Agrarisation vs deagrarisation: strategic vector of rural areas development through the lens of transformational changes

Figure 8 Pattern of the distribution of areas under crops depending on the rural household size

Source: based on data from [14-17]

For agricultural households with more than one hectare of land (Figure 8c), the share of grains and legumes has been rising slightly in recent years, whereas the share of industrial crops has remained stable. The area under potatoes and open -field vegetables has not changed much, but the area under fodder crops has increased noticeably. This may also indicate a certain agrarisation, as the expansion of the area under grain and fodder crops may be connected to commercial production and the supply of fodders for livestock. Overall, the data presented leads to the conclusion that there is a trend towards an increase in the area under grain and fodder crops and a decrease in the area under vegetables and potatoes. These changes may indicate a certain agrarisation in large rural households where land is used for growing industrial and fodder crops for livestock rather than food production for human consumption.

Subsequently, the study examined a set of changes in agricultural activity that occurs in rural households in the course of transformation towards agricultural livestock development. Specifically, the number and share of farm animals, kept in rural households among all households was investigated (Figure 9). Cattle: over the past decade, there has been a general downward trend in the number of livestock in Ukrainian rural households. The share of cattle in the total number of farm animals has also decreased during this period, which may point to a deagrarisation process and a shift towards other agricultural sectors. Dairy cows make up two-thirds of cattle; their number has dropped by over 50 %, suggesting a change in husbandry practices. Pigs: the number of pigs decreased by more than half, and the share of pigs in the total number of pigs in the sector reflects the high cost of fodder and volatile pork prices. Overall, the downward trend in the number of farm animals kept in rural households in Ukraine is observed for many groups of animals, which may indicate a deagrarisation process and changes in the country's agriculture. However, certain groups, such as horses, sheep, and goats, continue to play a significant role in the agricultural sector.

Figure 9 Number and share of farm animals in rural households in Ukraine

Source: based on data from [14-17]

An essential component of the analysis of the state of livestock development at the level of rural households is the examination of the sector's outputs, namely the volume of production and the share of livestock produce manufactured by rural households (Figure 10). Analysing the volume and composition of livestock production in Ukrainian rural households, the following observations can be made for each group of animals. In recent years, meat production in Ukrainian rural households has been generally decreasing. The reduction in the share of meat production by rural households indicates a change in animal husbandry practices or competition from other sources of meat supply. Milk production has also shown a downward trend in recent years. Rural households continuously produce a large amount of milk, but this percentage is declining, which may indicate the development of other industries like industrial and commercial dairy production. In most years, there is an increase in the amount of eggs produced. The share of rural households producing eggs is also increasing, which may point to the growing popularity of poultry and support for egg production at the household level. The volume of honey production fluctuates over the years, but remains generally high. The share of honey production by rural households is almost 100 %, which indicates a significant contribution of households to honey production. Overall, the analysis shows that rural households in Ukraine are experiencing changes in the volume and structure of livestock production. Certain groups, such as meat and wool, show a declining trend, while other industries, like milk, eggs, and honey, remain important components of the agricultural sector with a high share of farm production.

Figure 10 Volumes and structure of livestock production in Ukraine's rural households

Source: based on data from [14-17].

Analysing the share of households that keep livestock and the share of livestock kept in rural households based on the size of household land area, the following observations can be made for each group of animals (Figure 11). In recent years, there has been a general downward trend in the share of rural households keeping cattle and cows. At the same time, in rural households with up to 0.5 and 0.5-1.0 hectares, the share of farm animals kept by households is nearly stable and has been slightly declining over several years. In contrast, households with more than one hectare show two very significant trends: 1) the share of cattle and cows does not coincide (unlike the other two groups), indicating that most beef is produced by these households; 2) there are notable fluctuations in the share of cattle and cows, which indicates that producers in this group adjust to the market price, i.e. households with a size of more than one hectare are fully market-oriented in keeping cattle. A similar trend is observed when analysing the features of pig keeping by rural households.

Therefore, a common feature for all households is a decrease in the share of rural households that keep livestock, while the size of land under cultivation allows for maneuvering with the quantity of such animals, i.e. households with more land have more space to expand and develop agricultural activities, including livestock husbandry. At the same time, households with less land have limited opportunities to keep animals due to a lack of space for growing fodder. In general, the following conclusions concerning the agrarisation and deagrarisation processes in agriculture can be made by analysing data on livestock keeping in households by land area. Relatively larger households with an area of 1.01 hectares or more have a stable, albeit decreasing, share of livestock, which may be a sign of agrarisation processes and the development of industrial or specialised small (family) farms that specialize in livestock production. At the same time, deagrarisation is observed in smaller farms whose limited land area forces them to curtail their activities.

Figure 11 Share of rural households that keep farm animals and their distribution among different types of households (by size of land area of household)

Source: based on data from [19-22]

The advancement of the technological component of agricultural production is a significant sign of the transformation of rural areas. The overall share of rural households owning machinery was gradually decreasing from 2018 (22.6 %) to 2021 (19.9 %). At the same time, the share of households owning a plow, a seeder, a harrow, a cultivator, and a combine harvester also shows a downward trend during this period (Figure 12).

Figure 12 Share of rural households that own agricultural machinery and other equipment

Source: based on data from [19-22]

We believe that the decrease in the share of households owning machinery may indicate the process of deagrarianisation, as fewer and fewer households can afford to keep a full set of agricultural machinery. However, it should be borne in mind that agrarisation can be manifested in the modernity and productivity of the machinery, not only in its ownership. Some farms replace outdated machinery with more productive and efficient models, which is not necessarily reflected in the overall share. Based on the data provided, we can conclude that there is a decline in the share of households, which own machinery, which may indicate a deagrarisation process. However, for a more accurate assessment of the situation, other factors, such as the productivity of machinery and the availability of modern agricultural technologies, should be investigated.

It should be highlighted that although the cooperative movement in Ukraine has not become widespread, it cannot be said that it has not taken root at all. The limited growth of agricultural cooperatives was due to shortcomings in the legislative framework, in particular, the Law of Ukraine “On Agricultural Cooperation”, which distorts cooperative principles by commercialising relationships between the cooperative and its members and treats cooperative payments as profits, etc. In addition, the absence of state support and development programs that would be in line with foreign experience also hinders cooperation in the agri cultural sector. However, large agricultural households are efficient not only in cultivating their own land, but are also starting to specialize in servicing other people's land, including combining, tillage, and haymaking, which is turning into an additional source of income. This, in turn, can contribute to the emergence of certain forms of informal cooperation because such specialisation and interaction allow for optimal use of technical resources and may potentially lead to more structured and organised cooperative relations in the future.

DISCUSSION

This paper analyses the trends in the development of agricultural activities carried out by rural households and highlights the key signs of their transformation. The analysis of the main trends suggests that the “Soviet village” era has come to an end. Rural areas are currently at the transformation stage and are searching for new directions for their further existence, which is evidenced by the following facts: 1) a stable, gradual decline in the role of rural households in agricultural production and, accordingly, in ensuring the food security of the state; 2) real incomes received by rural households from the sale of agricultural products have a stable downward trend, and the share of such incomes over the past five years has not accounted for more than 10 % of total rural household incomes; 3) the cost of consumed products obtained from personal farms is gradually decreasing and also does not exceed 10 % of total rural household income [19-25].

The above trends indicate that rural households are gradually reducing their involvement in agricultural activity. However, against the background of these general trends, one group of rural households with a land area of more than one hectare stands out. These households are distinguished by the structure of crops under cultivation: grains and legumes occupy more than half of the land, while industrial crops, primarily sunflower, account for one-fourth of the land. At the same time, interviews with the heads of such households showed the following:

1) There is a gradual expansion of such households because they terminate land leases for their land shares and unofficially lease (without concluding a lease agreement) land plots of other households.

2) All these households have their own machinery (in most cases, Chinese mini tractors with appropriate equipment), with which they cultivate their land and provide paid services (or as payment for land lease) to other households for agricultural operations.

3) These households learn to adapt to market conditions by increasing or decreasing the number of cattle, pigs, and broiler poultry.

4) These households try out new types of agricultural activities: growing and selling fruits, vegetables, or seedlings of peppers, tomatoes, cabbage, flowers, etc.

5) Most of the interviewed heads of such households are descendants of the dekulakised (robbed and destroyed) wealthy peasant farmers in the 1930s, which, in our opinion, is the genetic memory of Ukrainian landowners.

The data analysis indicates a deagrarisation trend for rural households with an area of up to 0.5 hectares and between 0.5 and 1 hectare. Such households account for 78 % of their total number. At the same time, the opposite process of agrarisation is observed for households with an area of more than 1.01 hectares, which is 22 % of all rural households. In this regard, creating favorable conditi ons for the development of the latter is a strategic task for Ukraine, and it requires the following measures:

1) Establishing a legislative definition of households as farms that use more than one hectare, giving them the status of agricultural entities and being eligible for state support.

2) Launching credit programs to increase land use, purchase machinery, and other means of production provided through cooperative banks and special state funds, like those in the EU, the USA, India, China, etc.

3) Encourage small households to create marketing and other agricultural cooperatives through amendments to the current cooperative legislation and the integration of EU regulations and European Commission resolutions.

4) State assistance in creating a network of wholesale markets to facilitate the effective sale of products from households with a land use of more than one hectare, similar to the systems existing in the European Union.

These steps will help ensure the economic development of rural areas, and also help preserve their social and cultural potential. If these steps are not taken, this may result in the gradual deagrarisation of landowners with land areas of one hectare or more, which will have negative economic, social, and environmental consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of current socioeconomic changes and global transformations of the agricultural sector in rural areas, the issue of agrarisation and deagrarisation is becoming fundamental for agricultural development and regional sustainability. The study of the strategic vectors of rural development in Ukraine through the prism of agrarisation and deagrarisation has revealed the deep dynamics of these processes, which requires attention and targeted actions from government and research organisations.

Based on the findings, it can be argued that deagrari sation is becoming an important challenge for contemporary rural areas in Ukraine. Households with smaller land areas tend to switch to non-agricultural activities, which may be detrimental to the agricultural sector and food security. At the same time, households with more land demonstrate active agricultural development, diversifying their activities and introducing new agricultural technologies. This development vector indicated economic maturity and reflects the genetic memory of Ukrainian landowners.

It was found that effective rural development requires the government to create a favorable environment to support households with land plots larger than 1.01 hectares. This includes providing access to cutting-edge agricultural technologies, financial support, and infrastructure development. Furthermore, it is crucial to focus on the integration of innovative approaches, such as cooperatives and agricultural tourism, which can help preserve resources and open up new opportunities for rural development.

Prospects for further research include broadening the scope of the analysis to encompass other aspects of agrarisation and deagrarisation, such as examining the impact of these processes on the ecological condition of the territories and the residents' quality of life, as well as delving more deeply into the role of institutional factors in shaping the strategic choices of economic entities. In addition, it is essential to consider the experience of other countries in agricultural development and how it can be adapted to Ukrainian conditions.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Although this study provides a comprehensive picture of the transformational changes in agricultural households of different land sizes in Ukraine, with an emphasis on their adaptation to market conditions, adoption of new technologies, and farming practices, there are some limitations.

The study does not analyse the broader economic effect of agrarisation and deagrarisation processes, such as their impact on national GDP, employment trends, and rural-urban migration patterns. Although the study touches upon cultural and social potential of rural regions, a more thorough examination of the cultural heritage, traditional farming methods, and social structures in these areas could provide a deeper understanding of the transformations taking place. The research offers recommendations for the Ukrainian government, but does not delve deeply into existing policies and institutional frameworks that could facilitate or hinder the proposed rural development strategies. This study might have benefited from a comparative analysis with other countries that have experienced agrarisation or deagrarisation processes, as it would have given a broader perspective and potentially valuable lessons for Ukraine.

These limitations highlight areas for potential future research that could enhance our understanding of the complex dynamics that shape rural development in the context of agrarisation or deagrarisation.

REFERENCES

1. Pyvovar, P. V., & Pyvovar, A. M. (2021). Formation of the definition of the concept of “rural territories” as an economic category. Agrosvit, 11, 21-33. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6792.2021.11.21.

2. Pyvovar, P. V. (2021). Transformation as a socio-economic phenomenon. Ekonomika ta derzhava, 8, 91-97. https://doi.org/10.32702/2306-6806.2021.8.91.

3. Chayanov, A. (1991). The theory of peasant co-operatives. Columbus, Ohio State University Press.

4. Ilbery, B., & Bowler, I. (1998). From agricultural productivism to post productivism. In B. Ilbery (Ed), The Geography of Rural Change, 1st ed. London, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315842608.

5. Cloke, P., & Perkins, H. C. (2002). Commodification and adventure in New Zealand tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(6), 521-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500208667939.

6. Pyvovar, P. V., Pyvovar, A. M., & Kostiuk, L. P. (2021). Modern concepts of transformation of rural areas. Agrosvit, 17, 28-33. https://doi.org/10.32702/23066792.2021.17.28.

7. Chavance, B., Swinnen, J. F. M., & Rozelle, S. (2007). From Marx and Mao to the market. the economics and politics of agricultural transition. Journal of Economics, 92(1), 97-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-007-0276-0.

8. van der Ploeg, J. D. (2008). The new peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization, 1st ed. London, Routledge.

9. Vos, R. (2018). Agricultural and rural transformations in Asian development: Past trends andfuture challenges. WIDER Working Paper 2018/87. Helsinki, Finland: UNU-WIDER. https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2018/529-9.

10. Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (1989). Economic development. Chapter 9: Agricultural Transformation and Rural Development, 12th ed. Hagerstown, USA. Available at: https://oeclass.aua.gr/eclass/modules/document/file.php/AOA245/Economic%20Dev elopment%20-%20Todaro%20and%20Smith.pdf.

11. Losch, B., Freguin-Gresh, S., & White, E. T. (2012). Structural transformation and rural change revisited: challenges for late developing countries in a globalizing world. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Available at: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/566345/1/document_566345.pdf.

12. World Bank (2023). Open data. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org.

13. Rozwadowski, R., O'Connell, J., Toirov, F., & Voitovska, Y. (2018). The agriculture sector in eastern Ukraine: analysis and recommendations. FAO, Rome. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i8862en/I8862EN.pdf.

14. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2022). Agriculture of Ukraine in 2021. Available at: https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/Arhiv_u/07/Arch_sg_zb.htm.

15. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020). Agriculture of Ukraine in 2020. Available at: https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/Arhiv_u/07/Arch_sg_zb.htm.

16. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2019). Expenses and resources of Ukrainian households in 2018. Part 1. Available at: https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/Arhiv_u/17/Arch_vrd_zb.htm.

17. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2022). Expenses and resources of Ukrainian households in 2021. Part 1. Available at: https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/Arhiv_u/17/Arch_vrd_zb.htm.

18. Ministry of Finance of Ukraine (2023). Inflation index in Ukraine 2023. Available at: https://index.minfin.com.ua/ua/economy/index/inflation.

19. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2021). Distribution of the permanent population by gender and age as of January 1, 2021. Available at: http://lnnk.in/agpp.

20. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020). Distribution of the permanent population by gender and age as of January 1, 2020. Available at: http://lnnk.in/agpp.

21. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2017). Main agricultural characteristics of households in rural areas in 2017. Available at: http://lnnk.in/gVjg.

22. State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2016). Main agricultural characteristics of households in rural areas in 2016. Available at: http://lnnk.in/gVjg.

23. Tarasovych, L., & Yaremova, M. (2021). Coherence of marketing imperatives for managing the development of socio-economic systems. Scientific Horizons, 24(7), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.48077/scihor.24(7).

24. Butlin, J. (1989). Our common future. By world commission on environment and development. (London, Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 383). Journal of International Development, 1(2), 284-287. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3380010208.

25. Heldak, M., Kucher, A., Stacherzak, A., & Kucher, L. (2018). Structural transformations in agriculture in Poland and Ukraine: towards economic sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, IX(8), 1827-1841. https://doi.org/10.14505//jemt.v9.8(32).24.

26. Skydan, O., Nykolyuk, О., & Topolnytskyi, P. (2023). Methodological foundations of information support for decision-making in the field of food, environmental, and socio-economic components of national security. Scientific Horizons, 26(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.48077/scihor.26(1).2023.87-101.

Размещено на Allbest.ru