Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the principles and elements of social teaching as well as socio-economic activities of the UGCC Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytskyi in the context of their influence on economic development and formation of cooperative movement in Galicia in the late XIX – early XX century. It has been shown that the development of appropriate agricultural and cooperative education as well as active support of the private initiative by UGCC clergy appeared to be the key prerequisites for the successful cooperation.
Andrei Sheptytskyi became not only an influencer but also initiator and active leader of the implementation of social teaching principles into practice of socio-economic transformations that prompted a rapid modernization of the economic and increased efficiency of economic and social processes. Thanks to the implementation of ideas and principles of social teaching, a real revolution occurred in many public spheres such as education, banking, cooperation and entrepreneurship. However, the crucial results of spreading social teaching ideas were changing in the economic culture and activities of Ukrainians, who henceforth considered not only their personal interest but tended to develop such a model of economic interaction, which creates a "positive sum" effect for other society members and for society as a whole. The optimal organizational form that allowed combining interests of different economic agents was cooperation, which, thanks to the ascetic work of the Metropolitan, covered almost all spheres of Ukrainian society life, became an economic base for solving most economic and social problems, and shaped an effective national business environment.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the economic causes and consequences of the Holodomor organized in Ukraine by the Soviet authorities in 1932–1933. The study was conducted on the basis of the conceptual approach of one of the first researchers of the Holodomor, Vsevolod Golubnychy (1928–1977). It is substantiated that the main cause of the famine in Ukraine in 1932–1933 was the Soviet economic policy, which was aimed at the total monopolization of economic power, one of the mechanisms of which was collectivization. Having become part of a total state monopoly and the object of merciless exploitation by economic and non-economic methods, agriculture ceased to fulfill its main function – providing the population with food and saturating the commodity market. This caused a deformation of the market structure and an imbalance in the ratio of product demand and supply. Taking into account the fact that the main tool of collectivization was disinvestment, i.e. the liquidation (including physical) of the most efficient agricultural producers, it was concluded that the priority of Soviet policy was not the creation of an effective system of farming in the countryside, but the overcoming of public opposition the most an organized and independent stratum of agrarians, with the subordination of the rest of the Ukrainian peasantry to Bolshevik rule. The ineffective policy of collectivization caused a drop in productivity and led to a large-scale Holodomor, the negative economic consequence of the Holodomor was the physical destruction of a huge part of the able-bodied and hard-working population. Collectivization and the Holodomor, which was caused by it, caused irreparable damage to the agriculture of Ukraine, effectively destroying the effective traditional system of management, led to a decrease in the efficiency of the Ukrainian agricultural economy, and in the long run became one of the leading factors in the decline of the Soviet economic system.

The article is devoted to the definition of the most effective resources and mechanisms of the post-war reconstruction of Germany (1945–1962). The study was carried out on the basis of a comparison of the effectiveness and role of the management measures of the occupation authorities, the mechanisms of the Marshall Plan and the economic reforms of the German government in the restoration and further economic rise of Germany. This question is considered in the context of the study of the mutual influence of antagonistic economic doctrines (planning-directive and neoliberal) and a comparative analysis of the doctrinal approaches of the occupation authorities and the national government, which determined the configuration of their interaction and the leading mechanisms of post-war reconstruction in Germany. The article shows that despite large-scale American financial and organizational assistance within the Marshall Plan, the framework conditions for successful transformations were laid by the effective policy of the German government, which was directed at ensuring national interests and realizing the competitive advantages of national production. It was determined that the institutional basis of the economic reforms of the German government of K. Adenauer was the liberalization of the economy and the development of the model of the social market economy, the initiator of the implementation of which was the Minister of National Economy, and later the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany L. Erhard. One of the basic components of economic liberalization reforms was the large-scale deregulation of business, which provided for the removal of most blocking regulations and the creation of stimulating norms for the development of private entrepreneurship, in particular, the liberalization of tax and credit instruments. The strategic direction of the government's reform policy was determined to be the modernization of the national economy, which included support for the development of strategically important industries and renewal of industrial production. The effectiveness of economic reforms was ensured by a clearly defined vision of building a national model of the social market economy, doctrinal stability and political consistency of the government's course.