of capital use, it seems necessary to use several indicators, namely: the profit received by the enterprise for the reporting period, changes in indicators of the financial condition as a whole, indicators of the business activity of the enterprise, and the amount of capital growth of the enterprise for the period.

When determining the efficiency of capital use, both methods of financial and investment analysis and methods of comprehensive capital analysis should be used. This approach allows us to obtain a comprehensive assessment from two positions for further comparison and determination of the degree of detail required.

Capital, passing successively through all stages of production, performs its own function in each. Not only does part of the capital necessary for an enterprise alternately pass through three forms - money, productive and commodity capital, but also different parts of this capital constantly exist next to each other in these three forms, and the relative size of these parts is constantly changing.

Consequently, when calculating, evaluating and analyzing capital, it is necessary to consider it from two positions: on the one hand, according to the sources of its formation, and on the other hand, according to the physical form of its existence. In the process of production and at the stages of circulation, the dual essence of capital constantly manifests itself, which defines it as a source for the creation of productive active capital and as the reason for the emergence of obligations of the enterprise. The process of studying capital should include two main aspects inherent in any systemic study: the study of the genetic aspects of the system (in this case, the formation of capital) and the study of the functional aspects of the system (the process of functioning of capital).

This can be represented schematically, as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 - Enlarged scheme of capital analysis Afanasyev A.A. Circulation of capital in an enterprise. - M.: Economic Education, 2009.P. 89

In this regard, when analyzing capital, it is necessary to consider the processes of its formation and development, on the one hand, and the processes of its functioning, on the other. To reflect the main stages of a comprehensive analysis of capital, you can use the diagram shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 - Diagram of the comprehensive capital analysis system

The genetic side of capital is studied by assessing and detailed research of the entire set of sources of capital of an enterprise, by assessing the formation process, determining the structure and other qualitative indicators of the sources of capital formation, as well as determining their value Afanasyev A.A. Circulation of capital in an enterprise. - M.: Economic Education, 2009.P. 90.

capital financial stability liquidity

The functional component of this system is determined by reflecting the price of operating capital, analyzing the structure and other qualitative indicators of this category.

A special place in the system of analyzing an enterprise’s capital is occupied by the study of its current state, as well as indicators of intensity and efficiency of use. Approaches to capital analysis can be very diverse.

The main goal of capital analysis is to obtain a small number of key (most informative) parameters that give an objective and accurate picture of the effectiveness of its use.

The goals of analysis are achieved as a result of solving a certain interrelated set of analytical problems. The analytical task is a specification of the goals of the analysis, taking into account the organizational, informational, technical and methodological capabilities of the analysis. The main factor, ultimately, is the volume and quality of the source information. It should be borne in mind that the periodic accounting or financial statements of an enterprise are only “raw information” prepared during the implementation of accounting procedures at the enterprise.

The main objectives of analyzing the efficiency of capital functioning are:

Determining the impact of profit on capital;

Establishment of capital gains;

Assessment of the impact of capital indicators on the financial position of the enterprise.

When used in enterprise management, capital analysis must be divided by purpose - into strategic and current (operational). At the same time, when conducting a comprehensive system analysis, there is no need to divide the economic analysis of an enterprise into purely managerial and financial, because These two approaches are in constant interaction and mutually complement each other. It is neither possible nor necessary to consider the analysis of the financial function of an enterprise in isolation from production and marketing, since they are interconnected and interdependent with each other, and the basis of this mutual connection is the processes of turnover and circulation of capital.

When analyzing the capital of an enterprise, it is necessary to use all approaches of functional analysis at various levels and consider capital as a set of property and functions of the enterprise, interdependent and interconnected in the temporal aspect.

Particularly productive when analyzing the capital of an enterprise can be the use of balance sheet analysis methods, which allow one to study the relationship of balance sheet items by using equations and calculating relative indicators of the relationships between the components of the enterprise’s balance sheet and determining the quantitative value of these relationships. These methods of analyzing a company's balance sheet are sometimes called financial. But this is not entirely true, since financial analysis uses balance sheet methods only as a tool, however, in essence, these methods remain just balance sheet methods, and their use in determining financial indicators only gives them a financial form.

Balance sheet methods used in calculating ratios characterizing the state, movement of capital, and the effectiveness of its functioning are based on financial accounting reporting data. This point is of great importance in terms of the accuracy of the use of information, since the financial statements of an enterprise, from a legal and accounting standpoint, reliably and systematically reflect data on its property, financial position and results of operations in monetary terms.

In addition, users of financial statements are not only legal entities and individuals interested in obtaining this information, but also the enterprise itself, its internal divisions and management personnel; this fact of multiple use of reporting data determines the accessibility of obtaining information about the capital of the enterprise and the ease of use of information base.

There is an opinion among economists that internal management analysis is an integral part of management accounting, and external financial analysis is an integral part of financial accounting. It seems that such a judgment is not sufficiently substantiated, because economic (managerial and financial) analysis is a method of studying accounting data, a method used in the implementation of all functional systems of an enterprise, and at the same time an independent management function that uses accounting data as an information base. When conducting capital analysis, such a narrow approach is not applicable, since data from both financial and management accounting are used here.

When conducting a comprehensive system analysis of an enterprise’s capital, it is important to follow the sequence of analysis based on the order in which capital passes through the stages of turnover and circulation. In this regard, it is hardly possible to agree with the sequence of analyzing the balance sheet of an enterprise, which involves approaches that ignore these most important principles of the formation and functioning of capital, and at the first stage assess assets, then liabilities and equity capital. Following the temporary principle of the formation and functioning of capital, the analysis of financial statements must begin with an assessment of the sources of formation of the enterprise's capital, moving on to the next stage - the analysis of operating capital (assets), and then carry out an analysis of the current capital of the enterprise.

Unfortunately, it should be noted that currently, in practice, comprehensiveness when conducting capital analysis at an enterprise is not ensured, primarily due to the lack of appropriate methods for its implementation.

1.2 Indicators of capital use. Method of their calculation

Capital investment must be effective. The efficiency of capital use refers to the amount of profit per ruble of invested capital. Capital efficiency is a complex concept that includes the use of working capital, capital, and intangible assets. Therefore, an analysis of the efficiency of capital is carried out on individual parts of it, then a consolidated analysis is done.

The influence of the amount of capital on other indicators of the enterprise’s performance can be seen using the diagram shown in Fig. 3 Bakanov M.I., Sheremet A.D. Theory of economic analysis. 4th ed. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2009.P. 67.

Fig.3. Interrelation between the amount of capital and other indicators of the enterprise’s performance

Indicators of the efficiency of capital use include: profit, result in the form of current capital, profitability, profitability, capital intensity, use of depreciation charges, changes in financial condition indicators.

General approaches to analyzing the efficiency of capital use can be depicted as a diagram in Fig. 4 Bakanov M.I., Sheremet A.D. Theory of economic analysis. 4th ed. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2009.P. 69.

Fig. 4 - Scheme of capital efficiency indicators

When analyzing the use of fixed capital, the following coefficients are used:

return on fixed capital

capital productivity of fixed productive capital

capital productivity of fixed production capital

capital productivity of fixed non-productive capital

Indicators of use of fixed capital:

working capital turnover ratio

working capital turnover in days

working capital load factor

Indicators of the use of current capital: the amount of current capital, current capital =clean assets

return on net assets

ratio of authorized capital and current capital

ratio of the amount of authorized and reserve capital, and current capital

share of net assets in own sources of capital

The development of a system of indicators in itself is of great importance for the calculation, assessment and analysis of entrepreneurial capital. In addition, a system of indicators is objectively necessary for the development of a methodology for comprehensive economic analysis of capital, which currently does not exist even in a more or less approximate form. Today, in essence, we are dealing in this area with a certain set of analytical problems, which is far from complete and, naturally, not built into a separate methodology.

Meanwhile, only the development of a comprehensive methodology for the economic analysis of capital will make it possible to give a real assessment of the size, structure, dynamics of capital, and to identify the causes and factors influencing its changes.

When developing a methodology for capital analysis, a systematic approach was used, which consists in using a system of indicators. For this purpose, the circle of users, sources of information and indicators to be reflected have been determined.

The developed methodology reveals the content of the analysis of the enterprise's capital, determines the main directions and methods of analysis in relation to the enterprise's capital.

This methodology is intended for use in the practical work of economic services of enterprises of various forms of ownership engaged in entrepreneurial activities, managers, chief accountants, financial analysts, as well as in the management of small enterprises and private entrepreneurial capital.

The practical application of this methodology is aimed at improving the capital management of business entities through a detailed study of the process of formation and functioning of the enterprise’s capital, a thorough, comprehensive analysis of all its constituent elements, their mutual connection and mutual conditionality.

The need to apply the outlined approaches lies in the fact that at present the capital of an enterprise as the foundation of the concept of creating and operating a business is clearly not sufficiently studied, and the main attention is paid to the operational management of the financial flows of the enterprise.

The proposed methodology is basic and can be used in large associations, holding groups, as well as dedicated structural divisions of large organizations, branches, etc., taking into account the specifics of their activities.

A comprehensive analysis of the capital of an enterprise using this methodology can be carried out at the enterprise with the following frequency: based on the results of work for the year, quarter, etc., i.e. simultaneously with the formation of financial statements, as well as for shorter periods of time, for example, monthly, ten days.

To determine the main trends in the formation and use of its capital by an enterprise, it is necessary to carry out a trend analysis using the described proposed system of indicators over a number of (3-5) years.

The application of the methodology involves complex use, but it is possible to use its individual sections to analyze a narrower range of issues, i.e. studying specific elements of the enterprise's capital system, depending on the purpose of the analysis.

2. Analysis of the use of capital of an industrial enterprise

2.1 Brief description of the research object

The construction of buildings and structures in all sectors of the national economy is associated with the widespread use of metal structures. To implement this task, the Samara Metal Structures Plant was put into operation in 1969. The plant specializes in the manufacture of structures for ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, the chemical industry, mechanical engineering, the building materials industry, transport enterprises, agriculture, cultural facilities and others.

The total area of the plant is 81.7 hectares, the commissioned production buildings are 128,460 m 2. The product structure can be determined by the production capacity shown in Table 1.

Table 1

SZMK production capacity as of January 1, 2010

SMZK belongs to the construction materials industry.

The plant is equipped with high-performance equipment, such as: a mill for the production of cold-closed welded profiles (Germany), a line for the production of profiled flooring (Italy), CNC machines for dimensionless cutting of rolled metal, jigs for assembly, and automatic welding machines for welding structures.

The cost of the plant's operational assets as of January 1, 2010 amounted to 1,744,284 thousand rubles, including industrial production - 1,618,174, of which: buildings - 884,738, structures - 67,561, machinery and equipment - 499,180, tools and equipment - 32,989, vehicles - 60697 and transfer devices - 73009 thousand rubles. The existing equipment fleet is characterized by significant physical wear and tear: 59.6%, service life is more than 10 years.

The main raw material for production is rolled metal of a wide range, which is imported from Russia and Ukraine; its annual demand in recent years has amounted to 160-180 thousand tons.

The average number of employees of the plant is 2,350 people, including 2,100 industrial production personnel.

2.2 Factor analysis of return on equity

To assess the profitability of an enterprise and the efficiency of its functioning, profitability indicators are used.

The mechanism of influence of the main factors on the return on capital of an enterprise can be depicted in the form of a diagram shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5 - System of factors influencing return on capital

It is preferable to begin the analysis of return on capital by studying profit indicators that characterize the added value brought by capital in the process of its operation. In this regard, first of all, it is necessary to consider the process of generating profit in an enterprise. To do this, the amount of profit of the enterprise is determined, the amount of taxes paid from the profit is determined, and the amount of net profit is found. Changes in profit dynamics over a number of reporting periods are studied. This can be done using Table 2

table 2

Profit dynamics (thousand rubles)

The overall return on capital indicator is calculated as the ratio of the net profit received by the enterprise for the reporting period to the average amount of capital for the period:

; .

This indicator can be determined both by gross (gross) profit and by net (net) profit, and the ratio of the indicators calculated in this way shows the degree of taxation of the enterprise’s profit:

; ,

Return on equity on net profit;

Return on equity based on gross profit.

Similar profitability indicators are used in international financial analysis practice:

ROI - profit on invested capital:

ROA - return on assets:

Average total assets - the average annual value of the company's total assets (defined as the sum of assets at the beginning and end of the year, divided in half)

ROE - return on equity:

ROIC is the return on invested (advanced) capital.

;

Return on capital is one of the indicators characterizing the cost of capital of an enterprise and investment attractiveness for external sources of raising capital. For the enterprise itself, the degree of return on capital is of even greater importance, which is expressed in the possibility of further existence, as well as reproduction of capital and the formation of funds for the current activities of the enterprise.

There are various approaches to assessing the profitability of an enterprise through the separate definition of return on equity and return on investment. When analyzing return on capital, this is a fairly balanced approach, since the company bears the costs of servicing capital, both its own and borrowed capital. When determining a general indicator of return on capital for external consumers of information, there is no need to separate the return on equity and attracted capital. But this principle applies only to determining the current market value of capital.

When analyzing the return on capital of an enterprise for internal use, a different approach should be used - an in-depth study of all factors affecting return on capital and all existing relationships.

The key factors in the formation of the total return on capital indicator R o are the shares of each type of asset in the total return on capital.

R o = Rod + Ri + Rop. d

R o = 0.20 + 0 + (-0.07) = 0.13

Rod - profitability from core activities;

Ri - profitability from investment activities;

Rop. d - profitability from other operating activities.

2.3 Analysis of capital turnover

Another indicator used in the analysis of capital - capital productivity (income from the use of capital) - is characterized by three main parameters:

The amount of income received;

The quality of the income received;

The length of the period of income generation.

The capital productivity indicator, or capital turnover, is defined as the ratio of the volume of revenue from sales of products to the amount of capital:

When analyzing the efficiency of capital use, the influence of its structure on capital productivity is determined, i.e. the ratio of the amount of own capital and attracted capital, which determines the degree of financial independence of the enterprise by sources of capital, which is essentially at the same time an assessment of the structure of the enterprise’s expenses for servicing its own and attracted capital.

Table 3

The degree of influence of individual factors on changes in the resulting capital productivity indicator

It is also possible to use a factor analysis calculation scheme. Calculation of the influence of factors on changes in capital productivity should be carried out according to the following scheme.

The relationship between changes in capital productivity is determined using the formula:

DCo = Cofact - Coplan

DCo = 1.01 - 1.0 = 0.01

DKo - change in capital productivity;

DKobaz = Cofact - Kobaz

DCobase = 1.01 - 0.93 = 0.08);

Coplan, Cofact and Kobaz are capital productivity indicators related to the planned value, actual and basic.

The change in capital productivity due to changes in the cost of capital can be determined as follows:

Kko SK = = 8.3

DC - change in the cost of capital; - average annual cost of capital. The change in the level of capital productivity K to VP under the influence of changes in production volume is defined as the ratio of production volume to the average annual cost of productive capital. To carry out this analysis, capital productivity and capital intensity indicators are used. Cost of all assets per 1 sales volume

K ko VP = K o f

Average annual cost of production capital, planned

Average annual cost of production capital, actual

Kko VP = = 0.007

The increase in capital productivity reflects an increase in the efficiency of use of fixed capital.

The reciprocal of capital productivity is an indicator of the capital intensity of products. It is believed that this indicator shows the amount of fixed capital costs per 1 ruble of revenue from product sales:

Average amount of fixed capital for the period (rub.);

Volume of revenue from product sales for the period (RUB).

However, this indicator is only indirectly related to the process of capital turnover, so it would be more correct to use this concept in relation to:

which determines the share of capital transferred to products during the turnover process.

A decrease in the value of the capital intensity indicator of products reflects an increase in the efficiency of use of fixed capital.

2.4 Analysis of the financial stability and liquidity of the enterprise

The financial stability of an enterprise can be determined by calculating the following ratios:

autonomy coefficient

;

capital immobilization coefficient

;

ratio of inventory coverage with own sources of working capital

coefficient of working capital provision from own sources

To analyze the impact of the amount of capital on financial stability indicators, you can use Table 4.

Table 4

Analysis of the impact of capital on financial stability indicators

Name of coefficients	Procedure for calculating coefficients	Actual value of odds	Established criterion
		for the beginning of the year	at the end of the year
Capital multiplier	Liabilities
Autonomy coefficient	Own sources of capital Total capital
Investment coverage ratio	Own sources of capital + long term duties
Coverage ratio of current assets with own sources of capital	Own working capital Current assets
Equity agility ratio	Own working capital Own sources of capital
Depreciation accumulation rate	Depreciation of fixed capital and intangible assets Initial cost of fixed capital and intangible assets
Real asset value ratio	Real assets Total amount of capital sources

When analyzing the liquidity of an enterprise, a number of ratios are calculated:

total liquidity ratio

;

quick ratio

absolute liquidity ratio

;

In addition, during the analysis process, the net working capital indicator is calculated, i.e. of an enterprise financed using its own capital:

= Current obligations - Negotiable capital ;

( = 48,034 - 39,420 = 8,614).

In conclusion, to determine the dynamics of these indicators and the impact of the amount of capital on their values, you can use Table 3.17.

Table 5

The relationship between liquidity indicators and the amount of capital

Thus, it should be noted that the main objective of the proposed methodology is the formation of a qualitative approach to the management of entrepreneurial capital, based on a systematic, comprehensive analysis of capital, a real assessment of the state of the enterprise and the results of its activities.

3. Ways to increase return on capital

It is very important for an enterprise to use capital and maintain it in an amount that optimizes the management of current activities. Analysis of the efficiency of capital use is the most important tool for an enterprise. How deeply and in detail such an analysis is carried out in an enterprise, the more effective and successful the financial and economic activities of the enterprise will be.

For the effective use of capital in the production process, it is necessary to increase the share of its active part.

Currently, at an industrial enterprise, much less attention is paid to improving the efficiency of using fixed industrial assets and production capacities than in the 80s...90s. All aspirations are aimed at survival. The funds received from the sale of products are only sufficient to purchase materials and pay workers. Due to inflationary processes, the funds of the depreciation fund do not fully compensate for the depreciation of the general fund.

The main form of planning for increasing the efficiency of capital use are plans for technical development and organization of production and technical re-equipment of the enterprise.

In terms of technical development and organization of production, measures aimed at increasing the use of capital are concentrated in the sections:

1) introduction of advanced technology, mechanization and automation of production;

2) modernization of existing and renewal of outdated equipment;

3) improvement of management, planning and organization of production;

4) research and development work;

5) introduction of scientific organization of labor.

The most effective measures aimed at increasing the efficiency of capital use in 2004 include:

Introduction of centralized power supply to welding stations. The event is aimed at reducing the number of welding equipment, freeing up production space, reducing the volume of repair work and saving energy;

Modernization of face milling machines - production and implementation of mechanized clamps to the machines. The event is aimed at reducing the time of auxiliary operations, which increases the intensive load of the machine, labor productivity, and improves the quality of manufactured products;

Assimilation of the production of standard building elements according to the 8396KM, 8397KM series, which will significantly reduce the labor intensity of manufactured structures due to the unification and standardization of assembly grades included in the design;

Mastering the production of new types of products: garage doors, small premises (kiosks), metal fences, safes. This event is aimed at increasing the load factor of equipment with significant reserve capacity and expanding the range of products for the domestic market.

To increase the efficiency of capital use at MZMK, it is necessary to pay attention to the following issues:

Organization of reliable accounting of equipment operation in terms of time and power, which will make it possible to regulate the load of reserve capacities by manufacturing products not included in the main range;

Accounting for the costs of repair, maintenance and operation of each piece of equipment in order to determine the optimal service life, after which further use of the equipment is not economically feasible;

Introduction of in-depth intra-production cost accounting. This is the main direction in enhancing the human factor in relation to the use of technology and the development of a genuine economic attitude towards it among plant workers. The basis for determining intense planned targets can be the standard production capacity of a site or workshop.

Conclusion

In a market economy, an important place in the survival of industrial enterprises belongs to the efficient use of capital, which determined the choice of the topic of the course work and its relevance.

Increasing the efficiency of capital use is of great importance throughout the national economy. Solving this problem means increasing the production of products needed by society, increasing the impact of the created production potential and better meeting the needs of the population, improving the balance of equipment in the country, reducing production costs, increasing the profitability of production, and the enterprise’s savings. Currently, the process of capital renewal has become significantly more complicated due to the sharp rise in the cost of machinery and equipment.

More complete use of capital also leads to a reduction in the need to introduce new production capacities when production volumes change, and, consequently, to a better use of enterprise profits (increasing the share of deductions from profits to the consumption fund, directing a larger part of the accumulation fund to mechanization and automation of technological processes and etc).

An analysis of the efficiency of using equity capital showed:

during the analyzed period, the company's equity decreased slightly by 3.37 thousand rubles, compared to the base period, at the end of 2009 it amounted to 41.6 thousand rubles;

the autonomy coefficient did not change and amounted to 0.45%, which indicates financial independence;

borrowed funds increased by 330.43 thousand rubles. long-term and short-term by 14.82 thousand rubles, which reflects a decrease in financial independence;

increase in the amount of net assets (at the end of 2009 it increased by 2.88 thousand rubles, but the share in the structure decreased by 2.96%.

The company's profits have increased and this has a positive effect on the company's activities

The functioning of enterprises in market conditions requires each of them to search and develop their own development path. In other words, in order not only to survive, but also to develop in the market, an enterprise must improve the state of its economy; always have an optimal ratio between costs and production results; find new forms of capital investment, find new, more effective ways to bring products to the buyer, pursue appropriate product policies, etc. This must be combined with the full use of internal factors of production development, which are quite numerous in their content and purpose.

List of used literature

1. Afanasyev A.A. Circulation of capital in an enterprise. - St. Petersburg: Economic Education, 2008

2. Bakanov M.I., Sheremet A.D. Theory of economic analysis. 4th ed. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2009

3. Grigoriev L. In search of the path to economic growth. // Economic Issues, - No. 8, - 2009

4. Dranko O. Capital management. // Financial newspaper, - No. 42, - 2003.

5. Karlin G., Makmin A. Analysis of financial statements (based on GAAP). - M.: INFRA-M, 2008.

6. Kovalev V.V. Methods for evaluating investment projects. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2008.

7. Leontyev V. Interbranch economics. - M.: Economics, 2009

8. Lyubushin N.A., Leshcheva V.B., Dyakova V.G. Analysis of the financial and economic activities of the enterprise. - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2008

9. Ovsiychuk M.F., Sidelnikova L.B. Financial management: methods of investing capital. - M.: Yurayt, 2009.

10. Pogostinskaya N.N., Pogostinsky Yu.A. System analysis of financial statements. - S. - P.: Ed. Mikhailova V.A., 2008

11. Samuelson P. Economics. - M.: MGP Algon VNIISI, 2008

12. Financial analysis of the company's activities. - M.: East Service, 2009

13. Hedderwick K. Financial and economic analysis of enterprise activities. Per. from English - M.: Finance and Statistics, 2009

14. Helfert E. Financial analysis technique. Per. from English - M.: UNITY, 2009.

15. Sheremet A.D. Comprehensive economic analysis of the enterprise's activities. - M.: Economics, 2009

Applications

Annex 1

Scheme of factors influencing capital productivity

Appendix 2

Summary table of enterprise performance indicators

Indicators (thousand rubles)				Changes by 2008

Equity
Long-term borrowed funds
Short-term borrowed funds
Production volume
Revenue from product sales
Amount of current assets
Net assets
Net profit (retained)
Authorized capital
Reserve capital
Cash and equivalents
Current responsibility
Amount of capital sources (S liabilities)

1.3 Methods for determining depreciation of fixed capital

In the process of operation, fixed capital wears out. Wear happens physical And moral.

With physical wear and tear, fixed capital loses its use value, i.e. deterioration of technical, economic and social characteristics under the influence of the labor process, the forces of nature, as well as due to the non-use of fixed capital.

Obsolescence usually occurs before physical wear and tear, i.e. fixed capital that can still be used is no longer economically efficient. There are two types of obsolescence.

Obsolescence of the first type is the loss of part of the value of machines without corresponding physical wear and tear as a result of cheaper production of these machines under new conditions (using the achievements of scientific and technological progress).

With obsolescence of the first type, the use value of fixed capital does not change. There are no design changes in the new machines, similar to the previous ones; The performance of the equipment also remains the same. Only the value of fixed capital changes.

Obsolescence of the second type is a reduction in the service life of existing machines and equipment, due not to a decrease in their productivity or power, but to the fact that the further operation of old machines compared to new ones leads to higher production costs.

Physical wear and tear is determined based on the service life of fixed capital:

Where Tf- actual service life (years);

T N- standard service life (years)

To more accurately determine wear and tear, the technical condition of the elements of fixed capital should be established.

Obsolescence of the first type is determined based on the ratio of book and replacement costs:

Where F B - book value (thousand rubles)

F IN - replacement cost (thousand rubles)

Obsolescence of the second type is most often determined based on a comparison of equipment performance:

Where Etc D - productivity of existing fixed capital;

Etc N- productivity of new fixed capital.

However, to more accurately account for obsolescence of the second type, fixed capital and production costs should be compared using the following formula:

Where Ed. D - production costs of operating fixed capital;

Ed. N- production costs of new fixed capital.

Efficiency of use of fixed capital. Analysis of the efficiency of use of fixed capital To analyze the efficiency of use of fixed capital, calculate

annotation scientific article on economics and business, author of the scientific work - Vladimir Konstantinovich Gorbunov, Vladimir Pavlovich Krylov

Related topics scientific works on economics and business, author of scientific work - Vladimir Konstantinovich Gorbunov, Vladimir Pavlovich Krylov

Text of scientific work on the topic “Evaluation of the Efficiency of fixed capital of enterprises using the production function method”

Similar documents

1.3 Methods for determining depreciation of fixed capital

Efficiency of use of fixed capital. Analysis of the efficiency of use of fixed capital To analyze the efficiency of use of fixed capital, calculate

annotation scientific article on economics and business, author of the scientific work - Vladimir Konstantinovich Gorbunov, Vladimir Pavlovich Krylov

Related topics scientific works on economics and business, author of scientific work - Vladimir Konstantinovich Gorbunov, Vladimir Pavlovich Krylov

Text of scientific work on the topic “Evaluation of the Efficiency of fixed capital of enterprises using the production function method”

Similar documents

1.3 Methods for determining depreciation of fixed capital

Read also on the topic: