Economic systems and property - property rights. Economic systems and property problems

Questions:

1. Concept and structure of the economic system.
2. Classification of types of economic systems
3. Property in the economic system

1. Concept and structure of the economic system.

The systematic research method began to be widely used in economics and received special distribution in the mid-70s. 20th century in connection with the development of economic and mathematical models.

The efficient use of economic resources was first considered in his works by the Soviet mathematician Kantarovich, who created economic and mathematical models. In 1975 he received the Nobel Prize for his work "".

System - an ordered set of elements that has organization, relative isolation and the ability to perform certain functions.

The economy is a complex multi-level system:

1. Economic system of the state

2. Economic system of the region

3. Economic system of individual subjects (firms, enterprises)

4. Economic system of the city

5. World economic system

Economic system - a set of interconnected economic elements that form a certain integrity and unity of relationships that develop in the process of production, exchange, distribution and consumption of material goods.

Thus, the economic system of the national economy includes the following elements:

1. Production forces

2. Industrial relations

3. Economic relationships between economic entities

4. Organizational and economic forms (economic mechanism

5. System of economic laws and economic interests

Production forces

Means of production Information Labor Science

Relations of production — stable relationships between economic entities in the sphere of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods

Industrial relations are distinguished:

1. Social economic (determined by the form of ownership of capital, land and determine the form of distribution of economic resources.

2. Organizational and economic (arise in the production process based on the division and specialization of labor and the level of technology development.

Production forces (consist of labor + means of production)

Relations of production

Mode of production

Superstructure (religious, political)

Economic formation of society

1. Classification of types of economic systems

The first type of classification of economic systems was called “formational” (Marxist theory )

She relied on the dialectical-material method of cognition and proposed a formational approach, i.e., identifying types of economic systems

There are 5 socio-economic formations:

1. Primitive communal

2. Slaveholding

3. Feudal

4. Capitalist

5. Communist

2nd type of classification - “technocratic approach”

Representatives: Rotow, Gelbert, etc.

The technocratic approach uses such criteria when classifying economic systems as :

1. Level of development of production forces

2. Standard of living

3. Labor productivity level

THERE ARE 3 STAGES

In modern textbooks "Economics" the following is given: Classification of economic systems Taking into account the facts affecting economic growth.

These textbooks highlight:

1. Developing countries

2. Post-communist countries.

3. Industrialized countries

4. Oil-producing countries

5. Newly industrialized countries

Most modern textbooks on economic theory discuss 4 types of economic systems:

1. Administrative command

2. Market

3. Mixed

4. Traditional

The administrative-command economy had the following features:

1. state monopoly on all spheres of public life

2. The economic basis of the ACE is state public ownership of economic resources.

3. a centralized mechanism for the distribution of resources, which determined the priority attitude of branches of the military-industrial complex (MIC) and the lag of industries producing consumer goods

4. general shortage of goods

5. competition between buyers

6. lack of economic incentives to work and the creation of a system of non-economic coercion

A market economy is characterized by the following features:

1. the economic basis of a market economy is private ownership of the means of production

2. economic freedom to choose types of activities, economic resources, and methods of generating income. Economic freedom presupposes the exercise by the subject of the right to own property, the right to earn a living, the right to conduct business, the right to exchange, the right to compete with each other

3. competition between producers

4. market pricing mechanism

5. limited role of the government in regulating the economy

The traditional economic system is inherent in developing countries and has the following features:

1. communal property

2. backward production technology

3. multi-layered

4. maintaining the role of foreign capital and the limited role of national entrepreneurship in the economy

1. Property in the economic system

In every economic system, except for the questions " What? How? For whom to produce ? ». There is one more very important question: Who is the owner of economic resources?

Possession of economic objects

Property use property resources

orders

Subject legal and

Property of individuals

The property relationship determines the nature of economic production relations in society

distribution

Property comes in various forms:

1. Private property

2. Public property

Own

Private Public

Labor Non-labor State Collective

- republican - people's

Utility-joint-stock company

Partnerships

Private property - a type of property in which a private individual has the exclusive right to own, dispose and use property, as well as receive income.

The transition to a market economy is associated with transformations of property relations. In the Republic of Belarus in the 90s. a law on property in the Republic of Belarus was adopted. In 1993, the law “on de-statehood and privatization” was adopted

Denationalization — the process of removing direct economic management functions from the state and transferring powers to business entities.

Second process - Privatization – the process of selling state property to individuals or legal entities. Here there is a change in forms of ownership.

Forms of privatization:

1. Paid - sale of enterprises at auction, buyout of the enterprise by the workforce.

2. Gratuitous - carrying out voucher privatization, check privatization, restitution.

Privatization principles:

1. A combination of paid and gratuitous methods.

2. The right of every citizen to a portion of state property given free of charge.

3. Differentiation of forms and methods of privatization.

4. Graduality and phasing.

Privatization goals:

1. Creating conditions for the emergence of the private sector of the economy

2. Attracting investments

3. Increase in state revenues

4. Creation of a competitive environment

5. Creation of a middle class interested in reforming the economy

"Property Rights Bundle Theory"».

Representatives: R. Coase, Honore. This theory views property not as an economic category, but as the right of ownership to own, use, distribute and control economic resources and material goods.

Property rights are classified into 11 elements.

Classification of property rights according to Honore:

1. Ownership

2. Right of use

3. Right of management

4. Right to income

5. Right to security from confiscation

6. Right to inheritance

7. For indefinite possession

8. To prohibit the use of property in a manner harmful to the environment

9. Liability in the form of penalties

10. On the residual nature of ownership

11. Law is sovereign

The problem of property has always been key to any economic system. In fact, it is property issues that are the watershed that separates one type of economic relations from another. If the legal norms of any state or society allow the purchase and sale of people and their securing in the possession of third parties, then we are dealing with a slave society. If, within the framework of national legislation, private property and ownership of the means of production are not permitted, then we can talk about socialist principles of management. Finally, if in an economic system everything is sold except people (including land), then we are talking about capitalism and the free market.

The sense of ownership is hidden deep in the human subconscious. As ethologists and behaviorists (scientists who study the behavior of animals and humans) testify, the psychological foundations of owning something are embedded in behavioral dominants at the earliest stages of the development of civilization. Animals, like humans, consider certain territories their property, which they protect from strangers. The cubs are also protected in every possible way. In the animal world, there is a fierce struggle for females, for the place of leader or dominant individual in a group. Representatives of such an economic school as , believe that many socio-economic institutions and cultural phenomena (such as conspicuous consumption, conspicuous idleness, canons of clothing, taste, etc.) can be explained from the standpoint of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

The sense of ownership rooted in the human mind turned out to be much stronger than the theorists of the creation of a new society assumed. Thus, K. Marx and his followers, who believed that “being determines consciousness” were still mistaken - despite decades of living in the new socialist state, its citizens never became altruists, and the sense of ownership has not gone away. Thus, it was the absence of private property in the USSR and the countries of the socialist camp that largely predetermined their collapse.

The modern understanding of the dominant role of property draws the close attention of economists and lawyers to it. But the problem of property is not only in the field of view of these scientists - it is also carefully studied by sociologists, historians, politicians and political scientists, psychologists and religious scholars.

We will consider the category of property only through the prism of economic problems. Own in this perspective - this is a historically developed institution regarding the ownership, disposal and purchase and sale of any assets.

What does a historically developed institution mean? Does this mean that once all the objects surrounding a person, the earth and its fruits, did not belong to anyone and only then were appropriated by individuals? This is exactly what happened – believed the anarchist theorist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who stated that “ property is theft" At certain stages, some enterprising individuals, with the help of force and manipulation of legal norms, seize what belongs to everyone. This is approximately what is currently happening with the Moon, Mars and other celestial bodies. Thus, for more than 20 years, US citizen Dennis Hope has been selling plots on the Moon and Mars, selling plots the size of 100 football fields to everyone for $100 apiece. In other words, this enterprising businessman is selling something that does not belong to him. However, this does not stop many people, and they buy such an exotic product. There are already more than 6 thousand such buyers from Russia alone, and many of them are very famous people.

Ownership of any asset provides:

- right of ownership, that is, actual possession of an object, complete control over it and even its destruction at the request of the owner;

- the right of use, which the owner, at his own request, transfers to a third party or persons;

- the right of disposal, which the owner exercises at his own discretion - that is, transfers it to management, donates it, leases it out with or without the right of purchase.

By type of property there are:

— movable property (jewelry, securities, antiques, household appliances, etc.);

— real estate (buildings, structures, land plots).

Property is often subdivided according to the types of owners:

- personal, owned by citizens;

- public, owned by the government or local authorities;

— municipal, owned by local governments;

— joint-stock, owned by shareholders of all types (domestic and foreign, commercial and non-profit organizations, public and private).

In conclusion, it should be noted that states and societies around the world are constantly developing. The institution of property also develops along with them. Therefore, the problem of motivating economic behavior in various forms of ownership also does not have a final solution. Currently, such an organizational and legal form as public private partnership, where mixed ownership creates new prospects for motivation and efficiency in business.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF UKRAINE

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT

ABSTRACT

Discipline: Political Economy

Subject: Economic system of society and property

Passed:

2nd year student

211 groups

Shurlachakova S. V.

Simferopol, 2009

Introduction

Fundamentals of property relations analysis

Latest trends in the development of property relations

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The economic system is the sphere of functioning of productive forces, the development of production economic relations and the use of a certain management mechanism. The economic system has its own elements and levers of control and, accordingly, one of its most important places is occupied by people. The person himself determines the levers for the development of the entire society, management of the economic system, and the formation of certain economic relations. This essay is about the economic system and the place of man in it.

The development of human society is based on the production of material and spiritual goods and other values, the entirety of which provides the conditions for human life. Any society, especially a highly developed modern one, is a social system.

Social system- this is a complexly organized ordered integrity, including individuals and social communities, which are united by various connections and relationships that are specific in nature.

An important subsystem of society, the main social system, is the economic system. In the course of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods, economic production relations of various contents are formed and constantly improved between the participants in these processes. The latter are manifested through the economic behavior of business entities.

A specific historical set of economic relations of production, corresponding to the system of productive forces and interacting with it, develops on the basis of the action of both objective economic laws and subjective factors, determines essence of the economic system society.

Thus, economic system- this is the sphere of functioning of productive forces and economic production relations, the interaction of which is characterized by a set of organizational forms and types of economic activity.

The structural links that form various economic systems are not homogeneous in content. They combine general and specific, basic and derivative, new emerging and dying old, transitional and intermediate economic forms, each of which operates on the basis of a development logic common to the entire system and at the same time its own. In modern economic conditions, the structural elements of the system are characterized by dynamism, variability, and contradictory development. This determines the need for structural differentiation of the components of the economic system of society, without which it is impossible to know the objective laws and principles of its functioning.

Any economic system is characterized by hierarchy; it strives to accept a state of integrity and limitation.

The hierarchy of a system is determined by the place of its elements in the social structure and the mechanism of their subordination. The type of interconnection of system elements can be “vertical” or “horizontal”. Vertical dependence is manifested in relations of coercion, power - subjugation, controllability - subordination. Horizontal connections are partnership, voluntary, competitive.

In socially oriented economic systems, it is partnership relationships that dominate. A special place in the formation, functioning and development of the economic system belongs to its subjects as an active driving transformative force. Each subject is the bearer of certain rights, duties and responsibilities, which they exercise in the process of their functional activities. Depending on this, there are various classifications of economic entities: individual, collective, state; manufacturer (seller), intermediary, consumer (buyer); individuals and legal entities, domestic and foreign; institutional entities (manufacturing enterprises, banks, exchanges), etc.

The presence of not only necessary, but also sufficient elements for self-development, self-production, and multifunctional activity of the system characterizes it integrity, self-sufficiency. Sign limitations system indicates the internal, rodogenetic unity, purity, non-alienity of its elements. The more transitional, mixed phenomena, forms and processes there are in an economic system, the lower the degree of its organicity and purity. This development trend should not be regarded as unambiguously negative. If in modern conditions interdependence, interweaving, and convergence of development of economic systems enrich and improve one another, this is a progressive process.

The economic system is characterized by different spheres of functioning and levels of management of its subjects.

The modern economic system is not a collection of individual farms of the same level, but a complex subordinated system of three interacting levels (Fig. 4).

Development, interaction and complementarity of economic levels are the key to sustainability, dynamism and effective performance of the system.

The ability to respond comprehensively, adequately and timely to environmental changes indicates mobility economic system. This, in turn, is the key to both macro- and microeconomic balance.

The economic system has three main links, subsystems: the economic structure of the productive forces of society, the system of economic relations of production and the management mechanism.

Productive forces- this is a system of economic factors that, in the process of social division of labor, ensure the transformation of the environment, create benefits to meet the needs of man and society, and determine the level of productivity of social labor.

Economic industrial relations represent a set of socio-economic and organizational-production relations between economic entities in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods, services and income.

Management mechanism coordinates the functioning and development of parts of the economic system, brings productive forces and economic relations of production into conformity. It represents a set of specific forms of management, organizational and institutional systems, methods and levers for regulating economic processes.

The management mechanism embodies the action of both subjective and objective factors. The influence of subjective factors is determined by the purposeful activity of a person and his social formations. Objective factors mean the course of socio-economic processes independent of the will and consciousness of man, determined by the action of economic laws. Neglect of objective factors, guidance in one’s actions by subjective desires and arbitrary decisions of individual officials leads to voluntarism and hinders the development of the system. However, objective laws manifest themselves and are implemented through the activities of people, public institutions, and the state. The higher the degree of knowledge of economic laws and the compliance of socio-political and economic practices with their requirements, the more progressive and progressive the development of the social system is.

Thus, the management mechanism is a set of forms of organization and management of social actions of economic entities aimed at implementing economic laws.

The central place in the economic system belongs to man. As the main productive force, the personification of economic relations of production, the subject and object of economic activity, the bearer and implementer of economic needs and interests, it unites and coordinates the functioning of all links of the economic system. A person’s place in the social hierarchy, opportunities and forms of his self-realization determine the nature of the economic system. The polystructurality and multifunctionality of man determine the dual nature of the productive forces

On the one hand, they act as natural material, and on the other hand, as social. Associated with the latter is the concept technological method of production, which reflects the connection of the means of labor with the organization of production. The transition from one technological method of production to another occurs due to qualitative changes in the nature of the means of labor and the progress of science and technology.

In accordance with their dual nature, the productive forces of society function both as technique and technology, and as a social organism. The specificity of the labor process of people is that at the same time they interact with nature and with each other regarding production.

In the structure of productive forces, man and his work have a central place not only as the most active component, but also as a direct source of the material elements that make up their composition. This extremely important theoretical position was proven by representatives of the classical school of political economy A. Smith and D. Ricardo.

Rice. 4. Levels of the economic system and their main subjects

Material and material means of production are considered dually - as the materialization of human labor and as instruments of this labor. As the main element of the means of production, the latter can realize their social usefulness only in the process of using them in objective human activity. Outside of such consumption, they act as potential structural elements of production.

Consequently, in their content, material productive forces are the organic embodiment of materialized and living labor, a functional combination of man and the means of labor, which is carried out in the production process. In the course of industrial consumption, material productive forces acquire a new quality - to turn into human productive force.

Any element of material and social productive forces is always a direct continuation of human natural forces, his energy potential. The use of energy from domestic animals and water, steam, electricity, lathes, automated systems, vehicles and modern communication structures, including space complexes, should be considered as working organs of man, an organic continuation of his physical personification and intelligence. In this understanding, productive forces are not only the result of the embodiment of a person’s past labor, but also the direct energy potential of his labor.

When productive forces are considered in connection with human labor, we are talking about the productive force not of individual, but of social labor. This approach has a historical basis, because the process of separation of man from the animal world was carried out as a process of affirmation not of an individual, but as part of a production team, tribe, clan, and then society.

The statement of the structural duality of the productive forces of society has not only theoretical, but also practical significance. The problem of accelerating the growth rate of labor productivity is not limited to the development of equipment and technology. The production experience of leading foreign companies shows that direct investment in fixed capital is not always decisive. There are examples when the monetary investments of foreign companies in living capital (the human factor of production) and the organization of the production process (management, supply system and sales of finished products, marketing, etc.) are several times greater than investments directly in equipment and technology. This is a fairly stable development trend. According to a special market survey, investments of 400 leading US corporations in living capital and organization of the production process reached over 80 percent in some years of the post-war period.

In this regard, the investment policy that has developed in the West becomes clear: investments in fixed capital, technical and technological re-equipment of production can only be carried out subject to the creation of an appropriate organizational structure and the qualification potential of production personnel at all levels - from the worker to the president of the production association (corporation) .

The restructuring of organizational units of production requires priority attention, without which the latest equipment and technology do not provide the necessary returns, and in many cases even become unprofitable. This confirms the theoretical position about the structural duality of the productive forces of society, despite the fact that their material content and the economic form of their organization based on the social division of labor are dialectically united.

The specifics of the economic system of society are determined by socio-economic relations of production, which have a complex and multifaceted structure based on property relations. Property determines the social way of connecting labor with the means of production and the corresponding relations between people regarding the appropriation of material and intellectual elements and the results of the production process. At the same time, property relations determine the historical specifics of society, its social structure, and the dominant system of political and economic power.

Socio-economic relations are an integral, structurally subordinated system, constantly evolving from simple to complex. The basis of this process is the development of the productive forces of society, their material and intellectual, and at the same time the economic structure. At the same time, economic relations of production can play a dual role: an engine that stimulates and accelerates the development of productive forces, or a force that inhibits this development.

At the same time, each system of socio-economic relations has relative independence, which is formed on the basis of the conscious activity of a person taking part in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of created values. Thus, the system of socio-economic relations is formed and developed as a system of consciously meaningful human function, organically combining objective and subjective factors in its structure.

An important issue is the classification of economic systems. An economic system is a complex, multi-structural and multifunctional socio-economic phenomenon. In the economic literature, various models and types of economic systems are defined. Their classification depends on different criteria. The main ones are the dominant form of ownership, the technological method of production, the method of managing and coordinating economic activities, etc.

The division of economic systems according to the listed characteristics is to a certain extent arbitrary. For example, a common classification of economic systems is based on the technological method of production and the level of development of productive forces. There is a pre-industrial society - an economic system dominated by manual labor; industrial society, the basis of which is machine labor; post-industrial society based on automated labor equipped with computer information. However, these systems differ significantly in the management mechanism, the dominant object of ownership, and the diversity of economic entities.

The division of economic systems into market and administrative-command systems is multi-criteria. Main characteristics market economy are the following: a variety of forms of ownership with the dominance of private, the dominance of commodity-money relations, freedom of entrepreneurship, a competitive economic mechanism, material incentives, free pricing based on the interaction of supply and demand, the regulating economic role of the state, personal freedom, the dominance of individual interest, etc. P.

Command-administrative system based on the dominance of state ownership, nationalization of the national economy, lack of competition, directive planning, non-market economic relations, the egalitarian nature of distribution, ignoring the laws of commodity and money circulation, strict hierarchical subordination of business entities, underdevelopment or absence of a market mentality, etc.

Recently, discussions around the concepts of “mixed” and “transition” economies have intensified. Of course, these are not identical concepts.

Mixed economic system, characterizing modern developed countries, has evolved from the economy of a pure market, taking into account its shortcomings and failures in activity. Modern developed economic systems are characterized by a variety of forms of ownership and management, qualitative changes in relation to private property, a competitive mechanism, a significant economic role of the state, forecasting socio-economic processes, etc.

Transitional economic system characteristic of countries that are freed from the shortcomings of the command-administrative system. In such conditions, transformation processes occur contradictorily, violently, with acute socio-economic shocks and crisis phenomena.

This is precisely the situation that is typical for modern Ukraine, other states that were formed on the territory of the former USSR, and all countries that are moving away from the command-administrative model.

For no country there are unambiguous and generally accepted paths of development and painless recipes for achieving prosperity and progress. In the construction of a modern economic system, one should comprehensively use the achievements and experience of the functioning of world civilization, while taking into account its own specific conditions, capabilities and mentality.

Fundamentals of property relations analysis

The socio-economic basis for the functioning of the economic system is property relations. Property as a complex of relationships, a multidimensional and multi-level phenomenon and socio-economic process is characterized by multifunctionality and multi-productivity.

The structural complexity of property relations is expressed in the multidimensional process of its historical development. There are social, political, moral-psychological and even ideological aspects of property. However, the most important are the economic and legal understanding of property, which should neither be identified nor opposed.

Property in the economic sense is historically and logically determined. How socio-economic category it is determined by the degree of development of productive forces and is characterized by a system of objectively determined, historically changing relations between economic entities in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods, which are characterized by the appropriation of the means of production and its results. In other words, the socio-economic essence of property is revealed and realized in the plane of “person-person” interaction.

Property in the legal sense is reproduced by the “person-thing” communication system. How legal category property reflects property relations, conscious, volitional relationships between legal entities and individuals regarding the appropriation of benefits, which is secured by a system of corresponding property rights. To analyze the economic content of property, it is important to understand the relationship and distinction between property relations and economic relations of production. Often these concepts are identified, which is not justified.

Firstly, property relations are essential, system-forming, i.e. they determine the nature of the functioning and development of a complex of relations of reproduction, permeate each of its elements, but do not reflect the entire diversity of their secondary and other derivative forms.

Secondly, property characterizes the dialectic of the relationship between economic and legal relations and forms, socio-economic essence and material content, and it is in this understanding that property is a more capacious category than the system of economic relations of production.

An analysis of their structure will help to understand the essence of property relations more fully and deeply.

The ownership structure, like any complex system, is multicolored and varied. Let's consider its classification according to the main system-forming and structure-determining categories: internal genetic subjects and economic levels; objects; types, forms and types of property.

The most important for revealing the essence of property relations and at the same time the most difficult to understand is the structure of property from an internal genetic point of view. The internal structure of property relations through the interaction of relations of appropriation and alienation is shown in Fig. 5.

The relationship of appropriation of the means of production and its results is the basis of property relations.

Assignment- this is an economic process, a way of transforming objects, natural and social phenomena, their useful properties into real living conditions of economic entities. The components of appropriation are the relations of ownership, disposal and use.

Rice. 5. Genetics of property relations (methods, mechanism, structure)

Possession characterizes the non-time-limited ownership of an object of property by a certain subject, the actual domination of the subject over the object of property.

Order - the right exercised by the owner or delegated by him to another economic entity to make planning and management decisions regarding the functioning and sale of the property.

Usage (use) - the process of production application and consumption of the useful properties of an object of property, as well as the benefits created with its help.

It should be noted that the subject of property assignment is simultaneously the owner, manager and user. The owner also exercises the rights of manager and user. The manager can be a user, but he does not always realize himself as an owner. The user of individual goods can function without exercising the rights of the owner and manager at all. However, only in a complex manner do the relations of ownership, disposal and use constitute the process of appropriation of property.

However, the essence of property relations should not be limited to relations of appropriation, although they are decisive. The paired category of appropriation is alienation.

Alienation- the process of transforming human activity and abilities into an independent force, materializing the results of functioning individual and social labor with the transformation of the property of subjects into objects of economic relations.

Next to the owner there is always a non-owner. You can only appropriate what is alienated. The act of appropriating an object of property by one subject is at the same time a moment of alienation for another subject.

Consequently, the processes of appropriation and alienation are two dialectical aspects of the essential relations of property. Contradictions in the “appropriation-alienation” system are an internal source of self-development of property relations. This is precisely the powerful positive charge of this dialectical connection.

Both objective and subjective circumstances encourage economic entities to choose certain forms of appropriation and alienation. The enforcement mechanism is based on a combination of economic and non-economic methods (see Fig. 5). The predominance of certain methods determines the policy of “carrot” or “stick” from the owner to the non-owner.

Based on the subjects, i.e., the bearers and implementers of property relations, a distinction is made between individual, collective and state property (Fig. 6). With the development of society, there is a quantitative and qualitative growth of property subjects. The bearers of varieties of individual property are individuals, households (family) households of the most diverse functional orientation.

Collective property is realized through the activities of corporations, cooperatives, religious and public associations and organizations, labor collectives of various forms of management, etc.

The forms of state ownership are becoming more diverse. Among them there are national (government, central structures, national bank, etc.), territorial-regional (municipal services and other local governments), sectoral (ministries and departments).

The system of property entities can also be considered by dividing them into legal entities and individuals, into domestic and foreign, joint and mixed structures.

Understanding the nature of property complements the analysis of the system of property objects. The objects of property are the means of production created by man, the land, its subsoil, flora and fauna, labor and the results of its activities - objects of material and spiritual culture, securities, money, etc. The determining factors among this diversity are the means and factors of production. It is the ownership of the means of production, including land, knowledge as developing intellectual property, that characterizes the essence of the entire set of property relations, including the mechanism for the distribution and appropriation of production results and income from economic activity.

The owner of the means of production largely appropriates the results of production.

Each type of civilization is characterized by a dominant object of property specific to the conditions of its existence, which most fully reflects the way man interacts with nature, the achieved level of social labor productivity, and the features of the appropriation of the means and results of production.

For the pre-civilized stage of human development, such an object was the natural environment - the earth, flora and fauna, which in their integrity organically merged with the subject of their appropriation - primitive man.

The dominant object of property of agrarian civilization was land, which, thanks to the development of the productivity of social labor, gradually turned from the collective basis of human existence into a separate means of his production activity.

The peculiarity of land as a means of production is that it is not fundamentally the result of human labor. Famous English economist of the 19th century. J. S. Mill wrote: “As the fundamental principle of property is to give men every security in the possession of that which their labor has produced, and which their thrift has accumulated, it cannot be applied to that which is not the product of labor, the cultivated substance of the earth.” . The earth was not created by man and therefore should be the property of all people. If this is different, then the one who has just been born will see that all the gifts of nature have already been appropriated by others, and there is no place left for those who have just appeared. It is clear that this is already a certain injustice. Therefore, “the state can act as a single land owner, and farmers must be tenants who receive their plots on the basis of a fixed-term or indefinite agreement.”

At the early stages of the development of human society, land was not an object of individual, private appropriation. L. Morgan noted that collective ownership of land was a common phenomenon among barbarian tribes. M. Kovalevsky in “Essay on the Origin and Development of Family and Property” (M., 1939. - P. 56) also wrote that ethnography and history indicate that individual appropriation of land and its products did not exist at the first stages of human development.

Rice. 6. Basic types, forms and types of property in the economic system

However, within the historical boundaries of agricultural civilization in different regions of the globe, in accordance with natural, climatic and other production conditions, three local civilizations were formed - Asian, ancient and Germanic, which were characterized by specificity in terms of land ownership.

In conditions Asian civilization retained public (tribal or communal) ownership of land. IN antique The dominant civilization was private ownership of land. IN German civilization, a mixed form of ownership developed - the owner of the land was both the community (family) and the head of the family. The noted differentiation further determined the specificity of various local forms of agrarian civilization, in which land ownership became the basis of the entire economic structure.

The principle of diversity of forms of ownership of land as an important means of production contributes to the stable development of the economic system. This should not be forgotten in the current state of Ukraine - a country with great potential for the development of agricultural production, when not only heated discussions are being held, but practical reforms regarding land ownership are being implemented by the authorities. In general, with regard to land, the natural resolution of the objective problem of ownership of it is associated with the general conditions of production and with the fact that cultivated land is increasingly turning from a simple gift of nature into a complex combination of the latter with the result of the application of labor and capital to it. During the development of industrial civilization, in particular machine production, for the first time in history, man-made means of production and, above all, their most revolutionary part—the tools of labor—became the dominant object of property. The concentration of industrial means of production accelerated the gap between labor and property, the isolation of labor power from the objective conditions of its productive use. The means of production, alienated from labor, took the form of capital, which became the basis of the production relations of industrial society. In accordance with this, private ownership of the means of production became dominant in the economic system.

Property relations and connections are acquiring fundamentally new features with the development of the modern technological revolution and the formation of a post-industrial structure of production. First of all, we are talking about the fact that the dominant object of property is information, which primarily embodies the costs of intellectual labor.

The latter, unlike the labor force used in traditional sectors of the economy, gradually loses the ability to alienate its carrier and ceases to be a commodity in the traditional sense. At the same time, changes are taking place in the structure of the information economy, processes of deconcentration, individualization of production and other transformations, which together lead to an increasing depreciation of the economic foundations on which, in the era of industrialism, the alienation of the productive power of labor from the worker is based, individual-private property of capital is comprehensively developing for the means of production.

Thus, the logic of development of countries that have reached the highest level of economy indicates the historical limitations of individual-private ownership of the means of production, which is classical in its content. Moreover, a radical restructuring of economic relations of production in countries with a socially oriented market economy is carried out on the basis of profound qualitative changes, primarily in the structure of this particular form of ownership. We are talking about its evolutionary positive self-negation and the formation in its place of economic production relations of direct connection of labor power and means of production. First of all, this occurs in the process of “diffusion”, “dispersion” of property due to the expansion of corporatization relations and corporatization.

Expert assessments by Western specialists prove that if corporate employees own less than 15 percent of the shares, then the efficiency of the enterprises will decrease. It is the combination of labor and property that is a powerful stimulus for economic growth, the basis for the development of a person’s personality and the key to the economic system reaching the level of general civilizational principles of development.

The structure of ownership according to its types, forms and types is common. This structure can be characterized as integral in relation to the previously discussed structures. The type, form, type of property cannot be understood without analyzing the relations of appropriation, the interaction of subjects of property, and the system of its objects.

The type of property is determined by the most general principles of its functioning, the essence of the nature of the connection of the worker with the means of production.

The form of ownership is a stable system of economic production relations and economic ties, which determines the appropriate method and mechanism for connecting the worker with the means of production.

The type of ownership is characterized by a specific method of appropriation of goods and management methods. As can be seen from Fig. 6, the modern economic system is characterized by diverse forms of ownership and its mixed varieties.

It is necessary to distinguish between the form of ownership and the form of management. A business form is one of the methods for implementing a form of ownership, which is a set of specific levers and ways of influencing an economic entity on the environment with the aim of transforming it and generating income. The same form of ownership can be realized through different forms of management. For example, private property operates and realizes itself in such organizational forms as sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation. Today, new opportunities for the implementation of private property have emerged: venture business, entrepreneurial networks, etc.

At the same time, the same form of management can be implemented by different forms of ownership. This applies, for example, to rent and corporatization.

The modern property system is characterized not by unification, but by complication of the structure, diversity of forms of ownership and management.

In this regard, the question naturally arises: what is the meaning of the historical evolution of the essential basis of property? The answer to it can only be given taking into account the general direction of civilizational progress, subordinated to human interests. The point is that each new, higher in content stage in the development of property relations should be considered from the standpoint of a qualitative change in the way man interacts with nature and the appropriation of the means and results of labor in the interests of the development of the human personality. The development of functional forms of ownership should be analyzed from the same positions. Each functional form of ownership should be assessed depending on whether its structure contains the possibility of creating (taking into account the achieved level of human productivity) optimal conditions for subordinating the production process to the interests of its comprehensive development. It is possible to talk about a specific mechanism for the functioning of property relations at a particular period of time only on the basis of an analysis of the entire set of forms of ownership operating in the corresponding structure of economic relations of production.

What constitutes the basis for the development of the process of property formation, what objective factors determine the structure and principles of formation of its functional forms and types?

Each functional form of ownership reflects, first of all, the level of maturity of the social division of labor and is adequate to the structure and degree of complexity of its social productive force, which is used in production. The form of ownership is determined by the specifics of the social productive power of labor as an object of individual human property. In the process of forming property, any subjectively organized “running ahead” (as well as lagging behind) in comparison with the achieved level of social labor productivity negatively affects the development of the latter and ultimately slows down socio-economic progress.

At the same time, the position about the objective conditioning of the process of forming property by the level and nature of the development of the social productive power of human labor should not be absolutized. Economic phenomena and processes have a multidimensional structure. The same are the cause-and-effect relationships that determine the logic of their development. Property relations are no exception. They are influenced not by one, but by a wide range of socio-economic and political, internal and external factors, as well as cultural and national conditions and traditions of a particular society.

The resulting forms of ownership do not realize themselves in their pure form. Each of them, in the process of economic development, certainly bears the features of the new and the old.

Each form of ownership is historical in nature. It is viable only within certain limits. When the action of the factors that caused its appearance ceases, it must be replaced by another, more progressive form. Any conservation of forms of ownership will certainly lead to stagnation and a delay in the development of productive forces. This applies to all forms of property without exception, including private ones.

Attention should be paid to the purely declarative principle of equality of forms of ownership in market conditions. It is impossible to talk about economic equality of forms of ownership. They are characterized by different quantitative and qualitative parameters, areas of functioning and target orientation. We are talking about legislative equality of forms of ownership, which means that the activities of subjects are carried out in the same system of rights, duties and responsibilities. However, in practice this principle is also not always implemented. For example, the state, through a system of benefits, promotes the development of small businesses and, under certain conditions, limits the activities of monopolistic property.

Property in action is the process of its implementation in the economic and social spheres, in the life of society as a whole. The process of implementing property relations includes two interrelated and interdependent aspects: the effectiveness of the movement of property and the constant reproduction of the conditions and factors of its development.

The performance of ownership depends on the implementation of property rights. The economic theory of property rights is one of the most famous theories of the modern direction of economic analysis - neo-institutionalism.

Property rights are an external form that legislates and institutionalizes real economic processes.

A legal form cannot appear and exist by itself. It only consolidates a really existing or potentially possible economic phenomenon.

Providing guarantees of property rights and creating conditions for their effective functioning is the foundation of the state’s economic policy. The definition and delimitation of property rights fix the fundamental principles of the relationship between business entities regarding the appropriation of property objects. These are a kind of “rules of the game” - rules of correct economic behavior in the field of property relations that permeate all spheres of economic life. If such rules are formulated vaguely or non-specifically (for example, mutually contradictory or ignoring some areas of property relations impede the effective redistribution of property rights), then the consequences of this are the erosion of economic motivation, and over time, the economic system itself.

The basis of a market economy is the priority development in conditions of diversity of forms of ownership of types of private property. It is implemented through the most complete interconnected system of economic rights, defined by famous Western economists (R. Coase, A. Alchian, A. Honoré, etc.) back in the early 60s of our century:

The right of ownership, i.e. the right of exclusive physical control over goods;

Right of use, i.e. the right to use the beneficial properties of goods for oneself;

The right to manage, i.e. the right to decide who and how will ensure the use of benefits;

The right to income, i.e. the right to own the results from the use of benefits;

The right of the sovereign, i.e. the right to alienate, consume, replace or destroy a good;

The right to security, i.e. the right to protection from expropriation of goods and from damage from the external environment;

The right to transfer benefits by inheritance;

The right to indefinite possession of a good;

Prohibition of use in a manner harmful to the external environment;

The right to liability in the form of collection, i.e. the possibility of collecting benefits in payment of a debt;

The right to a residual nature, i.e. the right to the existence of procedures and institutions that ensure the renewal of violated powers.

Combinations of the listed rights, taking into account the fact that they are owned by various individuals and legal entities, can be varied. This is the basis for the diversity of types of private forms of ownership.

The main functions of property relations are the determination of the target orientation of production, the nature of distribution, exchange and consumption of its results and income, the formation of a social form of labor, the implementation and coordination of the system of economic interests of different economic entities, the determination of the entire social system of production, social hierarchy, the position of a person in society, systems of its social and moral values.

In other words, property is the relationship from which the entire economic, social and political structure of society grows. This is what defines property as the socio-economic basis for the functioning of the economic system.

4. Latest trends in the development of property relations

Gradually, in the process of economic development, the corporate form of ownership as a collective-private one acquires dominant importance. In the economies of Western countries, corporations (joint-stock enterprises) have become the most dynamic, leading structure. In the United States, their share is almost 90 percent of the total volume of products sold. In general, in developed Western countries, corporate ownership accounts for 80-90 percent of total output

Compared to the classical form of private entrepreneurship, corporations have certain advantages that have provided them with leading positions in the business sector.

The peculiarity of the corporate form of ownership is that, on the one hand, it preserves (through the ownership of shares by individuals) all the positive things that private property carries - entrepreneurial interest, initiative, focus on the accumulation of personal, and hence social wealth, the right of perpetual inheritance, etc. At the same time, the corporation overcomes the limitations inherent in the classical form of private property. While remaining in the general structure of the corporation as a legal institution of ownership, private property denies itself economically: it is realized through more mature - collective forms of organization of production. Thus, in essence, the thesis of the positive negation of private property is being realized.

Among the advantages of the corporate form of ownership, there are such as production flexibility, the ability to accumulate capital resources and means of any accessory. In addition, a corporation is a more democratic form of ownership. The socially integral function of the corporation is of particular importance. If private property in its classical form disintegrates society, giving rise to complex social problems, then the corporation, on the contrary, creates economic prerequisites for social integration, partially overcoming the alienation of a person from the means of production, its results, and from participation in management. In the process of functioning of a corporation, the so-called depersonification of large private ownership of the means of production occurs, which is expressed in the loss of personal control over its functioning by individual owners of capital. It is thanks to this that it is managed not by private owners, but by professionals. In this regard, J. Galbraith wrote that the power of the people who run the corporation no longer depends on private property

The disposition of property is now the dominant reality. A radical change in the role of this link in economic production relations has weakened the ability of the direct owner to exercise direct control over the means of production.

A corporation is not a fixed form of ownership. She evolves. In recent decades, a qualitatively new phenomenon in the development of corporate ownership has become increasingly significant. We are talking about the transfer of a certain part of the share capital to hired employees of enterprises included in the corporation. Thus, in 1974, the US Congress adopted the so-called plan for the development of joint-stock ownership, the content of which was reduced to the implementation of a broad system of measures to attract corporation employees to corporatization. In subsequent years, the US Congress adopted over 20 more pieces of legislation that contributed to the development of this process. In the late 1980s, similar acts were adopted in 19 American states.

The essence of the measures in question is that, using credit resources, corporations buy up part of their shares and create a personnel joint-stock fund, from which the shares of employees of this company are formed. In accordance with the decision of Congress, companies that carry out such socialization of corporate ownership are provided with tax benefits.

As statistics show, there were 1,601 people's enterprises-companies that are entirely owned by labor collectives in the United States in 1975, and 19,700 in 1988. The number of people working in them also increased - from 248 thousand to 9.7 million people . In 1990, there were already 10,275 such companies, and their workforce amounted to 10.5 million people. (about 10 percent of the total employed population). The US Senate Finance Committee estimates that by 2000, 25 percent of all workers and employees could become owners of the businesses in which they work.

The constant improvement of joint-stock forms of production and the active assistance of the state to this process have made it possible to significantly expand the circle of persons owning shares. Thus, in the early 50s in the United States there were about 6 million shareholders, and today there are about 50 million. In general, in Western countries, every third adult is a shareholder. However, it's not just about quantitative transformations. The most important are the qualitative changes in the social structure of society that occur due to corporatization.

Shareholder ownership makes significant adjustments to the way labor interacts with the means of production. There is a process of approaching the identity of labor and property, the worker becomes a working owner.

The comprehensive development of the corporation is not the only process that radically changes the relations of classical private property, positively denying its essence.

Despite the exceptionally high share of corporations in the production of the gross national product, in the United States the number of enterprises that are individually privately owned is not only not decreasing, but on the contrary, increasing. Their total number for the period 1970-1986. has almost doubled and exceeded 12 million. Of course, the share of such enterprises in total production is insignificant - approximately 6 percent of products sold. However, from the point of view of identifying prospects for economic development, this indicates that private-labor property, on which the activities of these enterprises are based, is growing quantitatively.

Close to enterprises based on private labor ownership in their economic content are the so-called partnership firms, which are owned by two or more persons. Their activities combine the functions of producer and owner.

In economically developed countries, the state form of ownership is also undergoing a change, the share of which in some Western countries is quite high. It is increasingly being used in the national interest.

Thus, the main features of the ownership structure in countries with developed market economies are, firstly, the dominant position of the corporate form of ownership, secondly, the increasingly widespread involvement of enterprise employees in the corporatization, thirdly, the development of the individual labor form of ownership, in -fourth, changes in the state form of ownership.

Fundamentally different processes are taking place in the countries of the former USSR, as well as Eastern Europe, which are experiencing a kind of renaissance of private property, an intensive revival of various forms of its functioning. Nevertheless, these processes do not deny the theoretical principle of historicism of private property. Old economic forms cannot disappear until they have completely exhausted their potential. New economic relations of production, more developed in their content, cannot appear before the corresponding material prerequisites have been prepared, i.e., a certain level of human labor productivity has been achieved, which is the objective basis for the process of property formation.

In countries where the command-administrative system was established, public property was forcibly introduced into the economic structure without a corresponding connection with the state of the productive forces. This determined the general instability of the economic system created on such principles.

When analyzing the issues of historicism of the private entrepreneurial form of ownership of capital, which determines the structure and main direction of development of the entire system of socio-political, social and production processes, one should remember the complex and contradictory processes occurring in the mechanism for the implementation of private property in connection with development based on the achievements of technological revolution of the elements of the post-industrial structure of production. Thus, computer science turns into a leading link in the production process, and information itself becomes a form of wealth, the dominant object of property. On this basis, the spiritual property of society is formed, which gives impetus to the accumulation of its intellectual potential. Unlike ownership of materialized means of production, spiritual ownership cannot develop on a purely private basis.

Information has the characteristics of a commodity, gradually turning into the main production resource of a post-industrial society. On the one hand, as a carrier of value, information is an object of purchase and sale and in this respect is not much different from an ordinary product - a service, which is an object of private property. In countries that are embarking on a development path towards a post-industrial society, competition for information ownership is intensifying. Moreover, there is a process of its monopolization, transformation into a direct object of private property, an institution of economic power. Accordingly, a new social layer of people is being formed - owners of information. To protect intellectual information property, relevant legislative acts are adopted and special legal norms are established.

On the other hand, information also stimulates the opposite process - not the strengthening, but, on the contrary, the devaluation of private property relations. This is due to the specifics of consumer use of information as a product. Unlike ordinary goods, information does not disappear during production consumption. When sold, it is not alienated from its owner. The latter is only deprived of a complete monopoly on its use. He can sell it again. The buyer can do the same.

The American scientist O. Toffler notes that for an industrial society, the main natural and material element in the structure of ownership was ownership of land, buildings, factories, machines, means of industrial production, and in the conditions of the transition to an information society, an intangible substance becomes the basis of property in the United States. This is a fundamentally new form of ownership. However, for the production implementation of information property, material means of production are also necessary.

Changes in the forms and essence of property largely modify the entire structure of socio-economic relations. At a new stage of social progress, there must be not just a negation of private property, but a dialectical overcoming of property relations in general. These relations must give way to fundamentally different system-forming structures.

However, today for countries with economies in transition, the formation of a diversity of forms of ownership and management as the basis for reforming the administrative-command system on the path to a socially oriented market economy is relevant. A special role in this regard belongs to the processes of reform and qualitative transformation of monopoly state property. World experience shows that denationalization is a general economic process. The main forms and methods of denationalization are shown in Fig. 7.

Let us note that the denationalization of property should not be equated with privatization. The process of denationalization as a set of measures aimed at eliminating the state monopoly on property and creating a competitive market environment occurs both within and outside state ownership.

Privatization is a radical component of the process of denationalization, the essence of which is to change the state form of ownership to a variety of private ones.

Rice. 7. Forms and methods of denationalization

The above processes occur contradictorily, with social aggravations, require significant material, financial, organizational, intellectual efforts, etc. However, these are necessary measures, decisiveness and consistency in the implementation of which will ultimately lead to the transformation of a transition economy into a mixed economy of a stable socially oriented society .

Conclusion

Thus, we can conclude that human society is a complexly organized system, which is the object of study of many sciences, including economics.

Here it is necessary to highlight the economic system of society, which includes three main elements: productive forces, economic relations of production and management mechanism. There are many types of classifications of economic systems. Here are some of them:

1) according to the technological method of production:

Pre-industrial;

Industrial;

Post-industrial;

2) by method of management and dominant property:

Market;

Command and administrative;

Mixed;

Transitional.

There are 4 levels in the economic system:

Microeconomic;

Metaeconomic;

Macroeconomic;

Global.

An important role in the development and establishment of a certain type of economic system is played by property, which also has various types and forms. By the type of property dominant in a country, one can judge its development.

Bibliography

1. Belyaev O.O. Economic policy: Head. pos_b. – K.: KNEU, 2006. – 288 p.

2. Bazilevich V.D. Polytheconomy. – K.: Znannya-Press, 2007. – 719 p.

3. Stepura O.S. Political economy: Navch. pos_b. K.: Condor, 2006. – 187 p.

4. Economic theory: Pidruchnik / edited by V.N. Tarasevich. – K.: Center for Basic Literature, 2006.

5. Bashnyanin G.L., Lazur P.Yu., Medvedev V.S. Political economy. - K.: Nika-Center: Elga, 2002.

6.Polytheconomy. Navchalny handbook / Ed. Nikolenko Yu.V. - K.: Znannya, 2003.

At all historical stages of human development, society faces the same question: what, for whom and in what quantities to produce, taking into account limited resources. The economic system and types of economic systems are precisely designed to solve this problem. Moreover, each of these systems does this in its own way, each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Concept of economic system

An economic system is a system of all economic processes and production relations that has developed in a particular society. This concept refers to an algorithm, a way of organizing the production life of society, which presupposes the presence of stable connections between producers on the one hand and consumers on the other.

The following processes are the main ones in any economic system:

Production in any of the existing economic systems is carried out on the basis of appropriate resources. Some elements still differ in different systems. We are talking about the nature of management mechanisms, motivation of producers, etc.

Economic system and types of economic systems

An important point in the analysis of any phenomenon or concept is its typology.

Characteristics of types of economic systems, in general, comes down to the analysis of five main parameters for comparison. This:

• technical and economic parameters;
• the ratio of the share of state planning and market regulation of the system;
• property relations;
• social parameters (real income, amount of free time, labor protection, etc.);
• mechanisms of system functioning.

Based on this, modern economists distinguish four main types of economic systems:

1. Traditional
2. Command-planned
3. Market (capitalism)
4. Mixed

Let's take a closer look at how all these types differ from each other.

Traditional economic system

This economic system is characterized by gathering, hunting and low-productivity farming based on extensive methods, manual labor and primitive technologies. Trade is poorly developed or not developed at all.

Perhaps the only advantage of such an economic system is the weak (almost zero) and minimal anthropogenic load on nature.

Command-plan economic system

A planned (or centralized) economy is a historical type of economic management. Nowadays it is not found anywhere in its pure form. Previously, it was typical for the Soviet Union, as well as some countries in Europe and Asia.

Today they talk more often about the shortcomings of this economic system, among which it is worth mentioning:

• lack of freedom for producers (commands to produce “what and in what quantities” were sent from above);
• dissatisfaction with a large number of economic needs of consumers;
• chronic shortages of some goods;
• emergence (as a natural reaction to the previous point);
• the inability to quickly and effectively implement the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress (due to which the planned economy always remains one step behind other competitors in the global market).

However, this economic system also had its advantages. One of them was the possibility of ensuring social stability for everyone.

Market economic system

The market is a complex and multifaceted economic system that is typical for most countries of the modern world. Also known by another name: capitalism. The fundamental principles of this system are the principles of individualism, free enterprise and healthy market competition based on the relationship between supply and demand. Private property dominates here, and the main incentive for production activity is the thirst for profit.

However, such an economy is far from ideal. The market type of economic system also has its disadvantages:

• uneven distribution of income;
• social inequality and social vulnerability of certain categories of citizens;
• instability of the system, which manifests itself in the form of periodic acute crises in the economy;
• predatory, barbaric use of natural resources;
• weak funding for education, science and other non-profit programs.

In addition, there is also a fourth type - a mixed type of economic system, in which both the state and the private sector have equal weight. In such systems, the functions of the state in the country’s economy are reduced to supporting important (but unprofitable) enterprises, financing science and culture, controlling unemployment, etc.

Economic system and systems: examples of countries

It remains to consider examples that are characterized by one or another economic system. For this purpose, a special table is presented below. The types of economic systems are presented in it taking into account the geography of their distribution. It is worth noting that this table is very subjective, since for many modern states it can be difficult to unambiguously assess which system they belong to.

What type of economic system is in Russia? In particular, Moscow State University professor A. Buzgalin described the modern Russian economy as a “mutation of late capitalism.” In general, today the country’s economic system is considered to be transitional, with an actively developing market.

Finally

Each economic system responds differently to the three “what, how and for whom to produce?” Modern economists distinguish four main types: traditional, command-planned, market, and mixed systems.

Speaking about Russia, we can say that in this state a specific type of economic system has not yet been established. The country is in a transitional stage between a command economy and a modern market economy.

Economic system- this is the totality of all economic processes occurring in society on the basis of established property relations and the economic mechanism. F. Pryor wrote: “The economic system includes all those institutions, organizations, laws and rules, traditions, beliefs, positions, assessments, prohibitions and patterns of behavior that directly or indirectly affect economic behavior and results.”

There are several types of economic systems:

· traditional;

· command and administrative;

market

· mixed.

In the traditional system, the economy is based on the natural form of social economy, products are produced primarily for own consumption. The dominant form of ownership is communal. Traditional economics is characteristic of pre-industrial societies. Recent history knows two main types of economic systems - command-administrative and market.

An example of a command-administrative system is the economic system of the Soviet Union, formed by the end of the 20s and operating until the beginning of the 80s. XX century Currently, examples of command-administrative economies are the economic systems of Cuba and North Korea. The basis of the command-administrative system is state ownership of all resources. Economic planning is carried out from a single economic center and is administrative in nature. Pricing is also centralized, does not reflect the real assessment of manufactured products and does not depend on the presence or absence of supply and demand for a particular type of product.

In a market economic system, the basis of economic relations is private property. Manufacturers decide issues of production and sale of manufactured products independently, based on personal interest. A feature of the market system is also pricing, which is not regulated by the state, but is formed through the interaction of supply and demand for goods on the market. An element of the market economic mechanism is also competition, that is, rivalry between participants in the market economy for the best conditions for the production and purchase and sale of goods. But the role of the state in a market economy cannot be denied. It is the state that creates equal conditions for competition between producers, limits monopolized production, stabilizes economic fluctuations and performs other functions in the economic sphere, using legal (passing laws) and financial and economic methods (establishing taxes, duties, etc.).

However, in the modern world there is practically no economy that is based only on the market mechanism and does not include elements of a planned economy. An economy that combines elements of different economic systems is called mixed. It seems that this type of economic system makes it possible to effectively use the strengths of both a command-administrative economy (planning, social guarantees for workers) and the best aspects of a market economic system.

Own can be defined as a person’s attitude towards a thing belonging to him as if it were his own. At the same time, non-owners of this thing treat it as someone else’s.

In the legal sense, property is the unity of rights to own, use and dispose of a thing.

Possession- This is the actual possession of a thing belonging to the owner. Sometimes they also use the following expression: “actually holding it in your hands.”

Under use refers to the extraction of useful properties from a thing in the process of its consumption. Often the same thing can be used not only for personal consumption, but also for profit.

Order- this is the complete or partial transfer of a thing to other persons through any acts that determine its fate, including: the sale of a thing, putting it as collateral, transferring it as a donation to a charitable foundation, or destroying a thing.

It is generally accepted that the right of ownership is one of the exclusive rights, but this does not mean that the power of the owner in relation to the property he owns has no limits. Indeed, in relation to his things, he has the right to take any actions, but only those that do not contradict the law.

No one can be deprived of his property except by a court decision. Forced alienation of property for state needs is possible, but only subject to prior and equivalent compensation. Thus, before the start of construction of a multi-story building, the municipality, which is the developer, is obliged to provide new apartments to the owners of one-story houses located on this site, and only then has the right to demolish these houses.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in our country “private, municipal and other forms of property are equally recognized and protected.” All forms of property have equal rights and are protected by law. But it was not always so. In Soviet times, there were significant differences in the legal regime of property, the privileged position of socialist, especially state, property and restrictions on the personal property of citizens.

Articles 212-215 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation divide private property into property of citizens and legal entities and state- federal, owned by the state (Russian Federation) and constituent entities of the Federation. The subjects of municipal property are local governments of urban and rural settlements, municipal districts, urban districts or intracity territories of cities of federal significance. Other forms of ownership include the property of public organizations, the property of foreigners on the territory of Russia, the property of joint ventures, etc.