Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization
In the article the concept reindustrializatsiyi, the conditions of its occurrence, existence and transition to the concept of "new industrialization". The positive effects neoindustrializatsiyi social conditions of small and medium industrial businesses.For each stage of modernization of t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Економічний вісник Донбасу |
|---|---|
| Datum: | 2014 |
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України
2014
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/87612 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization / Yu.I. Zhykhareva, E.V. Kotov // Економічний вісник Донбасу. — 2014. — № 4(38). — С. 20-26. — Бібліогр.: 16 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| _version_ | 1859488399639969792 |
|---|---|
| author | Zhykhareva, Yu.I. Kotov, E.V. |
| author_facet | Zhykhareva, Yu.I. Kotov, E.V. |
| citation_txt | Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization / Yu.I. Zhykhareva, E.V. Kotov // Економічний вісник Донбасу. — 2014. — № 4(38). — С. 20-26. — Бібліогр.: 16 назв. — англ. |
| collection | DSpace DC |
| container_title | Економічний вісник Донбасу |
| description | In the article the concept reindustrializatsiyi, the conditions of its occurrence, existence and transition to the concept of "new industrialization". The positive effects neoindustrializatsiyi social conditions of small and medium industrial businesses.For each stage of modernization of the defined set of indicators formulas weighing these indicators and integral values of phases each stage of modernization.
У статті розглянуто поняття реіндустріалізації, умов її виникнення, існування та переходу до поняття "нової індустріалізації". Виявлено позитивні соціальні ефекти неоіндустріалізації, умови розвитку дрібного і середнього промислового бізнесу. Для кожної стадії модернізаціїї визначено набіріндикаторів. також формули зважування цих індикаторів та інтегральні значення фаз кожної стадії модернізації.
В статье рассмотрено понятие реиндустриализации, условий ее возникновения и существования и переход к понятию «новой индустриализации». Обнаружены позитивне социальные эффекты неоиндустриализации, условия развития мелкого и среднего промышленного бизнеса. Для каждой стадии модернизации определен набор индикаторов, а также формулы взвешивания этих индикаторов и интегральные значения фаз каздой стадии модернизации.
|
| first_indexed | 2025-11-24T16:25:06Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
Yu. I. Zhykhareva, E. V. Кotov
20
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(38), 2014
UDC 338.24
Yu. I. Zhykhareva,
PhD (Physico-Mathematics), Kyiv,
E. V. Кotov,
PhD (Economics), Kyiv
FORMATION OF METHODOLOGICAL SUPPORT ASSESSMENT
OF NEOINDUSTRIAL MODERNIZATION
The beginning of the XXI century is the era of the
rise of crisis tendencies, and as a result, many imbal-
ances of economic development. The instability of the
current economic model, which led to talk about the
general crisis of capitalism has necessitated the devel-
opment of new models of economic policy of the West.
Reindustrialization is the concept of the new industrial
policy, which focused on strengthening the industrial
base of the economy on qualitatively new basis. It has
become one of the measures to ensure the steady
growth of national economies of developed countries
and to strengthen their economic security within unsta-
ble global economy. As a measure of the new industri-
al policy of reindustrialization is seen mainly within
political economy analysis, but detection of conceptual
frameworks is beyond purely economic issues, and
allows to correlate reindustrialization with modern
modernization process [1; 2]. Modernization of devel-
oping countries, led to them formation of the neoindus-
trial economic base and model of society that is built
the last one. This society has value and ideological
installations inherent to developed modern. This
caused a movement of industrial capacity of developed
nations of the West to the newly industrialized coun-
tries with technologies of mainly 4th technological
generation. The reduction of the industrial base at the
expense of technologies of 3rd and 4th generations,
"deindustrialization", was explained by the necessary
of transformation of the economic foundation of socie-
ty, within the period of development "after modern". In
addition, the permanent scientific-technological revolu-
tion as a "driver" of socio-economic development be-
gan to shift from industrial to post-industrial areas,
from the production of material goods to the produc-
tion of information and services. The described chang-
es have been conceptualized in post-industrial scheme
of public transformation and in some way reflect a loss
of material production role of its driving force.
However, "without such manufacturing - even
modern, highly efficient, minimizing the use of human
labor and material resources, but manufacturing - the
state, even the most highly developed, can not rely on
the fact that for a long period to retain the commanding
heights of world politics and economy" [3, p. 31]. Post-
industrial transformation of developed countries have
not led to the formation of a sustainable model of cri-
sis-free development; conversely, the need to over-
come further degradation and destruction of industrial
infrastructure have arose. The solution to this problem
is possible only within the framework of reindustriali-
zation – a process which is a reproduction of a new
industrial base of the economy and giving it the role of
the driving force of economic and social development.
Reindustrialization not imply the mechanical repetition
of traditional industrialization, which was the driver of
the former previous stages of the modernization: it is in
fact the new wave of modernization that happens on a
new long wave of scientific and technological progress.
The development of high technology begins to make
transformative effect on industrial and preindustrial
manufacturing methods by improving their means.
Analogies of this process can be found in the past
when industrial development started making direct
effect on the agricultural sector and other pre-industrial
sphere through revolutionary upgrade of traditional
tools and technologies. Thus, successful reindustriali-
zation presupposes the existence of developed post-
industrial sector in the economy. Technological
groundwork created by this is a prerequisite for neoin-
dustrialization, because allows upgrades based on the
prevalence of high-tech industry. At the same time,
post-industrial transformation does not necessarily
imply neoindustrialization in its historically specific
forms – as a new industrial policy of developed coun-
tries, which carried out within the framework of their
national economies. In the presence of an open world
globalized economy postindustrial progress can go to
any place in the world which has developed industrial
base. However, the new wave of modernization has
great opportunities to realize where the previous one is
completely finished; the process of de-industrialization
is actually a historical precondition for the "new indus-
trialization".
Consideration of neoindustrialization as a phe-
nomenon that occurs primarily within national econo-
mies, requires ascertaining of some contradictions
between its ideology and the ideology of globalism.
First of all, unlike globalization, neoindustrialization
has a subject: it is the state that conducts a deliberate
policy of not return of lost industry, and creation of a
new one. The literature stands out a range of measures
of industrial policy, as wide (import, export support,
increase of credit resources, reform of the tax system)
as well sectoral [4, p. 27]. There is another contradic-
Yu. I. Zhykhareva, E. V. Кotov
21
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(38), 2014
tion, also. This contradiction is between active role of
the state, which involving the creation of optimal con-
ditions for its industry, and the principles of free mar-
ket and international competition.
The very existence of such contradictions shows
that the ideology of reindustrialization has significant
differences from the old liberal ideology of industrial
modernization in the West. Inherent in it ideologemes
of open borders, free markets and the rejection of pro-
tectionism contribute to the establishment of a global
economy which frameworks make modernization
waves are not confined within national economies and
facilitating the movement of capital and industries
where this created the best conditions. On the one
hand, overcoming deindustrialization, which became
one of the consequences of globalization entails the
partial rejection of liberal ideology. But on the other
hand – the reproduction of production potential once de
industrialized countries is essentially a manifestation of
the same logic that once led to deindustrialization: a
capital moves followed by favorable business. At the
same time there are some differences between modern
neoindustrialization or reindustrialization and the so-
cialist model of traditional industrial modernization:
the active role of state in the "new industrial policy" is
not imply centralized planning the modernization pro-
cess in all various of its manifestations. Despite the
focus on the "closure" of production chains within the
national economies, the talk about withdrawal of neo-
industrialized countries from the network of world
economic relations which have developed in the global
capitalist economy does not occurs.
It seems that specifying sign of ideology of neo-
industrialization can be described with the words of
Daniel Bell "subordination of economic function to
social objectives" [5, p. 22]; and this is also a contra-
diction with the ideology of globalism, which oppo-
sites "the imperialism of economic component" to
social policy [6, p.24]. Deindustrialization has played a
negative role in the ability the states to fulfill their
social obligations, that is why aims and objectives of a
social nature can not fail to be taken into account when
developing the new industrial policy from now. In this
context positive social effects of neoindustrialization
include: increased employment, increased incomes,
improvement of the business climate, budget support
of different areas across the financial capacity of the
state and so on., which greatly increased. At the same
time, as A. Andreev notes, "the successful implementa-
tion of industrial policy becomes a cause of social
problems itself" [4, p.28]. Thus, the new wave of mod-
ernization which is related to neoindustrialization leads
to increase in labor productivity and, as a result, dis-
missal of the traditional industrial workers. The change
in the structure of employment and the development of
new types can be a one way to solve the contradiction
between the creation of new jobs and layoffs due to the
modernization of manufacturing. The coincidence of
industrialization with new post-industrial shifts allows
to use postindustrial type of employment in industrial
manufacturing: industry that do not require a large
number of employees, may be formed on the basis of
some innovative technologies and development, or
even individual manufacturing functions. Thus, the
development will boost small and medium-sized indus-
trial business, which can be the bearer of such values
as freedom of entrepreneurship, private initiative, the
ability to succeed at their own competencies and oth-
ers. The former traditional industrial modernization led
to the establishment of state-monopoly capitalism, then
turned to deindustrialization and gradually washed
away social base of such values. However neoindustri-
alization able to contribute to its strengthening, despite
the increased role of the state as regulator and supervi-
sor of economic and social processes.
«The industrialization of the XIX-XX centuries,
which experienced all the developed industrial coun-
tries (even as recently said – highly developed coun-
tries), the phenomenon is more or less clear: the extra-
human and extra-animal energy (the coal and steam,
the oil and internal combustion engine, electricity with
current that running through the wires); metal, ma-
chinery, machine tools, parts, unearthly engines;
mechanized factories, mines; partial worker, who also
is an appendage of the machine, machine tool, line,
conveyor; machinist, mechanic, technician, engineer;
self-propelled land, water and air transport; railways,
highways, airports, underground and elevated metro;
wired and wireless communications; large industrial
or with the industry, or simply industrially equipped
city; industrialized agriculture. The equipped industri-
al living space, industrial and lifestyle related and
industrial landscapes correspond to the industrializa-
tion. Nice and all welcomed industrial revolution with
the industrial revolution of all earthly existence: from
nature to nonnature, from natural to art, from naturali-
ty to artificiality!
There is harder with neoindustrialization, be-
cause, on the one hand, it is continued industrializa-
tion, and with another - its negation. Considering with
negation together, not only in terms of conservation of
all, or nearly all, or just a lot of industrial - as the
basis of (positing), but also in terms of additions for
already old industrial by qualitatively new industrial,
which is already not quite industrial - not metalline,
not machinine, not heavy, not weight not visible -
namely, chemical, biological, microworld, countably
informational, automatic, timeless, spaceless, unearth-
ly (cosmic) megaworld, already largely extra-human
(instead-human). A sort neoindustrial industry, or may
be, at least in part of its - and simply neoindustry, but
rather - " technation" technologism, technum. And it so
happened that in the last quarter of XX century highly
industrialized countries have definitely move on to
Yu. I. Zhykhareva, E. V. Кotov
22
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(38), 2014
neoindustrialism which was presciently named even
post-industrialism, which, in general, is correct, but in
conjunction with the reality still is not quite, because
the industry has remained, and post-industrialism have
enough of industrialism – the common to the whole of
the industrial age, not only the "iron" industrial age.
And in the early XXI century it became quite clear that
the advanced countries have become countries with a
powerful post-industrial neo-industrial moment.
The USSR clearly missed its large-scale neoindus-
trialization in its recently. Of course, something was,
but not widely, not volume, not sequentially. It was
possible even to plan industry, but ne industry, its crea-
tion – already no. This is wrong world, this is not
planned, because it is very much closed, unknown,
undefined, independent, willful, capricious, and even
insidious. It was possible to design it, at least for tar-
get-posited funding and incentive, but it was no one to
do it for, because scheduled agents - is not agents at
all, they are only artists, but the great initiators are
required here, that is not so accountable servicemen as
their own acting agents, which was not exist, as it was
no an effective self-organization at the bottom coupled
with an innovative initiative from below, because all
this was foreign for the total planned system, and it
could not to adjust itself to the stimulative design,
and... could not. The "plan - planning - planning"
dogma won the reality, which required only orienta-
tion-assisting design at the top, and a great creative
activity of all possible neoindustrialization agents that
seem to have been technically, but was not economical-
ly, at the bottom. As a result, the country was left with-
out the necessary neoindustrialization, and then, with-
out a lot of industrialism, as the result of the "reforms"
of the 1990s - both died in accordance with " say-so"
from above and do not withstand the competition from
the outside - from abroad. And what is today? And
today, the problem of self (a) neoindustrialism, and
possibly that with some recovery of industrialism, faces
just before the country at least for the sake of national
security.
Is not to say that we have no our neoindustrial-
ism, that all of it is borrowed, but it can be certainty
said that it is clearly not enough, and not so for the
reproduction of this being, as for its all-round devel-
opment, but not in breadth, not quantified as it was
under industrialism, but depth and quality - as it
should be under neoindustrialism. Now it is important
not so equip society industrial base, although its quali-
ty improving is expected, as to equip a society of new
techno-technological system, which qualitatively
changes the whole way of life, not only in the direction
of its intellectual and the operational complexity, but
also in the direction of its economy, and about the
nature and most human. Do not limitless consumption
of man and nature, but their full savings - with a paral-
lel attaching to being of an existential responsibility,
behavioral modesty and vital proportion. Neoindustri-
alism - is not mere material and technical facilities
update, and this is not only update the material and
technical bases of life, this is also the renewal of man,
of his consciousness; society and its organizations;
culture, and its formal expression; civilization, and its
mechanism. Neoindustrialism – is essential (and even
essential) changes in the outlook, in categorical
equipment of knowing, meditating, and displays pro-
jecting intelligence, in discourses, in languages, in
communications, in sociability (net-like, netium), as
well as, of course, in the man as in the subject of being
(human-computer instead of just a human; computer-
human instead of just a computer). Hence the indispen-
sable novelties in the upbringing, education, enlight-
enment, formation of the person and his personal
world, already least of all socially sustainable - closed-
cell, family, collective, but above all individnyh, stand-
alone, atomic, but, nevertheless, very mobile. One way
or another, but neoindustrialism - is another part of
being, additional, riser, but also advanced, leading,
influential, if not dominant.
The pure intellect with free intellectualism owned
a special place in the neo-industrial society-netium.
Life, management, organization, updating - now it is a
big intelligence-game in which the main prize is... this
very game! Something like a modern cosmopolitan
football, but just without terrible dimensionless fees.
All the same who all the same where, all the same for
which - if only the process-game - continuous and en-
tertaining! Neoindustrialism against not only tradition,
but also of any permanence. It against all the bases,
bases, roots and attachments. All the same which one -
the Fathers, "native", regional, country, folk, national,
continental, and even the earth. Like it to someone or
not, but neoindustrialism – is a sort of sub-system is
not only the highest, but also... high anti-system - cor-
rosive, facilitating and devastated the existence of any
stable, although it parasite need. Neoindustrialism is
so creative in virtual-intellectual sphere, as so destruc-
tive in real-life. Neo-industrial revolution - albeit a
need and an inevitable measure, but at the same time
and quite a dangerous game - a life and death! Neoin-
dustrialism has more death than life! That is why there
needs understanding, discernment and anxiety, leading
to control and curb neoindustrialism: neoindustrialism
leads to the final alteration human posthuman, and
society posthuman mass. Neoindustrialism – perhaps,
without knowing, – involuntarily calling out to the
instinct of universal security, which able to realize
itself within the framework of reasonable neo-
industrial policy.
Neo-industrial policy can not fail to include not
only incentives of neoindustrialism, but also and con-
trol over it. In general - a holistic comprehensive regu-
lation by the responsible for the human survival regu-
latory center. Neo-industrial imperialism, not to men-
Yu. I. Zhykhareva, E. V. Кotov
23
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(38), 2014
tion fascism - not only virtual, but very real possibility!
That is why the need comes up as a tactical developing
neoindustrialism as its strategic sequencing, even lim-
iting, central dirigisme, and in this particular case –
neodirigisme. Neodirigisme – is the dirigisme of era of
neoindustrialism: flexible, discrete, motivating, game
(something like a referee at a football field). This is
dirigisme, combined with neo-liberalism, which, unlike
the industrial liberalism, is no stranger to some self-
restraint and do not reject limits and guidelines given
by dirigisme» [7].
For each stage of modernization we defined a set
of indicators, the share of which is universal, and their
reference (standard) values (Tab. 1). Reference values
for indicators modernization vary depending on the
stage of modernization, the assessment of which they
are used.
Table 1
The indicators of assessment of modernization stages and their reference values
The indicator’s name
(specification of used parameter)
Reference value
industrial
modernization
post-industrial
modernization
neoindustrial
modernization
Economic indicators
Gross regional product (GRP) per capita, UAH. 34746,571 2000002 200000
The share of value added in agriculture in GRP, % 153 х х
The share of value added in services in GRP, % 45 х 72
The share of value added in the material sphere (the share of
agricultural and industrial added value in GRP), %
х 28 х
The share of people employed in agriculture, % 30 х х
The share of employment in services, % х х 72
The share of labor in the material sphere (the proportion of peo-
ple employed in agriculture and industry), %
х 28 х
The share of recycled waste х х 100
Social indicators
The share of urban population (urbanization level), % 50 78 78
Medical services (number of doctors per 1,000 inhabitants), ‰ 1 3 3
The infant mortality rate (number of deaths per 1000 live births),
‰
30 2 х
Life expectancy, years 70 79 79
Indicators of knowledge and innovation in knowledge
The level of literacy among adults, % 80 х х
The share of persons with secondary education (the proportion of
students in secondary schools, the population of the correspond-
ing age), %
х 100 х
The share of people with higher education (the proportion of
students receiving higher education among the population of the
relevant age), %
15 67 67
Financing innovation in knowledge (the cost to R&D and GRP),
%
х 3 3
The human contribution to innovation in knowledge (the number
of scientists and engineers in R&D underemployed, population
10,000), people.
х 50 х
Patents for innovation in knowledge (the number of people that
apply for patents per 1 million. Inhabitants), people.
х 774 774
The prevalence of the Internet (the number of Internet users per
100 inhabitants), people.
х 70 70
the proportion of those who raised the qualification and got a
new profession
х х 25
х – the indicator is not used for the estimation of modernization stage.
1 The default value is accepted at the level of 6399 USD for 2000. In these calculations, the default value provided
by NBU is 5.43 UAH to 1 USD for 2005.
2 In determining the arithmetic mean of the indicator used values of the United Kingdom, Germany, China, Italy,
USA, France and Japan for the correspondent year. Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
/ www.oecd.org. - 2013. - Access:http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SNA_TABLE4.
3 This and other default values suggested by the authors of The Overview report [8].
Yu. I. Zhykhareva, E. V. Кotov
24
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(38), 2014
All indicators are divided into two groups - stimu-
lants and destimulants. Stimulants (positive indica-
tors) – are indicators, the increase in which value ac-
celerates the modernization. The inverse indicators
(destimulants) are indicators which values are holding
back growth processes of modernization. The destimu-
lants of industrial modernization is the infant mortality
rate, the proportion of value added and employment in
agriculture; for post-industrial modernization – this is
the infant mortality rate, the proportion of value added
and labor in the material (industry, along with agricul-
ture) sector. All other indicators are stimulants. Des-
timulants are not used for calculating and integrated the
modernization.
Each indicator is weighing by comparing it to the
baseline (standard) value. Weighing of indicators car-
ried by the formula:
a) for positive (stimulants) indicators:
Ii = (RVIND / BVIND) х 100 (1)
b) for inverse (destimulants) indicators:
Ii = (BVIND / RVIND) х 100 (2)
where Ii – is development index of the i-th indicator;
RVIND – real (actual) value of i-th indicator;1
BVIND – basic (standard) value of i-th indicator.
For industrial modernization i = 1 ÷ 10; post-
industrial modernization i = 1 ÷ 16; for integrated
modernization i = 1 ÷ 12.
The indices indicators groups and index of inte-
gral stage of modernization are defined after indicators
weighing. Indices of the industrial and integrated mod-
ernization are based on three groups of indicators, indi-
ces of post-industrial modernization - are based on four
ones. The formula used to modernization indexes is as
follows:
a) for post-industrial stage of modernization:
IPM = (IK + IKT + ILQ + IEQ) / 4 (3)
where IPM - postindustrial modernization index;
IK – knowledge innovation index (IK = Σ Ii/3,
i = 1÷3);
IKT – knowledge transfer index (IKT = ΣIi/4,
i = 4÷7);
ILQ – life quality index (ILQ = ΣIi/5, i = 8÷12);
IEQ – economy quality index (IEQ = ΣIi/4,
i = 13÷16);
b) for industrial and integrated modernization:
IIM = (IEI + ISI + IKI) / 3 (4)
where IIM – industrial / integrated modernization index;
1 In this calculations, the publishing of The State
Statistics Service listed on the website under "Publica-
tions"\"Regional Statistics" and printed sources [10, 11]
was used as sources of the real (actual) indicators. Access:
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua
IEI – economic indicators index (IEI = ΣIi/4,
i = 1÷4);
ISI – social indicators index (ISI = ΣIi/4, i = 5÷8);
IKI – knowledge indicators index (for industrial
modernization IKI = ΣIi/2, i = 9÷10; for integrated
modernization IKI = ΣIi/4, i = 9÷12).
The industrial and post-industrial stage of mod-
ernization comprises the following phases of evolution:
beginning, development, prosperity and the transition
to the next stage of modernization. The instruments
used to determine the stage of modernization phase
involves the use of indicators of relevant stage only.
The result of the final assessment is the total indexes
and integral values of phases of each modernization
stage. Indicators of industrial modernization phases are
shown in Tab. 2, postindustrial – Tab. 3. Phases and
phase values of integrated modernization are not con-
sidered.
Table 2
Classification of phases and values of the signal
indicators of the industrial modernization
Phase The ratio
of value
added in
agricul-
ture to
GRP
The ratio
of value
added in
agricul-
ture to
value
added in
industry
The ratio
of agricul-
tural em-
ployment
to total
employ-
ment
The ratio
of agricul-
tural em-
ployment
to indus-
trial em-
ployment
Transition-
al phase
<5% <0,2 <10% <0,2
Blossom-
ing phase
≥5%,
<15%
≥0,2;
<0,8
≥10%,
<30%
≥0,2; <0,8
Develop-
ment phase
≥15%,
<30%
≥0,8;
<2,0
≥30%,
<50%
≥0,8; <2,0
Initial
phase
≥30%,
<50%
≥2,0;
<5,0
≥50%,
<80%
≥2,0; <5,0
Traditional
society
≥50% ≥5,0 ≥80% ≥5,0
The following values assigned for each phase of
industrial modernization: traditional society – 0; initial
phase – 1; development phase – 2; blossoming phase –
3; transitional phase – 4. The calculation of the devel-
opment phase of industrial modernization (PIM) is car-
ried out by the formula:
PIM = (VVAA + VVAA/VAI + VEA + VEA/EI) / 4, (5)
where VVAA – phase set value determined based on the
ratio of value added in agriculture (0÷4);
VVAA/VAI – phase set value determined based on
the ratio of value added in agriculture to value added in
industry (0÷4);
VEA – phase set value determined based on the
share index of agricultural employment in the total
employment structure (0÷4);
Yu. I. Zhykhareva, E. V. Кotov
25
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(38), 2014
VEA/EI – phase set value determined based on the
ratio of employment in agriculture to employment in
industry (0÷4).
Table 3
Classification of phases and values of the signal
indicators of the post-industrial modernization
Phase The share of
value added in
the material
sphere
The share of em-
ployment in mate-
rial sphere
Blossoming
phase
<20% <20%
Development
phase
≥20%, <30% ≥20%, <30%
Initial phase ≥30%, <40% ≥30%, <40%
Preparatory
phase
≥40%, <50% ≥40%, <50%
The following values assigned for each phase of
post-industrial modernization: initial phase - 1; devel-
opment phase - 2; blossoming phase - 3. The calcula-
tion of the development phase of post-industrial mod-
ernization (PPM) is carried out by the formula:
PPM = (VVAMP + VEMP) / 2, (6)
where VVAMP – phase set value determined based on
the real value added of material production (0÷3);
VEMP – phase set value determined based on the
real rate of the share of employment in material pro-
duction in the structure of total employment (1÷3).
The index of industrial or classical modernization
represents a progress of socio-economic system in the
transition from an agrarian to an industrial-type of
manufacturing. There is a departure from primitive
forms of manufacturing, which developing primarily in
the areas that provide the extracting, primary pro-
cessing of resources and require workers with low
qualifications. The manufacturing of a wide range of
pre-defined products that provide increasing skills
comes instead of extraction of natural resources.
References.
1. Обзорный доклад о модернизации в мире и
Китае (2001-2010) / Пер. с англ. под общей редак-
цией Н.И. Лапина/Предисл. Н.И. Лапин, Г.А.
Тосунян. – М.: Издательство «Весь Мир», 2011. –
256 с. 2. Смолий К. Реиндустриализация: социаль-
но-философский аспект / К. Смолий // Свободная
мысль. – 2014. – №1. – С. 202-205. 3. Спасский Н.
О твердой силе и реиндустриализации России /
Н. Спасский // Россия в глобальной политике. –
2011. – № 6. С. 27-35. 4. Андреев А. Ф. Реинду-
стриализация. О подходах к разработке промыш-
ленной политики и ее основных элементов // Сво-
бодная Мысль. – 2011. – № 10. – С. 24-32. 5. Белл
Д. Грядущее постиндустриальное общество. Опыт
социального прогнозирования / Д. Белл. – М.:
Academia, 2004. – 426 с. 6. Бек У. Что такое глоба-
лизация? Ошибки глобализма – ответы на глобали-
зацию / У. Бек. – М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2001. –
316 с. 7. Осипов Ю.М. Неоиндустриализация: су-
щность, значение и механизм реализации [Элек-
тронный ресурс] / Ю.М. Осипов. – Режим доступа:
www.econ.msu.ru/cmt2/lib/c/1450/file/Neoindystrializ
aciya_1%281%29.pdf. 8. Ляшенко В.І. Україна
ХХІ: неоіндустріальна держава або «крах проек-
ту»? / В.І. Ляшенко, Є.В. Котов. – К.: Ін-т економі-
ки пром-сті НАН України. 2015. – 196 с. 9. Chu-
machenko М. G. Neoindustrial ways of national
Ukrainian and Donbass regional economical develop-
ment . Part I / М. G. Chumachenko, O. I. Amosha,
V. І. Lyashenko // Економічний вісник Донбасу. –
2010. – № 4. – С. 18-25. 10. Chumachenko М. G.
Neoindustrial ways of national Ukrainian and Donbass
regional economical development. Part II / / М. G.
Chumachenko, O. I. Amosha, V. І. Lyashenko // Еко-
номічний вісник Донбасу . – 2011. – № 4. – С. 21-
32. 11. Zhykhareva Y. I. Application of number theo-
ry methods for task solution of intertemporal balance
in economy / Y. I. Zhykhareva // Економічний вісник
Донбасу . – 2010. – № 4. – С. 49-54. 12. Lyashenko
S. V. Modeling the interaction among the Ukrainian
and foreign stock markets / S. V. Lyashenko // Еко-
номічний вісник Донбасу . – 2010. – № 4. – С. 122-
128. 13. Lyashenko S. V. Capital Market in Ukraine
and Ways of Cooperation with the Countries of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) / S. V.
Lyashenko // Economic Herald of the Donbas. –
2011. – №4. – P. 151-162. 14. Lyashenko S. V. Sys-
tem of Indicators of Governance and Institutional
Quality: Ukraine’s Performance / S. V. Lyashenko //
Економічний вісник Донбасу. – 2012. – № 4. –
С. 20-24. 15. Lyashenko V. I. Quasi-tangible assets of
Modern Neo-industrialism and Necessity of Creation
of Adequate Mechanism of Exchange for TheirTrad-
ing / V. I. Lyashenko, Y. I. Tulku // Економічний
вісник Донбасу. – 2012. – № 4. – С. 175-180.
16. Lyashenko V. I. Expediency of Application of the
Regional and Municipal (Communal) Wealth Indica-
tors at the Generation of the Regional and Urban De-
velopment Strategies / V. I. Lyashenko, Yu. I. Zhyk-
hareva, O. S. Vyshnevskyy // Економічний вісник
Донбасу. – 2013. – № 4. – С. 75-80.
Жихарєва Ю. І., Котов Є. В. Формування
методології оцінки підтримки неоіндустріальної
модернізації
У статті розглянуто поняття реіндустріалізації,
умов її виникнення, існування та переходу до по-
няття "нової індустріалізації". Виявлено позитивні
соціальні ефекти неоіндустріалізації, умови розви-
тку дрібного і середнього промислового бізнесу.
Для кожної стадії модернізаціїї визначено набір
Yu. I. Zhykhareva, E. V. Кotov
26
Економічний вісник Донбасу № 4(38), 2014
індикаторів. також формули зважування цих інди-
каторів та інтегральні значення фаз кожної стадії
модернізації.
Ключові слова: реіндустріалізація, неоіндуст-
ріалізація, неоідустріальна модернізація, інтеграль-
на модернізація.
Жихарева Ю. B., Котов Е. В. Формирование
методологии оценки поддержки неоиндустри-
альной модернизации
В статье рассмотрено понятие реиндустриали-
зации, условий ее возникновения и существования
и переход к понятию «новой индустриализации».
Обнаружены позитивне социальные эффекты
неоиндустриализации, условия развития мелкого и
среднего промышленного бизнеса. Для каждой
стадии модернизации определен набор индикато-
ров, а также формулы взвешивания этих индикато-
ров и интегральные значения фаз каздой стадии
модернизации.
Ключевые слова: реиндустриализация, неоин-
дустриализация, неоидустриальная модернизация,
интегральна модернизация.
Zhykhareva Yu. I., Кotov E. V. Formation of
Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindus-
trial Modernization
In the article the concept reindustrializatsiyi, the
conditions of its occurrence, existence and transition to
the concept of "new industrialization". The positive
effects neoindustrializatsiyi social conditions of small
and medium industrial businesses.
For each stage of modernization of the defined set
of indicators formulas weighing these indicators and
integral values of phases each stage of modernization.
Keywords: reindustrialization, neoindustrial eco-
nomic, neoindustrial modernization, integrated mod-
ernization.
Received by the editors: 27.11.2014
and final form 23.12.2014
|
| id | nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-87612 |
| institution | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| issn | 1817-3772 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-24T16:25:06Z |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publisher | Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | Zhykhareva, Yu.I. Kotov, E.V. 2015-10-22T09:01:03Z 2015-10-22T09:01:03Z 2014 Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization / Yu.I. Zhykhareva, E.V. Kotov // Економічний вісник Донбасу. — 2014. — № 4(38). — С. 20-26. — Бібліогр.: 16 назв. — англ. 1817-3772 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/87612 338.24 In the article the concept reindustrializatsiyi, the conditions of its occurrence, existence and transition to the concept of "new industrialization". The positive effects neoindustrializatsiyi social conditions of small and medium industrial businesses.For each stage of modernization of the defined set of indicators formulas weighing these indicators and integral values of phases each stage of modernization. У статті розглянуто поняття реіндустріалізації, умов її виникнення, існування та переходу до поняття "нової індустріалізації". Виявлено позитивні соціальні ефекти неоіндустріалізації, умови розвитку дрібного і середнього промислового бізнесу. Для кожної стадії модернізаціїї визначено набіріндикаторів. також формули зважування цих індикаторів та інтегральні значення фаз кожної стадії модернізації. В статье рассмотрено понятие реиндустриализации, условий ее возникновения и существования и переход к понятию «новой индустриализации». Обнаружены позитивне социальные эффекты неоиндустриализации, условия развития мелкого и среднего промышленного бизнеса. Для каждой стадии модернизации определен набор индикаторов, а также формулы взвешивания этих индикаторов и интегральные значения фаз каздой стадии модернизации. en Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України Економічний вісник Донбасу Economic Theory Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization Формування методології оцінки підтримки неоіндустріальної модернізації Формирование методологии оценки поддержки неоиндустриальной модернизации Article published earlier |
| spellingShingle | Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization Zhykhareva, Yu.I. Kotov, E.V. Economic Theory |
| title | Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization |
| title_alt | Формування методології оцінки підтримки неоіндустріальної модернізації Формирование методологии оценки поддержки неоиндустриальной модернизации |
| title_full | Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization |
| title_fullStr | Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization |
| title_full_unstemmed | Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization |
| title_short | Formation of Methodological Support Assessment of Neoindustrial Modernization |
| title_sort | formation of methodological support assessment of neoindustrial modernization |
| topic | Economic Theory |
| topic_facet | Economic Theory |
| url | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/87612 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zhykharevayui formationofmethodologicalsupportassessmentofneoindustrialmodernization AT kotovev formationofmethodologicalsupportassessmentofneoindustrialmodernization AT zhykharevayui formuvannâmetodologííocínkipídtrimkineoíndustríalʹnoímodernízacíí AT kotovev formuvannâmetodologííocínkipídtrimkineoíndustríalʹnoímodernízacíí AT zhykharevayui formirovaniemetodologiiocenkipodderžkineoindustrialʹnoimodernizacii AT kotovev formirovaniemetodologiiocenkipodderžkineoindustrialʹnoimodernizacii |