UDC 332.1:338.439:005; JEL O13, Q13, Q18, R10, R58
Kazmir, L. P. (2019). Suchasni paradyhmy rozvytku rehional'nykh ahroprodovol'chykh system [Modern development paradigms of regional agrifood systems]. Rehional'na ekonomika - Regional Economy, 94 (4), 94-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2019-4-8. [in Ukrainian].
Sources: 24

Authors

Resume

Increasing demand for food products, globalization of markets, trade liberalization, technological changes in the methods of production and storage of food products require the deepening of research of the theoretical and methodological foundations of the development of agrifood systems at different levels. Taking into account the clearly expressed regional heterogeneity of development of agrifood sector of Ukrainian economy, as well as increasing role and importance of regional level of management in the modern economy, the characteristic features of agriindustrial, territorial and hybrid paradigms of regional systems development are considered in the paper in the context of post-nonclassical methodology. Significant extension of the concept of “development of regional agrifood systems”, which in modern interpretation covers not only traditional issues of organization of production, processing and marketing of agrifood products, but also such subject areas as food security, social inclusivity, nature protection and rural development is outlined. Bortis’s scheme reflecting the ordering of individual elements of reality according to their stability over time was used to analyze the selected paradigms. Particular attention is paid to highlighting the institutional aspects of the development of regional agrifood systems and the role of civil society in this process. It is also noted that the hybrid paradigm, which combines elements of agriindustrial and territorial paradigms and takes into account the incompleteness of transitional processes, is the most suitable for implementation in Ukraine, where during the years of post-socialist transformations the dualistic model of the agrifood sector functioning has been established. Priority directions of research of prospects of development of regional agrifood systems under conditions of strategic rapprochement of Ukraine with the European Union are highlighted.

Keywords:

regional agrifood systems, alternative food networks, development paradigm, post-nonclassical methodology, institutional approach, civil society

References


1. Shubravska, O. V. (2012). Ahroprodovol’chyy kompleks Ukrayiny v makroekonomichnomu vymiri [The agro-food complex of Ukraine in the macroeconomic dimension]. Aktual’ni problemy ekonomiky – Actual Problems of Economics, 11, 113-119. [in Ukrainian].
2. Qaim, M. (2017). Globalisation of agrifood systems and sustainable nutrition. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 76(1), 12-21.
3. Bystryakov, I., & Pylypiv, V. (2013). Prostorovi aspekty staloho rozvytku: postneklasychnyy dyskurs [Spatial aspects of sustainable development: A post-nonclassical discourse]. Ekonomichna teoriya – Economic theory, 2, 5-15. [in Ukrainian].
4. Arshinov, V. I. & Astafyeva, O. N. (Eds.) (2012). Postneklassicheskiye praktiki: opyt kontseptualizatsii [Post-nonclassical practices: Conceptualization experience]. St. Petersburg. [in Russian].
5. Halchynskyy, A. (2012). Ekonomichnyy rozvytok: metodolohiya onovlenoyi paradyhmy [Economic development: a methodology for a renewed paradigm]. Ekonomika Ukrayiny – Economy of Ukraine, 5, 4-17. [in Ukrainian].
6. Duru, M., & Therond, O. (2015). Designing agroecological transitions: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 35(4). 1237-1257.
7. Roth, M., Nobis, R., Stetsiuk, V., & Kruhlov, I. (Eds.) (2008). Transformation Processes in the Western Ukraine: Concepts for a Sustainable Land Use. Berlin: Weißensee Verlag.
8. Moroz, O. O. (2004). Teoretyko-metodolohichni aspekty suchasnoyi paradyhmy ahrarnoho rynku [Theoretical and methodological aspects of the modern agrarian market paradigm]. Visnyk Vinnyts’koho politekhnichnoho instytutu – Bulletin of Vinnytsya Polytechnic Institute, 5, 16-23. [in Ukrainian].
9. Onyehina, V. (2005). Zmina ahrarnoyi paradyhmy ta derzhavna ahrarna polityka u rozvynutykh krayinakh [Changing of the agrarian paradigm and state agrarian policy in developed countries]. Ekonomika Ukrayiny – Economy of Ukraine, 11, 62-72. [in Ukrainian].
10. Murdoch, J., Marsden, T. K., & Banks, J. (2000). Quality, nature and embeddedness: Some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector. Economic Geography, 76, 107-125.
11. Lamine, C., Renting, H., Rossi, A., Wiskerke, J. H., & Brunori, G. (2012). Agri-food systems and territorial development: innovations, new dynamics and changing governance mechanisms. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic (pp. 229-256). Dordrecht: Springer.
12. Lamine, C., Magda, D., & Amiot, M. J. (2019). Crossing Sociological, Ecological, and Nutritional Perspectives on Agrifood Systems Transitions: Towards a Transdisciplinary Territorial Approach. Sustainability, 11(5), 1284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051284
13. Adams, M. (2015). Land: A New Paradigm for a Thriving World. Berkeley, CA, North Atlantic Books.
14. Vazheyevskiy, A. Ye., Danilenko, A. I., & Isayeva, A. P., et al. (1972). Problemy formirovaniya i razvitiya agrarno-promyshlennykh kompleksov [Problems of formation and development of agro-industrial complexes]. Kyiv: Urozhay. [in Russian].
15. Renting, H., Oostindie, H., Laurent, C., Brunori, G., & Barjolle, D. (2008). Multifunctionality of agricultural activities, changing rural identities and new territorial linkages. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 7, 361-385.
16. Tregear, A. (2011). Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: critical reflections and a research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(4), 419-430.
17. Schermer, M. (2015). From «Food from Nowhere» to «Food from Here:» changing producer – consumer relations in Austria. Agriculture and Human Values. 32(1), 121-132.
18. Sonnino, R., & Marsden, T. (2006). Beyond the divide: Rethinking relations between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 6, 81-199.
19. Weber, M. (1990). Smysl «svobody ot otsenki» v sotsiologicheskoy i ekonomicheskoy nauke [The meaning of «freedom from evaluation» in sociological and economic science]. In Izbrannyye proizvedeniya [Selected works] (pp. 547-601). Moscow: Progress. [in Russian].
20. Bortis, H. (2003). Instytutsiyi, povedinka ta ekonomichna teoriya. Vnesok do klasykokeynsians’koyi politychnoyi ekonomiyi [Institutions, behavior, and economic theory. A contribution to the classic Keynesian political economy]. Translated from English. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
21. Kazmir, L. P. (2010). Instytutsional’nyy pidkhid v teoriyi upravlinnya zemlekorystuvannyam [Institutional approach in land management theory]. Zemleustriy i kadastr – Land system and cadastre, 2, 24-34. [in Ukrainian].
22. Auzan, O. (2017). Ekonomika vs’oho. Yak instytuty vyznachayut’ nashe zhyttya [The Economy of everything. How institutions define our lives]. Kyiv: Logos. [in Ukrainian].
23. Prutska, O. O. (2003). Instytutsionalizm i problemy ekonomichnoyi povedinky v perekhidniy ekonomitsi [Institutionalism and problems of economic behavior in transition economy]. Kyiv: Logos. [in Ukrainian].
24. Kahler, M. (1990). Orthodoxy and its alternatives: explaining approaches to stabilization and adjustment. In Economic crisis and policy choice: The politics of adjustment in the third world (pp. 33-61). Princeton: Princeton University Press.