Systemic-structural analysis of the machine-building enterprises economic sustainability formation mechanism
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(3).2019.32
-
Article InfoVolume 17 2019, Issue #3, pp. 395-409
- Cited by
-
Funding dataFunder name: Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, UkraineFunder identifier: Development of an online platform analysis and scenario planning of sustainability of Ukrainian regions in the context of the quality and safety of human lifeAward numbers: number of state registration 0117U002476
- 802 Views
-
122 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Machine-building complex is a system-forming element of Ukrainian economy. Functioning of other industries in many respects depends on the results of its activity. Harsh conditions of globalized economic environment and geopolitical changes taking place in the country have negatively affected the state of machine-building enterprises and determined the need for increasing the level of their economic sustainability. As a result of using the systemic-structural approach, which is being developed in the context of the provisions of systemic economic theory, systemic-structural analysis of economic sustainability of several machine-building enterprises was performed. The study was conducted based on a sample of 16 machine-building enterprises and covered the 2015−2016 period. Economic sustainability was analyzed by way of defining in the structure of enterprises, econometric modeling and assessing the state of four subsystems with different space and time localization and further defining the level of mutual balance. The set of individual parameters for modeling every subsystem was determined mainly by way of regrouping of baseline statistical indicators, as well as expert assessments. Using such an approach enabled to determine structural peculiarities of machine-building enterprises development during the analyzed period and their effect on formation of volatility and stability properties, which ensure their sustainability in space and time. During the analyzed period, the determined disproportions of the subsystems in the structure of enterprises had systemic nature. The identification of economic manifestations of the determined disproportions enabled to formally define non-trivial dependencies between the economic phenomena, which took place in machine building, and to define the nature of their influence on the mechanism of economic sustainability formation. The risks affecting every subsystem under study had volatile nature, that’s why the issue of systemic risk management remains relevant.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)B59, C12, С59, D92, L69, O12, Р51
-
References32
-
Tables5
-
Figures5
-
- Figure 1. Graphical model of the ideal configuration of the enterprise system balanced structure
- Figure 2. Graphical models of the enterprise subsystems structure by year for the 2005–2016 period (generalized by the group of enterprises)
- Figure 3. Correlation of the levels of the properties expressiveness, which ensure the sustainability of enterprises (generalized by groups of enterprises)
- Figure 4. The diagram of the change of the levels of properties expressiveness, which ensure the sustainability of enterprises, for the 2005–2016 period (generalized by the group of enterprises)
- Figure 5. Generalized characteristic of the defined structural peculiarities of enterprises and their influence on functionality and sustainability formation mechanism
-
- Table 1. Division of structural-functional elements of the enterprise by the subsystems
- Table 2. Determination of peculiarities, which ensure the sustainability of the enterprise economic system
- Table 3. Index values of machine-building enterprises subsystems for the 2005–2016 period (generalized by the group of enterprises)
- Table 4. Indicators of mutual balance of enterprise subsystems for the 2005–2016 period (generalized by the group of enterprises)
- Table 5. Characteristic of features and functional consequences of structural violations, caused by relative deficit or proficit of certain subsystems in the enterprise structure
-
- Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Overy, P., & Denyer, D. (2012). Innovating for Sustainability: a Systematic Review of the Body of Knowledge. Network for Business Sustainability.
- Chernozatonskaya, E., & Ivanyushchenkova, M. (2017, June 6). Люди не верят в честные правила игры (интервью Петр Авен) [Lyudi ne veryat v chestnye pravila igry (intervyu Petr Aven)]. Harvard Business Review Russia.
- Dergachova, V., Kravchenko, M., & Zgurovsky, A. (2017). Econometric analysis of structure and sustainability of Ukrainian socio-economic system in the context of economic system theory. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15(4), 86-99.
- Fedulova, L. І. (2007). Інноваційний розвиток промисловості України [Іnnovatsіinii rozvitok promislovostі Ukraїni]. Aktual’nі problemi ekonomіki, 3 (69), 86-99.
- Gimpelson, V. E., Kapelyushnikov, R. I., & Lukyanova, A. L. (2007). Спрос на труд и квалификацию в промышленности: между дефицитом и избытком [Spros na trud i kvalifikatsiyu v promyshlennostI: mezhdu defitsitom i izbytkom]. Ehkonomicheskii zhurnal Vysshei Shkoly Ehkonomiki, 11 (2), 163-199.
- Kleiner, G. B. (2007). Системная парадигма в экономических исследованиях: новый подход [Sistemnaya paradigma v ekonomicheskikh issledovaniyakh: novyy podkhod]. Civilization of knowledge: Russian realities: Proceedings of the Eighth Scientific Conference (April 20-21). Moscow.
- Kleiner, G. B. (2013). System economics as a platform for the development of modern economic theory. Problems of economics, 6, 4-28.
- Kleiner, G. B. (2009). A new theory of economic systems and its application to economic policy studies. Russian research center working paper series, 13, 1-31.
- Kleiner, G. B. (2011). The system resource of the economy. Issues of Economics, 1, 89-100.
- Kleiner, G. B. (2015). The state – region – industry – enterprise: the framework of system sustainability of the Russian economy (Part 1). The economy of the region, 2, 50-58.
- Kleiner, G. B. (2016). Economy. Modeling. Mathematics: selected works. Moscow: CEMI RAS.
- Kornai, J. (1998). The System Paradigm (William Davidson Institute Working Papers, 278).
- Kornai, J. (2016). The System Paradigm Revisited. Clarification and Additions. In the Light of Experiences in the Post-Socialist Region. Acta Oeconomica, 66, 547-596.
- Kotelnikov, V. (2017). Современная экономика: Основные черты новой эпохи быстрых перемен [Sovremennaya ekonomika: osnovnye cherty novoy epokhi bystrykh peremen]. Center for entrepreneurial creativity and systemic innovation.
- Kravchenko, M. O. (2016). Structural balance as a basis of the economic sustainability of an enterprise. World scientific news, 57, 300-308.
- Libman, A. M. (2007). Современная экономическая теория: основные тенденции [Sovremennaya ekonomicheskaya teoriya: osnovnye tendentsii]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 3, 36-54.
- Lototska, S. V. (2011). Теоретико-методологічні підходи до обґрунтування механізму управління економічною стійкістю підприємства [Teoretiko-metodologіchnі pіdkhodi do obgruntuvannya mekhanіzmu upravlіnnya ekonomіchnoyu stіikіstyu pіdpriєmstva]. Naukovі pratsі Natsіonal’nogo unіversitetu kharchovikh tekhnologіi, 39, 198-203.
- Marchenko, V. M., Novak, V. O., Lototska, S. V., Matveev, V. V., & Danilova, E. I. (2012). Економічна стійкість авіакомпанії: форми та методи забезпечення [Ekonomichna stiikist aviakompanii: formy ta metody zabezpechennia]. Kyiv: Condor.
- Ovcharova, Sn., & Krachunov, Hr. (2013). Innovation Activities in Entrepreneurial Firms: The case of Bulgaria. Іn V. Ramadani, & R. C. Schneider (Eds.), Entrepreneurship in the Balkans (pp. 37-55). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
- Pryor, F. L. (2008). System as a causal force. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 67(3-4), 545-550.
- Rybachuk, M. A. (2014). Анализ и измерение пропорций системной структуры организации: пример университета «Дубна» [Analyz i izmerenie proportsiy sistemnoy struktury organizatsii: primer Universiteta “Dubna”]. Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii, 3(66), 130-146.
- Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business strategy and the environment, 20(4), 222-237.
- Schumpeter, J. (2000). Entrepreneurship as Innovation. In Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View (pp. 51-75).
- Seebode, D., Bessant, J., & Jeanrenaud, S. (2012). Managing innovation for sustainability. R&D Management, 42(3), 195-206.
- Shcherbakov, G. (2012). Anti-innovations as a factor of macroeconomic unsustainability (on the example of derivative financial instruments). Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast, 4, 5-65.
- Sholomitskaya, E. V. (2017). Влияние ключевых макроэкономических шоков на инвестиции в России [Vliyanie klyuchevykh makroekonomicheskikh shokov na investitsii v Russii]. Ekonomicheskiy zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 21(1), 89-113.
- Suleimenov, E. I., Gabrielyan, O. A., Pak, I. T., Panchenko, S. V., & Moon, G. A. (2016). Инновационные сценарии в постиндустриальном обществе [Innovatsionnye stsenarii v postindustrialnom obshchestve. Almaty: Print Express.
- Velykiy, Y. V. (2010). Сучасне машинобудування: криза і її причини [Suchasne mashinobuduvannya: kriza і її prichini]. Vіsnik Donets’kogo natsіonal’nogo unіversitetu ekonomіki і torgіvlі іm. M. Tugan-Baranovs’kogo. Ekonomіka, 4, 6-11.
- Voitko, S. V., & Kravchenko, M. O. (2017). The formation mechanism of economic sustainability of the machine-building enterprises (neo-system approach). Marketing and management of innovations, 4, 211-221.
- Yakovets, Y. (2004). Epochal innovations of the 21st century (439 p.). Moscow: Economics.
- Yergozhin, Ye. Ye., Gabrielyan O. A.., Aryn, Ye. M., Suleymanov, I. E., Беленко, Н. М., Suleymanova, K. I., & Mun G. A. (2010). Нанотехнология. Экономика. Геополитика [Nanotekhnologiya. Ehkonomika. Geopolitika]. Almaty: Print-S, 434.
- Yurynets, Z. (2016). Forecasting model and assessment of the innovative and scientific-technical policy of Ukraine in the sphere of innovative economy formation. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 13(2), 16-23.