1. ISSN 0134 6393 1926 . 2 76 2011

2. 63(06) 1 6 ( 8 11, 2009 ). , - ... . ( ),.. .-. ( ),.. . , .. ., .. . , .. . , .. . , .. . , .. . ,.. . , .. .-. ( ). . , 6 15 2011 . :. , ., . , 1. , . : 32235 13695 03.12.07 . , 20112 3. 2 .. ,.. ,.. , .. 8.. , -.. ... 19 -.. .. 28.. , -.. 34 -.. 41 . . : 50 .. .. 56- .. ,-.. ... 62 .. .. 67 .. ... 75 -.. .. 83 .. -.. 893 4. 3.. , .. . 93 .. , 97.. 106.. . 113.. ,.. , .. . 118 .. . 125 -.. 131.. , .. ... 141 .. 148 .. ... 153 -.. .. 161.. , .. .. 167- .. 174 .. ... 1804 5. -.. .. 187.. , .. 197 .. . 203 .. 213 .. .. 221 .. .. 228.. , - , .. .. 235 .. 245 .. 254. . . 265.. , .. . 272 .. ... 276.. , .. 282 . . .. 293 5 6. - .. . 298.. , -.. ... 313 -. . . 318.. , - .. ... 328 .. 337 .. . 342 .. , .. . 347 -.. . 354 .. . 363 .. , .. 368 .. . 375.. , -.. .. 384.. ,.. , .. .. 3946 7. 27 8. : 336.77: 336.722.144: 631.11 .. , , .. , , .. , , .. , , . , , . . , , . , . :.. [1], .. [2, 3], .. [4], .. .. [5], .. [6], .. [7], .. , .. ,.. [8], .. [9], .. [10], .. .. [11], . . [12] . , . , . . , , ,, , . : , , ,- .8 9. . . , , , , . .. [9], 2008. 1991. : 35,7, 37,2, 29,3 20,9%. . . . . . [2, 3, 57, 10, 11]. - . . 45 , , , , ,. - 20%. 1.01.2010 400 . , 50 . , 8,5 . . 150180 ( 2010 ) , , 20 [12]. , , , , 2008 1991 2,7 , 2009 2008 1,8 , 2008 4 1991, 2009 2,5 2008 , , 9 10. 10 1. , . 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 199149730015 105183 8 15300 12 42300 425200 1620003189001265200 579006 24900 413000 1520062013008 44300 363004 13000 4 7700920071868007 41000 356003 11300 3 6600820081770006 39000 352003 10000 3 5800720091690005 72000 5510029000 3 51006 2009 -328300-10 -33183-3 -10200 -10 -33300-1 -20100 -10 1991 , + - 199619000 153708 7 747121273125510200014560 122951 6 553 6 762 96017200510159 9 1957 3 304 2 391 55013200693638 1810 3 256 2 371 480 8200786757 1643 3 213 1 371 390 9200883467 1579 3 189 1 331 32412200979967 1510 3 178 1 291 30017 2009 -11004-8 -2198 -4-669-11-98-2-955 +7 1996 , + - 2006 54412139 5 12062 22007 5189 139 5 12062 22008 5438 170 58932 22009 5489 190 58922 22010 5408 190 68922 2 2010 -4-4+51+1 -31-4 2006 , + - 11. , . ,, . , 1996 2009 , 1996 2006. , 2006 2009 , . 7 2009 1996 , 6,7, 4,2 . 20062010 31 4 , , 2 , . 51 1 , . , 4 (. 1). , -, , , - [4, 8]. , (30%) . 2010 2004 435,0 39,0 , 20,0 2004 2008 , 3,3 2009 1,6 2010 . , . , . 2010 2004 11 12. 1,6 4,9 , 17,1 , , , . , , (. 2). 2. , (30%) 2004 65,0 71,0262,02005120,0270,0242,02006260,0 32,0183,02007667,0132,0270,02008 1000,0100,0233,02009300,0 90,0153,02010500,0110,0242,0 2010 +435,0+39,0-20,0 2004 , 20046,22,2 17,92005 23,38,76,42006 18,70,90,12007 35,97,0 10,22008 47,85,29,02009 22,00,1 38,12010 23,30,6 13,0 2010 +17,1-1,6 -4,9 2004 , , . , . . , 12 13. 2015, 1158 19.09.2007 , 9 - : , , [13]. , , , , (. 3).3. 19982010 . . % . % 6812 698,031,7 207 24,821,4 871 588,426,7 5828,324,5 10377289,413,1 421 16,614,4 10377315,614,3 52 5,04,3 507310,8 14,2 6440,9 35,4 21288 2202,2100,0802 115,7100,0 21288 2202,2 31,7 26,7%. 19982010 802 115,7 , 28,3 24,8%. , . 20002011 , , ., 20002003 13 14. , 2004 . 20042005 184 18 2004 , - ( , 15.01.2005 34). 2006 , ( 21%, 20% ). 2007 2009 8,5% , , , . 11.08.2010 794, 2010 . , , , 20062009, . , , 10%, . , , , , 2009 2010 , 90% . , , 2010 , 25% , 16%. 2011 7.02. 2011 96 , , 14 15. , 10% , : 2007 2009 ; 2010 , , , ( , , , ), 25 , 16 ; , , , ( , , , ), 21 , 13 . , 2009 2010 , , , , . , , ( ) , . , . , , , ( , ), , , (.). , , . , ., . (. 4).15 16. . 4. , ( ) , , , , 16 17. 2007 2009 , 13,9, 19,7 38,7 , 2010 2009 1,5, 1,2 11,0 . 2008 2007 2,0, 1,2 1 . 2009 2008 2,5, 2010 2009 1,1 . 2009 2008 12,6 1,1, 2010 2009 1,7 26,4 . (. 4, 5).5. , 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 .2010. 2007., ,13700 11770 9871446 -12254 . . 52504130 267 355-4895 21701580 56617-1553 ,578 1142 460 410 -168 . . 373480 38 63 -310 8 7185 185 . , , , , . , , , , , .17 18. 1. .. / .. // . 2010. 5. . 94100.2. .. / .. . .: ,2007. 216.3. .. - / .. // . 2009. 12. . 2933.4. .. / .. // . 2004. 7. . 1220.5. .. / .. , .. // . 2008. 11. . 5464.6. .. / .. // . 1999. 4. . 1524.7. .. - / .. // . 2007. 4. .2327.8. .. - / .. , .., .. // . 2003. 9. . 1922.9. .. - / .. // . 2009. 11. .102108.10. .. / ... .: , 2004. 137.11. .. / .. , .. // . 2008. 11. .8187.12. . / ., . // . 2010. 6 (9). .68.13. 2015 // . 2007. 11. . 358. 4.02.11 , , , 18 19. , . . : , , , , .The results of the scientific research show that it is necessary to coordinatelegislative acts, which regulate government control of technical support ofagribusiness through favorable crediting and financial leasing. It is also necessary tocancel favorable credits in foreign currency and to precisely differentiate the dutiesbetween judging panels and banks in the process of issuing credits on favorableterms. The manufacturers of agricultural machinery ought to set up service centersunder regional branches of leasing companies and banks.Key words: technical support, government control, favorable credit, creditinterest, financial leasing. 338.43:332.122 .. , , . .. , , . . , ,, . , , , , : , , , . , . . . (), 19 20. , . , , . , , , , . , (), (). . . . ( ), (). , , () , . . , . : -, , -. . , : , ; , . . , ( , ). . - , , , , . , . , , [1, . 186]. .- . , , . , , 20 21. , , . , , . , . , 1 2008 . 1671 ( 2005 .), 197 , 8,5 . , - ( ) . - , , . , , .. . . , ( , ). , , . : () . : ; , , . , 2006 ., , , , . 2008 ., , 15,4% , 16% 70% . , , . , . -. .21 22. , . , , . , , . , , - , , (. 1). : 1) , ( );2) , , ; 3) - ; 4) . . , , , , , . . 1. (2009 . /) [2] 31.241.7 78.1 74.527.8 29.9 27.734.4 65.4 68.432.6 39.350.262.3 97.5 91.183.7103.416.816.6 10.0 25.125.4 29.6 15.218.1 24.1 23.516.0 17.4 315.0 542.6 675.7 937.0 603.4 576.1 139.3 198.5 440.6 437.9 313.1 462.7 66,0 133.3 74.163.2168.4 , .5763 167113225029592 3469441890 , . 20052009 . 60,0% . , , (.2).22 23. 2. (2009 . )2009 . % 1990 19952000 20052009 1990 .2000 . 123 456 78 , . 4154840777 39365 37181 3667988.3 93.2 , 145875 94795 77889 92586 10408271,4133,6 ..: 66560 49371 43573 539766334195,1145,479315 45424 34316 386104074151,4118,7 , : 51,033,924,538,0 46,0 90,2 187,8 16,714,719,819,5 19,7 118,099,5 6,75,95,87,3 8,3123,9143,1 ( ) 4,362,291,661,60 1,74 39,9 39,9 24,517,312,713,7 11,6 47,3 47,3 , . 162879404 88091304615857 97,4 180,0, /: 35,124,319,426,0 29,7 84,6 153,1 117 96122128139,5 119,2114,3 149120112157182,0 122,1162,5 , 2863 2204 2359 34873784132,2160,4 , . 38930 35305 31971 228102103354,0 65,8 , 101299 48626 26478 338034614245,6174,3 ..: 49914 27268 17820 217323027260,6169,951385 21358 8658120711587030,9183,3 , : 49,631,220,028,8 34,970,4174,5 4,730,620,280,24 0,214,4 75,0 4,871,611,000,78 0,8216,882,0 ( ) 3,101,110,440,59 0,6119,7138,6 18,6 9,53,72,6 2,2 11,859,5 , 101264171 2977 64589234 91,2310,2 , /: 35,135,324,625,8 30,0 85,5 122,0 157,2155,5 119 147,8 156,4 99,5 131,4 150,1159,8 122 128,9 155,9 103,9127,8 , 2941 1908 1588 29523543120,5233,0 , . 2617 5473 73931437115646 597,9211,6 , 44576 46169 51411 5878357940 130,0112,7 ..: 16646 22103 25753 3224433058 198,6128,427930 24066 25658 2653924882 89,1 97,0 23 24. . 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, : 1,452,754,509,2311,1765,5 246,7 11,914,10 19,56 19,22 19,5163,9 99,7 1,794,274,846,517,48417,9 154,5 ( ) 1,261,191,091,011,1288,9102,8 5,9 7,8 9,011,19,37158,8 104,1 , 61615233583265886623107,5 113,6, /: 35,824,824,926,429,983,5120,1 118,6 92,6122 128,2 156,0 131,5 127,9 130,8 120,0 119 154,8 185,3 141,7 155,7 , 26372722296036433967150,4 134,0 , . - ( ), . , , . :1) ;2) ;3) . , 2008 . 368,4 . 10 , 731,5 . 5,1 10 (. 3)., 150 , 750 . 5 1, 375 . , , . , . . , . , , , . , () .24 25. 3. , 1990 2009 . (. )* ( ) 2010 . % 2010 . % 1990 . 2000 . 2010 . 1990 . 2000 . 2010 . ,% 1990 . 2000 . 1990 . 2000 . 1990 . 2000 . 2010 . 51009 24459 39271 77,0 160,6 1445 4495 9491,5 656,9 211,2 2,8 18,424,2 16732 19838 18705 111,8 94,3 11939 19561 18222 152,6 93,271,4 98,697,4 6666 5821 8122 121,8 139,5 1965 49747158 364,3 143,9 29,585,488,1 2571 3457 6771 263,4 195,9 62 432 1186 19,1 . 274,5 2,4 12,517,5 44265 13199 13749 31,1 104,2316051096- 62,3 0,1 12,28,0 2902 1453 1746 60,2 120,2 1555 1189 1460 93,9 122,8 53,6 81,883,6 836514 408 48,8 79,4 171 178 148 86,5 83,1 20,4 34,636,3 (4358 1663 2059 47,2 123,8 1259 1225 921 73,2 75,2 28,9 73,744,7 ) 24508 12658 11254 45,9 88,9 5874 89899036 153,8 100,5 24,071,080,3 ( ) 16287 8809 16965 104,2 192,6 6161 5831 6794 110,3 116,5 37,866,240,0 , . 29,8 3,4 4,214,1 123,5 3,3 2,1 3,5106,1 166,7 11,1 61,883,3 . ., 145,9 77,9 101,1 69,3 129,8 44,651,455,7 124,9 108,4 30,666,055,1 ..:101,3 26,558,757,9 218,5 16,6 25,732,1 193,3 124,9 25,059,154,7 44,6 51,4 42,495,1 82,5 28,025,723,684,3 91,8 35,2 74,855,7* . 1) ; , , 2010 . .. .: , 2011. 134 .. .25 26. . , . : , , , . , , , . , , . , , . , , . , ( ) . . , . 1 1,5 , 22,5 1 . , , . , . 17 . , 500 . . 5,1 10,0 . ; , . ,, , , , . , , (, ), , , 2530 , 12 , 10 -, , 20 - (10 ; 8 ; 1 - ).26 27. . . , . , , . , , -, ( , , ); -, (, ), , , , . , , . , , . , , . . , , . 1. - . / . - .: , 1994. 264 .2. .. / .. . . .: , 2011. 204 .3. .. : , / .. / . .: , 2005. 232 .4. .. : , / .. // . 9. 2005. . 5662.5. : , , . . / . .. . .: , 2002. 245 . 8.02.11 . , 27 28. . , , . : , , , .Private farms play an important economic and social role in the life of peoplefrom all the regions of Ukraine. They are a small form of farming, which should beconsidered the main reserve for agricultural production increase. It should be notedthat private farms fill a market niche with the production of untraditional types ofproducts, providing the food security to the country.Key words: private ownership, private farms, food security, food stuffs. 339.564:338.439 .. , , . . . , . , , , .. ,.. , .. , .. , .. . ,.. , , [1, . 3]. .. , .. .. , , , [2, . 55, 3, . 189]. .. , 28 29. , [4, . 254]. , , . . : , -, -, , , . . , , . 2009 . . , , . . 2009 . 0,43, 2,4 , 2003 . ( , , ). (43,1%), (33,8%) (9,3%)., . , , . . 2009 . 2003 . 135,3 . , 128,3 . , 7,1 . , 4,5% . 2009 . 33 . , , . 5%. (10,5%). 29 30. 36,7%. 12,6%. . 2009 . , , ( 16), ( 12). ( 5% ) ( 5%). , , ( ). , , 5%, , (. 1). , 1210 8 6 4 2 0 5 % 5 % . 1. 30 31. ( ), , . , , . . 2. (+ , - ) H1 (+) H1a (-) ,. H3(-), % H3a(+) H2(+), H2a(-) H4(+) H4a(-) H5(+) , % H5a (-). 2. :H1: , ;31 32. H1: , . , 94,4% 73,3% . 84,8% . 2,549. H2: (. ); H2: . : 94,4% 80,0% . 87,9% . . 1,079. H3: , , , . ; H3: . H4: ; H4: . , 30%, 65%, 5%; , 7,7%, 15,4%, 76,9%. H5: ;32 33. H5: . , , , 28,6%, 66,7%, 4,7%. , , 8,3%, 83,4%. . , . , 5% , . . , . 1. .. / .. // . 2007. 1112. . 37.2. . / . // . 2003. 5. . 5459.3. .. / .., .. // . 2009. 4. . 189196.4. .. / .. // . 2000. 23. . 254256. 9.02.11 , . , ; . : , , .33 34. The activation of export is one of positive factors stimulating the economicgrowth in Ukraine. The article highlights the tendencies of the development of exportactivity of food processing enterprises in Vinnytsia region, the level of their exportmanagement. The influence of the factors on the economic efficiency of export isinvestigated.Key words: export, food processing enterprises, economic efficiency. 332.025.12 .. , , .. , , . , , , , , . , , . . , . , ., . , . , . , . , . , . ,. , . . , . .34 35. . - , , , . . , , , , . , . , [1]. : , , , ; - ; () , - , -, ; ; , [2]. , . 1 2011 , ( ) (. 1). ( ) , , , () . , : ; ; ; [3].35 36. - ; - ; - . 1 ** . , , . . 1. , . , , . , . , , , , , , , . 36 37. . 1. [3] () 36,76% 49,7% , 36,3% - 3,6% 8,41% --2,0% 33,2% (5+ ), - ( 10 ) , , ( )- 2,6% 34,7% ( 4- )34,7% (),36,6% ( , . 177 +) 36,21% ( , + )(.14.1.226 ) - (15 .38,11% ( .) ++ ) , 2009 111 407 137,5 ( 114 913 337,5. ), ` 92 35 712,3 ., ` 5 658 653,1 35 822 793,1 2010 183 565,2 . , 119 342,7 . 64 086,5 , 59 963,8 , 4 122,7 . , , 4138,2 . 37 38. 1 358,0 , 32,8% , 1 279,1 , 30,9%, - 1 005,1 , 24,3 [6]. , , , , , , . , [4]. , . 2. , , . , , . , . , , . . , . , , , , , [5]. , , , , [5]. , , , 38 39. . , , . - - - - ; ; - - , , . ; - ; - . . .. 2 * * . , , , , , , . . , , , , , . 39 40. 1. 2017 05.10.2000 . . [ ]. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi- bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=201714.2. 11 2001 . N 2213III . [ ]. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=201714.3. " 246417 08.07.2010. [ ]. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi- bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=246417.4. 2011 [ ]. : http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/publish/printable_article?art_id=244179234 .5. . / . // . 2005. 5. . 69.6. 2010 []. : http://www.pfu.gov.ua/pfu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=172721&cat_id=94 750. 10.02.11 , , . : , , , The system of social insurance is a part of social policy of the state and animportant element of the process of economic development, that in its turn influenceseconomic and social security of the citizens and society, creating conditions for socialprogress. Key words: social insurance, system of social insurance, single socialinsurance tax, social insurance funds40 41. 368.914 .. , . - . . . : . . . , . ,, , . . , , . , , . .- , . [1], . [2], . [3] . [4], . [6]. [7], . [8], . [9] . - , , .41 42. . , . : ; -; - ; ; . . . , , . [5] () : ; ; ; ; ; . , : ,, (. 1). ( ). 1. , , . . , . , ( ) . , (42 43. ), , , , () . , (, , ). , , . , ( , ), , . , , , . , (. 1). 1. 20082009 . 20082009 469450 .. non-Life*396378 .. non-Life73 72 .. Life22 34 .. non-Life21 31 .. Life 1 3 45 15 .. non-Life37 13 .. Life 8 2* non-Life , , ; Life , . . . . 2001 . 73,33%; 2002 . 76,85%; 2003 . 84,66%; 2004. 85,5%% 2005 . 81,9%; 2006 . 80,4%; 2007 . 78,6%; 2008 . 76,7%; 2009 . 72,3%) [10]. . , 2009 2005 922,2 (1442,3 2009 520,1 2005 ), 43 44. 4273,7 , 1124,9 7,1%. (. 2).2. 20082009 . (, ) , * * 2008 . 2009 . 2008 . 2009 . 2008 . 2009 . 2008 . 2009 .2009/2008 37,762,737,7 62,70,5 0,9 0,6 1,0 66,3 66,3 ,, 7013,0 6674,5 6508,3 5993,8 99,5 99,1 99,4 99,0-4,8-7,9 , 586,4 703,4 583,3 694,2 8,3 10,4 8,911,5 20,0 19,05843,6 5275,9 5345,6 4607,3 82,9 78,3 81,7 76,1-9,7 -13,8- 1611,8 2115,1 1461,7 1577,9 22,9 31,4 22,3 26,1 31,2 7,9 34,125,734,2 25,50,5 0,4 0,5 0,4 -24,6 -25,4 532,1 662,5 528,5 659,7 7,59,8 8,110,9 24,5 24,8- 522,0 639,6 518,8 637,4 7,49,5 7,910,5 22,5 22,9 16,7 7,116,7 7,1 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,1 -57,5 -57,5 ( 7050,7 6737,2 6546,1 6056,4 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0-4,4-7,5) * ( ) 44 45. 2009 2008 20,0%. , . (). 2009 94,6%, 74,51%. 2005 60,24%, 2009 . 61,11%. 51,78% 2005 48,13% 2009 (. 3). 3. 2009 . 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 ., % 60,2456,5057,0355,6161,11101,45 31,189,55 8,80 8,88 10,20 32,71 51,7842,7741,4140,1948,13 92,96 . (,), 2009 827,3 , 24,5% , 2008 (2008 . 1 095,6 ). (, ) 2009 :641,4 ( 77,5%) , ;185,5 ( 22,4%) , ;0,4 ( 0,1%) , . 2009 53,5% (461 880 992 457 2008 ). 31.12.2009 3 130 316 . 2007 2009 . . 2. 45 46. . 2. 20072009 . 2009 62,7 , 53,3% 2008 . : ; ; ; , . , : , , ; , ; , , ; ;46 47. . . . , . : 1) , , . , . . , , ; 2) , , . , . , . , ; 3) , . , , , ; 4) , ; 5) , . , . , , . . , - , , . , 47 48. , , , 1020 . . , . , , . . , . , . . , , , , , , . 1. . : . / .. , .. . // . . . 2006. 1. . 1215.2. .. - 2009 : : . . . / .: .. ; - . ., 2009. 159 .3. . : / . // . 2008. . 14/15. . 55 60.4. .. : . . / .. , .. , .. , .. , .. . .: , 2006. 334 .5. 7 1996 // . 1996. 18. 78 .6. . . / . . . // . 2008. 2(25). .91104.48 49. 7. .. : : ./ .. , .. , .. , .. , .., .. , .. , .. , .., .. ; - . . . .,2006. 178 .8. .. / .. // . 2010. 1. .203211.9. . / .,. // : . 2004. 1. .1622.10. www/dfp.gov.ua. 11.02.11 , . . , - . : , , , , . The development of private social insurance system in Ukraine takes placeunder the influence of many factors among which the most significant ones areeconomic and demographic indicators. The modern system of private socialinsurance is in its stagnation stage. Its further development is possible only in closecollaboration of the state and insurance companies, which must be accompanied bypermanent socio-economic growth. Key words: private social insurance, insurance company, medical insurance,personal insurance, insurance bonuses. 49 50. 001.8:338.439:65.012.6(73) : . . , . , . . , . . , . , , . . , . . . . : (Margaret Andrews), (Mark Nord), - (Maria Gerster-Bentaya), . (Timoti R. Frankenberger), . . (Goldstein D. M.), (Simon Maxwell), ., . ., .., . , . , . ., . . . , , , . . : -50 51. , , . . , , . , , . 1943 . - , , [1, . 4], 10 ., , . 32 72320 ( 1935) 30% , , , , [30% .] , [2]. , , ? , . , , , , , . (USAID), , : , , . , , , . , , ( ).51 52. , . , , . , , . (), , . , , , . , , , , , , . , () , [3, . 104108]. , , , , , , . , , , , . , [4]. , , , , , , . , . : , 52 53. , , , , . , , . , , 1989 . - (LSRO). , , , , . , [5, . 3]. , LSRO, , , . 1990 LSRO : , ...; , ; . . ()... ... , , . , , Guide to Measuring Household Food Security. (, 2006 ) , [6, . 6]. , (Current Population Survey (CPS) , [7]. , , 53 54. . , , , . , , . , , 1995. , . 2006 - , -, . 2006 (National Research Council, 2006), . , , . ( 2006, , ) , , , . , . . , , . , . . 1. . / . : , , 2007. 292 . ( . . ; . . ).2. The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The Food Stamp Program in a Post- Welfare Reform Environment / by Craig Gundersen, Michael LeBlanc, and54 55. Betsey Kuhn. // Agricultural Economic Report: (Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1999. No. 773. . 2.3. Simon Maxwell. Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measurements / Simon Maxwell, Timothy R. Frankenberger. New York: United Nations Childrens Fund. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development, 1992. 274 p.4. Eliot Thomas Masters. Indicators of Food Security / Eliot Thomas Masters: 1st Technical Consultation on Criteria & Indicators on Sustainable Bioenergy (BEFSCI) 24 November 2009. FAO Headquarters, Rome: Environment and Production Technology Division, IFPRI, 2009. . 9.5. Gooloo S. Wunderlich. Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: n assessment of the measure food insecurity / Gooloo S. Wunderlich and Janet L. Norwood. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press, 2006. 156 p.6. Gary Bickel. Measuring Food Security in the United States. Guide to Measuring Household Food Security. Revised 2000 / Gary Bickel, Mark Nord, Cristofer Price, William Hamilton, John Cook. Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 2000. 76 .7. Mark Nord. Food Stamp Participation and Food Security / Mark Nord // Food Review: (Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA). 2001. Volume 24, Issue 1. . 14. 14.02.11 . , . , . , . : , ,, , , , ,, , , . The experience of methodological support of food security in the United Statesis analyzed. The research confirmed the assumption that food security is amultidisciplinary problem. Consequently, its methodology should consider allavailable aspects. Depending on the level of social aggregation approaches todetermining the quantitative parameters of food security differ considerably. Key words: food security, methodology, experience, food insecurity,availability, access, use, insecurity, lack, famine, measurement, classification. 55 56. : 635:631.145+631.16:338.58 .. 1 . . . , .. , .. , .. -, .. , .. . . , . , . . , , : [3], [5], [2], [1] . , , , , . [4]. , . . . , .1 .., 56 57. : , , , . . . 2008 (21,9. ), (41,4), (30,6), (29,9), (28,9), (27,2) (23,5 . ). , (36,5%), (29,3), (24,1), (17,6%). 11,4%. 2008 8 . , 16% . , 15 . , , 53,7% 9,6 , 5,6% 2000 (. 1). 1. 2008 . 2000 . 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 .2000 ., % , . 9863 644382855671961597,5 428528 629 409755 176,4 , %4,38,2 7,67,2 7,9181,0 , . 11249,956,9 42,151,846,3 4,65,4 6,6 5,8 8,0 173,9 , %4,1 10,811,6 13,815,4376,0, / 88,1129,1 145,6 134,7 185,6 210,8 93,0 97,895,3 70,5 94,4 101,4 , %105,7 75,765,5 52,4 50,8 48,1 1,7 . . , . , , , 57 58. , , . , , , , : , ,, . , . , 2000 (. 2). 2,4, 2,9 2,6 . , .2. 2009 . 2000 . 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . 2000 ., 1 , 31,246,550,3 75,9 84,1 73,5 2,4 1 , 30,754,057,7 86,6 93,4 87,5 2,9 , % -1,716,114,8 14,1 11,1 19,1 1 , 34,6 105,572,1 86,9 92,9 83,4 2,4 , / 36,891,563,7 55,9 90,9 96,2 2,6 , % 6,5-13,3 -11,6-35,6 -2,1 15,4 , . , , , , . , 3,9 . 1990 426 2008 . 40. , , : (4,9%), (3,3), (2,4), (2,3) (2,0%). 23 (. 3).58 59. 3. , 2008. 4 47321 1 , 828579,6, / 94,398,7 1 , 76,966,4 1 , 94,52 75980 1 , 875386,5, / 160,7179,5 1 , 139,265,1 1 , 146,2 2 1 , 3780 , / 88 1 , 72,7 1 , 115,01 32500 1 , 438789,4 , / 149,2210,8 1 , 80,3160,2 1 , 95,159 60. , , 30%, . , , . . . . 79,6 94,3 /, 98,7 76,9 /, 1 7,3 8,3 . . . . , , , 1 ., 122 /. 1 1,6 . 268 / 21,6 . 1 . , , , , , , . . . . , , . . 1 , , .. , , .60 61. 1. .. / .. : , 1998. 256 .2. .. / .. // : . . . . 1 [ . .. ]. .:. 2001. . 324326.3. .. / .. , .. , .. [ . .. ] .: , 1998. 320.4. .. . / .. , .. , .. [ . .. ] .:. 2001. 834 .5. .. / . . , . . // . 2008. 4. . 137140. 17.02.11 1 , , .. , , . : , , , , . The major factors in the increase of profitability of vegetable-growing isthe rise of charges per 1 hectare, the use of new progressive technologies,including drip irrigation with the mechanized harvesting, deeper specializationand the application of innovations in vegetable-growing. Key words: economic efficiency, vegetable production sector, agriculturalenterprises, public sector, intensification of production.61 62. : 330.131.5:330.341.1:631.11- .. , .. , - . . - . , . , - . - - , , . . , . , - :.., ., .., .. [13]. , - . . - , : , , . . . , - 62 63. , . , . , , . , -, , , , [4]. . . - : , , , -. , , . , , , . 1994 . . - , , . , 2006 . -8592, 5 -82,1, -, 3 ., , , , 18 28 . , 600 ., 8-, , , 23 . 6 . , . . 63 64. , (. 1).1. 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 2005 ., 2256,8 2379,3 2859,6 5378,34577,94896,5. ,868,5 1234,0 1853,22409,03147,03387,2. .-. , 171417171744 175117481748 7762 57473735.-. , . , . 667,0649,03626,1 6499,07164,07592,4, 50,671,8106,2 137,5 180,0 193,7., . 11,219,9 32,551,285,096,7, 2,6 1,91,5 2,3 1,41,6, 0,380,51 0,640,440,680,69 , %19,615,8 47,388,977,378,6: 20052010 . 2010 2005 , , , , . , , . , , . , , . (. 2). 2005 33,1 / 1000 , 2010 42,2 / 1332 . , 2010 2005 : 10,1 /, 22,4 /. (. 3).64 65. 2. , /2006 . 2007 . *2008 . 2009 . 2010 .* :, 500 590 527606578,38,3 29,260,4 64,3 48,4/ , 19150,217228,1 31830,838965,8 27975,2:, 180 388 271347319,49,0 16,547,5 45,4 21,9/ , 8820,5 6402,3 12872,515753,8 6986,1:, 65 211 284384253, 9,7 25,625,2 35,7 32,1/ , 630,5 5401,67156,813708,8 8121,3: 20062010 .* 3. 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 ., /39,940,120,249,942,244,3, 51541 45885 23766 53069 65511 68291, 39317 42963 15601 20032 43946 49217 , % 76,893,665,637,767,172,1 , 1 , 32,30 34,42 64,14 51,5364,81 65,20 1 .46,52 64,37 77,12 93,1489,80 91,61 1, . 45,719,212,941,524,936,4 1, . 14,215,8 9,617,529,632,9 , % 59,886,9 115,0 180,5138,5 141,5 : 20052010 . , . , 65 66. , . . :, , , , . ,, , (. 4). , . . 4. , , 2006 . 2007 .2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 3809017229 21306320752921994811414 35684289 13935 17399 27179 525196701980 19850 650200515393000 12653 900020003 52754 162941198950 2246 2614437358546800 8857950670 285688395239475600 , , . .. , . , 2006 , , , 88579 , 2010 475600 , 387021 2006 . . , , , . , , : , ,, , -. , - . , , , , , . 1. . / . // : . . .5. .: , 2001. 334 .66 67. 2. . . : , , /. . .:, 2003. 368 .3. . . / . ., . . , . . , . . . .: , 2002. 336 .4. .. / . . , .. [.] // . 2011. 2. .100107. 17.02.11 - , , . ,, , , . : - , , , , . The article shows the role of scientific and technological progress as the mainfactor of gaining competitive advantages, manufacturing high-quality products atlower expenses. Due to this, it will be more efficient for an enterprise which hasappropriate financial resources to apply innovative methods to production. Key words: scientific and technological progress, innovation activity, highperformance economic activity, investments, production modernization. 338.43; 631.1 .. , . , , , . , 67 68. . , , , . , .. , .. ,.. , .. , .. , .. ,.. . , . , , . , . . - -. . , , . , , , , . , , , . , . . (. 1). 1, , : 2005 , , , , , . 2,7 68 69. . 25,9%. . . 1. 2009 . 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 .2009 . % 2005 . 2383,5 2774,7 2945,1 4205,0 4798,5201,3 2005 , . .: 1469,2 1649,6 1335,3 2056,5 1976,8 134,5 914,3 1125,1 1609,8 2148,5 2821,7 308,6 54 5147444074,1, . 44,1 54,4 63,895,6120,0 272,1 ,. 46,6 42,8 41,038,4 39,8-6,8 .., % ( 358331 229 522 389 108,7 ), 10,09,6 16,615,6 18,3+8,3 .., %: [1, . 71,72; . 113, 115]. (. 2). 2, 2009 , 45,3%, 39,8%, 31,2%. , . , , , . 69 70. , , . , , . , , , , , . , , . 2. 2009 -- .., % -- 1,- 1, , % 70,8686,34 21,9 418 13131,3 134,07194,83 45,3 3574813,4195,00221,93 13,8207335,4 25,75 33,77 31,2422046,5190,21265,91 39,8 1484127,7 83,35 96,17 15,4341750,0 169,36116,93 -31,0 221150,0206,24168,86 -18,1 1310 7,9698,25739,255,98337,5 166,84181,308,7 1667344,0: ..: 1040,26847,16 -18,6179 13374,3 1233,93 1361,05 10,3 211 10750,7 1377,42 1012,69 -26,5 321340,6303,60486,20 60,113 753,8, . . 405,13387,78-4,3 8562,5 : [2, . 2563]. . 2009 . . , , , , . , 70 71. 2009 , , . . , .., : , , , [3, . 324]. , , , . , , , , . , , . , , (. 1). , , , , . , , . , , , . , , . . . .., () . . , , () [4, . 57].71 72. . 1. : , , . . , , , - , - , - . , , , , , .72 73. , , . 1 . 307 , : ; ( , ); ; ( ) [5]. , . , , . . , . 2009 1990 - 7,60 [6, . 13]. , . , , : , ; , ; ; ( , ); , ; ; . . , 73 74. . , , . , . 1. 2009 / [ . .. ] : . , 2010. 550 .2. - 2009 / [. .. ]. : . , 2010. 114 .3. . . : [. ] / .. .: , 2005. 347 .4. .. / .. // . 2011. 2. . 5157.5. / , 2011. 1314, 1516. . 112.6. - .. / .. - // . 2011. 3. . 9 17. 22.02.11 , . , . : , ,, , .The efficiency of agricultural enterprises production strongly depends on theimprovement of profit management, which is the final link of the management systemas a whole. Profit management should be based on complex research andconsideration of major factors influencing this process.Key words: efficiency of production, profit management, cost price, sellingprice, profitability.74 75. 338.43:664.1 .. . - , , . . , , , . -: . , . , ., . , . , . , . , ., . . . , . , ., . , . . , - . . , . -, , . . , , - , [1, . 46]. , , , 75 76. . , , . , - , , [2, . 35]. : y = f (x1, x2, x3, , xm, u), y ; x ; u . , , , . , , , , , [2]. : , ; ; , ; ; ; ; [3]. , , : ; ; ; ; ; ; , . . . 1.76 77. 1. ,,*123456 7 8 9 200032,661,210,700,06 0,10 1,260,032,05 168,20123,20 200130,001,530,520,02 0,03 1,260,043,01 92,40 112,60 200230,281,710,480,02 0,03 1,200,023,72 87,80 98,00 200326,362,030,390,06 0,05 1,160,023,81 133,7085,40 200431,422,090,450,04 0,04 1,000,013,38 93,30 135,40 200593,212,460,370,13 0,12 0,860,024,92 95,50 97,00 200662,582,900,360,06 0,05 0,930,034,15 114,10101,70 200758,333,420,240,06 0,03 0,970,015,75 157,7090,50 200862,373,340,390,08 0,05 0,910,043,82 95,20 130,50 200960,004,090,290,06 0,03 0,820,036,26 109,1094,80* ,,77 78. .. .. , , [1]. , , (. 2).2. ,, * 123 -0,9397** -0,0115 0,0244 0,9376 0,1317 0,2368 -0,9267-0,0359-0,3002 0,9070-0,3177-0,1386 0,2499 0,9521-0,0393 -0,4119 0,8953-0,0410 0,3751 0,0987 0,7003 0,2556 0,2256-0,6843 0,1261 0,0248 0,6821* ,,** , 5% , , : ; ; ; . : = 123,02 + 3,51+ 337,062 82,73 0,143694,: ;1 ;2 ;3 ;4 . t- . , t = 1,147. t = 0,691. tt, 78 79. [4]. . , . . : n xy nx cp y cp r i 1 0,927122 ( x 2 nxcp )( y 2 nycp )2 1 + 1. + , , r=0 . r = 0,9271, [1, . 71]. () , , . , . , r2 = 0,859555, [1]. , , , . , , , . :X cpi E aiY cp . 3 . , , , (. 4, 5).79 80. 3. * () () (1) 0,177843 (2) 0,369099 (3) 1,758084 (4) 0,315311 * ,,4. ,, * 2010 4,1470,0319 0,87296,1 2011 4,4510,0258 0,83298.4 2012 4,7550,0241 0,792 101,3 2013 5,0590,0213 0,752 102,5 2014 5,3630,0211 0,712 104,3* ,, 5. ,, *R2F DW y = 0,304x + 0,8030,975,11 1,14 y = 0,000x4 0,008x3 + 0,072x2 0,826,39 0,98 0,221x + 0,252 y = -0,050x + 1,3120,898,09 1,55 y = -0,060x6 + 1,936x5 23,90x4 +0,755,98 0,89 143,1x3 425,4x2 + 569,0x 141,8 * ,, F- t- F t. , , . r r 2 . , .80 81. , , , (. 1). , , 2014 . 93,2100% 90 8071,1 75,262,6 58,3 62,4 60,0 62,0 64,5 67,9 70 6070,1 50 65,332,7 30,0 30,3 60,6 40 55,8 51,146,3 3041,636,8 20 27,3 32,1 26,4 31,4 1002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ; ; --.. 1. ,, ** ,, . 1, 2009 . 2010 62,0% ( 2009 . 60,0%), 13,2% 75,2% 2014 . . , , . , , . . , . - , . 81 82. . 1. .., .. : / .. , .. . .: , 1998. 494 .2. - / .. , .. . .: , 1984. 232 .3. / . . .: , 1999. 432 .4. . : . . / . .:, 1997. 402 . 22.02.11 . - , , . : - , , .The use of mathematical methods is proved to be necessary for economicanalysis. The multifactor economic and mathematical model of influence of keyfactors on the profitability of circulating assets of distilleries in Vinnytsya Regionis worked out. The model characterizes regularities, tendencies and directions ofprospects for functioning of enterprises of alcohol production subcomplex.Key words: economic and mathematical model, profitability, circulatingassets.82 83. 330.342:631.16 .. , , * - ., -, , , - [11]. , - . ,, , . . - , , . , . , . , . , . , . ,. , . , , . , . , . , . ,. . [112]. . . , , , . , . . () - , [3]. [2].. , , [2].* : ..., , .. 83 84. . [6]. , [1]. , , , , , , . , [12]. , , . , , [47], . , , ( , 2009 104 , 0,1 2008 ), 2008 2009 . [8]. 2009., , . 4,2%, . , , . ( 2,4%). , 2009 46,0 . , (53,3 ), . , , , , , ., 2009 2008 . , 2009 5,8 , 3,5 , 2008 . , 2007 . 37%, 32% , 1990 . 85% , , 2 , . 84 85. . , , . 50% . , , , , , , , , , , , , , ( 40%), . 3,15%, 2,18, 3,21, 3,46%, , 2,6, 4,3 4,3%. 20 0,5%, . 257 1990 . 10,4 2009 ., 25 , . 4,2 887 . , 4,8 . 2009 63% , 2,5%. ,, , . , . , , . , , . . , , 1 5 . , 92,1 . , 42,4% , 50% , , . , (91,2% 85 86. ), , . . , - 20002008 . 6,6%. 10% , 14% . , 9,4 . . 2,76 7,48%. 6,9 8,3%. , , , . , , . , , , , . , , , . . 88,3 100 , 1,3 2003 7,1 2008 , , . , , , , -, , , . , , , , . , , . 86 87. . , 1,3% (20 . ). 20% . , , , , , . : , , ; . , . , , , , , . , , , , , , , . , , , . : ; ; ; ; ; . [10]. , , , [9]. . , , , - , , ; , ; 87 88. , , . : ; ; , . .1. . . 9. / . . .. 3-. .: . , 1969. 513 .2. .. .: , 2001. 895 .3. / . . .. 3- . .: , 1984 1600 .4. / .. , .. , .. .; .. . .: , 2005. 424 .5. .., .., .. ( ): . .: , 2008. 302 .6. .. : // - : , , . : . 2009. . 2. . 1112.7. : . 4 . / ... , .. , .. . .3: -. .: , 2002. 477 .8. :www.ukrstat.gov.ua.9. . . .: ,1999. 423.10. .. , // . 1999. N4. . 34.11. . . //. 1997. N1. . 25.12. . . .: ,1992. 254 . 22.02.11 : 88 89. ; ; , . :,, , " ". The government program should be orientated on the solution to threeproblems: the creation of favorable pre-conditions for gaining the competitiveadvantages in all determinants of "national rhombus"; the search and support ofpotentially competitive sub-industries and enterprises of agro-industrial complex; theensuring of the rational use of the state budget funds for stage-by-stagetransformation of these sub-industries into those ones which have real competitiveedges. Key words: agro-industrial production, competitiveness, governmentprogram, "national rhombus". 322.155 - .. , - . [1]. , , , [2]. , , . , . , . 89 90. , [3]. . , . , , . : 1 ; 1 ; , , [4, 5]. , 34 . . . - : , - . . - , 2007 , 2010 5 , , 71,4% (.). 2008 156 . 2007 105. 2009 85 ., 2010 92 . 2008 19500 , 2007 11666 , 2008 . 4147,8 . , 2007 . 2009 . . 2010 3603,4 ., 97,6% 20072010 . , 389,8 2007 720,6 2010 . 20072010 . 2008 1816,9 . , 2007 1323,0 . .90 91. 2008 . 2330,9 . , 2007 2010 . 2185,7 2143,4 . - 2010 % 20072008 2009 2010 20072010 . 20072010 .9865771,4, . , 10515685 92 109,5 84,0. 1 ,11666 19500 14166 18400 15933115,4 , . 3508,7 4147,8 3504,4 3603,4 3691,0 97,6() 389,8 518,4 584,0 720,6 553,2 130,2 , . 1323,0 1816,9 1519,6 1460,0 1529,8 95,4 , . 2185,7 2330,9 1984,8 2143,4 2161,2 99,7 1 0,62 0,56 0,56 0,59 0,58101,7, , %60,5 77,9 76,5 68,1 70,796,3 , % 3,51,61,9 2,52,37105,4, / 42,9 48,2 36,5 38,3 41,492,514,8 16,7 16,9 18,6 16,8110,7 31,4 35,3 25,7 27,2 29,990,723,2 25,9 19,3 21,8 22,596,820,7 23,4 26,1 28,9 24,7117,025,5 28,1 16,6 18,4 22,282,8 2008 2009 . 77,9 76,5%. 2010 2007 7,4%. , . , 2008 . 48,2 /, 35,3 /, 25,9 /, 2010 . 18,6 28,9 /. - . , 14,8 / 2007 . 18,6 / 2010 . , 91 92. - 47 2007 . 123 2010 . 400 123,0 140 , . 350111,0 120 , , . , 30047,0 62,0 111,0 123,0 99,8 159,0 297,5 374,2 500 020001002502007 p.2008 p.200962,0 p. p.201080 200 374,247,0 60 150 297,5 100 40 159,05099,8 20 0 0 2007 p. 2008 p.2009 p.2010 p.. - : , . ; , . 99,8 . 2007 374,2 . 2010 .. - . 4147,8 3508,7 . ; 156 . , 85 . 20 62% 18 / 123 . 1. . / . // . 2009. 1. . 6773.2. . . : , , : / . . .: , 2005. . 2932.3. . . : / .. .: , 2008. . 5364.4. 92 93. 2008 . .: . 2009. . 4756.5. .. 2008 / . . . .: "- ", 2009. . 3339. . 2.03.11 . 4147,8 3508 . ; 156 . , 85 . 20 62% 18 / 123 . : , , , , , ,. The economic indicators of the company performance are at the averagelevel. Maximal and minimum indices of gross output were 4147,8 and 3508thousand hrn., respectively. The greatest wages fund was 156 thousand hrn., andthe smallest wages fund was 85 thousand hrn. During the years of observation theproductivity and the area under flax oily increased by 20 and 62% and made up18 metric centners per hectare and 123 ha, respectively. Key words: crop productivity, profit, payment for labour, gross output,productivity of labour, economic efficiency, profitability. 336.22 .. , .. , , . , - , . 93 94. . , , . [3]. . , . , ., . , . . . , . . . , , , . , , . ( ); ; [1]. , , , , , . , . 90- XX . , . ., , ( ) [2]. , , , . 2004 15% ( 2004 2007 13%). , . , , 90- , 94 95. 17 . (. 1).2010 4,220094,92008 4,82007 4,92006 4,32005 3,92004 3,8 5,22003 01 23 4 5 6 , % . 1. , . 1 , 5,2% 2003 3,8% 2004 . ( ) 20052010 . 2003 . , 2004 , 10% 40%, , . ., , (. 2). , : , . 95 96. %4035,1 34,13530 29,42525,52016,615 9,69,1 12,410 5,5 7,1 7,3 7,3 52,41,9 2,2 3 020032004 20052006200720082009 2010 , , . 2. , , 2003 2,4 , 2010 7,3 : 2003 2010 . , . , , , , . . , ( , 1,4 10 ) [4], , , . . . , -, . , 96 97. . 1. .. / .. // . 2008. 20/2. . 137143.2. : 02.12.2010 2755VI. //[ ]. : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua3. . : / . // [ ]. :http://zahid.net/article/897694. .. / .. // . 2009. 4 (16). . 1. . 4250. 2.03.11 , . : , , , .The key mechanisms of implementation of the Ukrainian tax policy at taxationof income of physical persons are considered in the article. They indicate theineffective fiscal policy of the state, which is based on the discretionary methods ofmanagement.Key words: fiscal policy, tax policy, tax benefit, tax rate. 338.439.01:339.564(477.44) , .. , . . 97 98. , . - , . - , , . . , . . , , , , . , , ( ), . : - , , . , , [1, . 52]. , - , , . .., [2, . 147]. , , . , , , .98 99. 01.01.2010 , 1650,6 . ., 814,2 . , 836,4 . . , . - (. 1).1. - 2009. 200520072008 2009 2005., ( 10207 15381 20094 2111010903 ), , 9350 14252 18597 15900,2 6550,2 , 28747 42704 86179 96320,9 67573,9 , 12193 19264 25170 2722315030 109,7 123,2 121,1 117,6 7,9, % , 1841,2 3472,7 4164,8 4363,12521,91834,2 3412,3 4175,8 4262,72428,5 163,8 377,6 -312,0 -199,2-363 7154,2 11352,6 13522,5 14460,77306,55, ( 5152,1 5048,0 6368,5 6159,41007,3 2005 ), 3287,8 3118,0 4422,5 4213,7925,9 1864,3 1930,0 1946,0 1945,781,4 , 1693,2 4136,2 4751,8 2670,1976,9 , .712,3 791,5 900,6 742,129,8 424,7 485,9 482,8 479,054,3287,6 305,6 417,8 263,0-24,6 ( 1694,5 1665,1 1652,9 1643,5 -51 ), . , ()15,8 12,7 10,6 8,87, . ( 15-70 ),723,0 726,8 725,6 693,5-29,5. , % 4,3 3,3 4,3 2,7 -1,6 59710281404 1511914, : 99 100. - , 20052009 . (. 1).100908042,7 46,349,4 49,951,370 60 50 4032,3 30,7 24,5 30,6 28,7302010 2523 2021,424,2 020052006 20072008 2009 . 1. , %: . 2009 3, 1, 7 . 12 ( 17 2008 . 5 2009.). 4,4% 3,6% , 2009. 6% , 6,9% 4,8% . , , . - . 20052009 . , 19,5% 103% (. 2).100 101. 2. , 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . +, 2005., 5152,1 5447,6 5048,0 6368,5 6159,4 1460,1 1483,4 1742,2 2076,1 3213,6 3011,91528,5 , -2286 206820352101 2107-179 103,7 88,275,366,8 54,349,4, .. .-. , .2017,8 2017,6 2017,5 2017,2 2017,1 -0,7 .. 1730,0 1729,5 1729,9 1729,4 1728,1 -1,9, 1224,9 1242,5 1270,5 1445,9 1418,8 193,9 ,..423,1 418,3 383,7 364,8 364,7-58,4 .. 230,8 217,4 208,7 192,6 183,6-47,2424,8 479,7 394,5 358,1 423,8 -1,08848,6 9040,8 9123,6 9612,9 8974,4 125,8: 2000. 2009. (.3), , . .3. , . , %2000200520072008 2009 17445,1 20346,5 16860,4 33776,1 30922,666,2 19162,8 20503,6 28944,3 22365,1 14045,5-25,0 672,7866,1 992,82175,8 2229,6 179,8256,1203,3 912,93301,32640 1172,614181,2 15230,2 11398,2 15488,5 15579,1 9,2 1962 2927,6 2307 3181,4 3014,4 35,9 735,4 1869,82100,31649,1 2158,5 76,1 : 101 102. , . (. 4). 4. , . 2009. 2000 2005 20072008 2009 2000., 92,949,0 72,5 67,060,2 -32,7 ..: 36,523,8 26,6 25,125,1 -11,444,512,6 26,5 22,714,2 -30,3 654,9849,0829,8 840,1841,9187, . 348,8570,0648,0 710,7710,8362, 47,022,0 17,0 16,018,0-29: 2009 . 55% (. 5). , , - . , , , , , . 5. , % 2009. 2005 .2007 . 2008 .2009 . 2005 ., 66,4 59,8 54,3 55,5-10,9 61,0 51,3 45,547,1 -13,9 21,8 16,7 14,5 15,0 -6,8 7,89,1 8,2 7,6 -0,214,79,6 6,5 7,7-799,8 99,3 99,4 99,3 -0,5 96,9 95,8 95,9 94,8 -2,1 76,0 73,5 74,2 73,5 -2,5 ( ) 62,2 62,1 64,3 64,1 1,982,2 84,3 85,1 83,5 1,3: 102 103. , -., , , , . (. 2). . 2. , %: 37,3% 2009 2005 , 80%, 32143% (. 6). 6. , . 2009. 2005 20072008 2009 2005 ., 395221,5 365426,1 443280,1 387795,5 -7426,0 ( ) 262193,7 440379,1 573922,8 420968,8158775,1 ..: 213493,6 340014,9 412335,0 283036,7 69543,121420,426360,7 24264,514364,3-7056,1 73122,7 135771,9 123441,2 587563,6 1009244,2 1163459,4 900207,7312644,11244978,9 1815049,4 2180662,3 1708972,0 463993,2 : 103 104. 2009 . 58%, 2005. 7% (. 3). , . 19,3 9 57,8 5,6 2,74,80,8 . 3. , 2009 .% : 2009 , , , . 2008 . ( 1634%), (8,6%) , ( 9,4%), ( 63,4%) (. 7). 7. , % 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2008 . 2005 . , 33973 4661662774 54225 3953972,9116,4 , 414727361338 406202 380300 350915 92,3 84,6 , 37675 6628277945 65384 106832 163,4 283,6 , 55634 5779583148 79461 5874973,9105,6 , 3851 4235 2356 3013 3297 109,4 85,6, , , 31873 3931331141 30585 2639486,3 82,8, 157691 145374 179837 191509 187104 97,7118,7, 11229634711104 17541709640,5 63,2 , 88423 8433481024 77254 6919789,6 78,3 , 17107 1677516761 23590 27464 116,4160,5, 277793 344767 303105 283313 204759 72,3 73,7 2141620620 15640 15362 19201125,089,7 , , 39107 28761 31314 40735 54708134,3139,9 , . 79586650 7714 6854 7443 108,693,5: 104 105. , . , , , , : , , . , , , . , , [3,.74]. , , . . , , , , , ,. - , , , , , . 1. .. : . .: , 2001. 382 .2. .. . :-, 2007. 159 .3. .. / .. // . 2008. 2. .7476. 2.03.11 , .105 106. : ,, , . The structure, condition and dynamics of the formation of agricultural foodmarket of Vinnytsia region is shown in the context of possibilities of export potentialincreasing. Key words: agro-industrial potential, production, food market, exportpotential. 338.43.331.3 .. , . - , . - : (, , , ) , . , , . . , , , , . - , ,.. , .. , .. , .. , .., .. , .. , .. , .. , .., .. , .. . - , , , .106 107. . - . , - , - . . . , (-,, ), - . - , , , . . . , ( ) , . ( , ) : , . , [1, . 38, 2, . 257267, 3, . 8185, 4, . 233235, 5, . 7585]. , ., , , - . , , . , (. 1). ( ), , . ( ) 107 108. - - - - - - - ; - ; ; ; - - - ; ; - ; - - ; ; - ; - - , ; - . ; .- . . : - - , ; ; - - ; - ;(, );- - ; - ; ;- - ;.- .. 1. 108 109. , , . - , , , , , , . (. 2), , , : , ; , ; , . , , , ; , ; ; , , , . , (, , , ). , , ( ). (, , ); ; . , , , , , . . , .109 110. - , ;- ;- - , ;, - , (, , );;- ; ; - - - , , , - ; , ; , - ; :: ; - , ;- , , ;, - ; - , , ; .- ;- , , . . 2. 110 111. , , , , . , , , , . ,, , ; ; ; . , (, , - ). , . , ( , , , ). , . . , , , . , . , , . , , .. , . , . , - , . , , , , , 111 112. . , : , , . , , , . 1. . : / . // : . 2005. 1. . 38.2. .. : / .. // . . -. , 2008. .67. .2: . . 257267.3. . // . 2004. 3. .8185.4. .. / .. , .. , .. // .. . -: , 2004. . 233235.5. .. // : . . . ., 1994. . 7585. 14.03.11 . - . : , , .Positive and negative trends of development of the process of labour marketsegmentation in the agrarian sphere of Ukrainian economy are analyzed in thearticle. Some ways of regulation of social and labour relations in agriculture inmarket conditions are suggested.Key words: segmentation, labour market, agrarian sphere.112 113. : 338.439.6 .. , , , , . . , , , , , [1]. , , , , . .., .. , .. , .. , .. ,.. , .. , .. . . : , -,-, . . - , ,, , , . , . 2000 . : , , , . , : , , , (. 1). 113 114. 1. , , 60 02.03.2007 (. 1) [4].1. () . . 2,5:. 83 ( / ) ( / ). 380 ( / ) . 290 ( / ). 20 ( / ). 38 ( / ) . 13 ( / ) . 124 ( / ). 161 ( / ) . 90, , ( . 101) ( / ) , . 17 ( / ) . 0,8114 115. . 58,3 . 6,1 , . , , 12 15% , [3]. , . - - 2009 . 10,8%, , , : 2998 . 2008 2946 . 2009 , 18% . 51,8% [4]. - . , , , , , , . , . , , , (. 2). 2. , % 2001 . 2002 . 2003 . 2004 . 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . - 105 87,4 120,6 105,7 108,1 102,4 138,0 110,3 106,4 130,4 92,4 87,8 133,7 93,3 95,5 114,1 157,7 95,2 109,1 141,1 136,8 86,6 104,8 134,2 129,5 88,8 115,8 147,4 101,4 114,1 112,0 100,8 105,2 109,0 113,5 109,1 112,8 125,2 115,9 109,4 100,9 105,7 107,6 120,5 116,7 109,6 119,5 135,5 106,5 120,9* 115 116. 2010 . ( 2007 .) 130,4%. 2009 2010 99,0%, . 2010 . 2009 . 95,4%, 14,8%. 2001 2010 . , . , , , -, , , . - . 2010 . 13,2% 12,7%. . , : ; , ; , [5]. , . 10% . , : , : ; ; , . 116 117. , , , . : , ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; , . . . , . : ; ; . , . 1. .. / .. , .. // . 2000. 9. . 52 81.2. .. / .. // . 2010. 12. . 125 131.3. .. / . // . 2011. 1 3. . 23 28.4. 2009 [ 117 118. ]. : http:www.me.gov.ua/file/link/149977/file/Zvit_2009.doc.5. .. / .. // . 2010. 12. . 86 90. 14.03.11 , . . : , , , .At present, the problem of the assessment and optimization of food security inUkraine is one of the key tasks of government policy. Over the last years it has turnedout to be in the focus of attention of state authorities.Key words: national food security, agro-industrial complex, agriculturalproducts, state regulation. 628.477 .. , , .. , , .. () . - , . - . , . , , , . , 118 119. . , , , , - , , . . . [2]. . , , , , . 85% . , . , . . , , ( , ). . -- . (). , . , , . , . , . , . . . . . . , . . , - . , , [1, 2]. (n, . 119 120. ). : , . , . (gf, . 2), , . , , . , , (rt, ). , : (v, ) (dn, ). . [2] - . (. 1). , , y = G 2008, G . , , y = -2 y = 2006, y = 2 G = 2010. , 2008 . . 275..35 274 34,5 27334 272 33,5 27133 270 32,5 269-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 45 -4-3 -2 -1 0 1 23 4 5 . 1. . 2. . ( R2 = 0,77) : cn = 0,0161y2 0,4884y + 272,27 (1) . 1 , , . [2] (. 2). . (R2 = 0,99):120 121. gf = 0,0009 y2 + 0,1423 y + 33,07(2) , , , . [3] , , (. 3). (. 3) . (R2 = 0,96):rn = -18,721y2 + 286,94y + 1824,5 (3) ..3500 160003000 140002500 120002000 100001500800010006000 5004000 02000 -4-3 -2 -1 0 12 3 4 5 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 23 45 . 3. . 4. , , , . [2] , (. 4). . (R2 = 0,96):v = 958,83y + 8723,6(4) , , . [2] . . (. 5) . . (R2 = 0,984):dn = -68,449y2 + 857,76 y + 8267,8 (5)121 122. 12000....130010000 8000125060001200400020001150 0 -6-4 -2 0 24 68 1100 2006 2007 20082009 2010 . 5. . 6. , , . . . , , [1, 2]. , . (. 6). , q (. 3), , :1. : cn (. ); g (. 2); , rn ( ); p ( ); dn ( ).2. (cn, g, rn, p, dn).3. , . 1. . 2006 20072008 2009201020112012 2013 cn, . 274,26272,6271,89 271,68271,56270,5 269,87 269,24 g, . 2 32,12 32,2 32,232,33 32,63 32,64132,756 32,871 p, 6499,8 8414,89268,9 9688,29945,9 11213,212029,7612846,32 rn, 1042,1 1617,12119,2 2021,12117,8 2550,08 2805,62 3061,2 dn, 960,96 969,12987,44 907,84982,88 989 1011 1017 q, 3 1201,2 1211,41234,3 1134,81228,61234,71258,2 1264,7122 123. (. 1) , . , , . , . 1,05 , , . , , . , , . , , - , . - . , , , . , . . . . , , . , , . , . ., . :q = 1,56 nn0,74 + 0,032 g0,0042+ 0,6 pn0,3+0,37 tn0,2+1,72 d0,94 . ( ). 2012 ( , -2012). , 2006 2013 . . , (. 7). , . . 123 124. . 1300 1250 1200 1150 1100 1050 -2 -1 0 1 2. 7. . 1. , ( ). , . , . 2. , , , . 3. , , , : , , , ; . , - .. 1. , .. [] / .. , .. : . :, 2003. 128 .2. 2009 . [] / . , 2010. 221 . 14.03.11124 125. () . - , . - . : , , The practical experience of handling of hard domestic wastes (HDW) inUkraine and developed countries of the world is studied. The theoretical andmethodological approaches to the analysis of HDW generation in consideration ofecological, social and economic factors are analyzed. The methodological support forprognostication of amounts of HDW generation on the territory of the city is created. Key words: mathematical model, amount of hard domestic wastes, productive 631.164.23 .. , . . , , . () - . : , . , , , . , , 125 126. , , . , , , , . - . - . . , ., . . , .. . - . . , .. , .. ,.. . . . : , - . . , 1115% , 1216% , 3,75,0% . 30% , , 95% , 15 , , , , [5]. , , . , 2009 . . , . 2009 , , . , 2008 1,5 , 2007. 17,292 2008 17,3 , 11,4 , 2009 5,8 [2].126 127. 2009 , , , . , , , . 2010 , , , 1 . , , . ( ), 2009 ., 1214% 2530%, 40% . , 4,55 , . 2009 . . 93% . . , 2009 . 7 [2]. . 10 25 . , 2010 . 24 1213 . , 1112 . 1,52 . , . , 160 148,5 , 8,6 0,1 . 12 [6]. , . 2010 . 3- ( ) 9,2 , 5,3 . 704,7 [6]. 90% , . . , 2010 . , 127 128. : , , [6]. . , [7], 922VI 04.02.2009 . [3]. - 2009 , . , , . (), 2010 . 1,1 . 2009 . () 200 2011 . [2]. , , 2009 , . , . , , , . : (305,8 . ), (121,7 . ), (50,9 .), (50,4 . ), (36,7 . ), (35,4 . ), (28,4 . ), (28,3 .), (17,7 . ) [6]. , , 100 , . , [1]. , , - ,128 129. . , ,, , . , . , . -, , , , , . -, . . . , . , . , , , . . . -, , , , , . -, . -, , . , , 2010 2010 . 520 . , 1,71,8 . 20/ 0,850,9 , 3% (33,8 ) [4]. , , , 129 130. , . , . . 3/5 . , . , , . . , . 1. . . / . . , . . // . 2008. 11. . 5463.2. . . / . . // . .. : . 2009. 9. . 116120.3. 922VI 04.02.2009 . [ ] / / . -:http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi.4. . . / . . // . 2009. 5. . 310.5. - [ ] / ; . -: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua.6. - [ ] / ; . -:http://www.minaqro.kiev.ua.7. 154/2009 24.11.2009 . [ ] /130 131. / . - : http: // zakon1.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=v029p71009. 14.03.11 . . :, , , , .The modern investment process in agro-industrial complex is estimated inthe article. The tendency of capital investments in the variety of activities and theirdirection to the fixed capital is investigated. The priorities of agriculture in thegeneral structure of Ukrainian economy are defined.Key words: investments, investment process, investment attractiveness,priority of industry, agro-industrial complex. 336.74:338.43 - .. , * - . , . , 15% . , , ,, , .* : .., . . ., 131 132. , .. , , : . . , . . -, . . , . ., . . , . . , . . , . . , . ., . . , . . , . . , . . , . ., . . , . . , . , . , . , . . . . , . . , . . [19, . 157], . , (); () . . . . [16]: .. . , . . , . . [9, . 580581] , , , , , . , , : ( , , ); ( ); ; ; , .. . [2, . 13] : ; ; ; ; . , . [14, . 37],, , . -, , , , . 132 133. , : ; ; ; ; . , , . , - , . , , . - ; . . , ,- , , . , , - , . . (- ), ( ). - , . , , . , , , , , , - . : , , , , , , .133 134. , [17]. [2; 3, . 68; 16]- , , , (. 1). . . (.). . , , , . , . . . : , , . - , , , , , , , . (- , ) . ( ) , ( ) . . 230 [1] (, ,), , .134 135. - - , , , ( .. 1: , MS Excel) (Business Intelligence) . 1. - 135 136. () , . , , . , . 209 [1]. , (. "Public Relations" "PR") , , , . . [4], PR , . , , , , [10]. - . . . : , .. ; ; ; ; . ( 30%) , . , [7], ( 10 ), ( 25 /), (3 4 ./). , : , , , . . 136 137. . , , , [8]. 2010 6420 (. 2).2010 64202009 4956 0 1000 20003000 4000 5000 6000 7000. .. 2. , * * 14.10.2010 . 2010 6420,2 , 30%. . 4579, 809,6, 1031,6 . 1774 . 16 38 [15]. 1.07.2009 7944,3 (14,7% 54081,7 ). 3181,8 (5,9% ) [18]. . . : ( ); ( , , ); ( , .. , ). , : ; 137 138. ; ; ; . , . , [6]. , , , , . ( ), - , [13]. , . , [5]. , , . . , . , , , [12, . 182]. (), [21, . 51]. 138 139. , . " " , [20, . 68]. ; ; . Excel 1 , 1: , , ( .. ) Excel. , OLAP-, 1, Excel, , [11]. Business Intelligence, OLAP, , , , - . . - , .. . , , , : ; ; ; ; ; . , , , , , . 1. [ ] : http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?page=6&nreg=436152. . / . // . 1999. 3. . 1215.3. . , / . // . 2008. . 40. . . 6569.139 140. 4. , ! // . 2007. 6. . 4850.5. . . / . . // . 2006. 9. . 5257.6. . . / . . , . . // . 2007. 9. . 5660.7. . 20% /. // . . 2010. 34 (160). . 7.8. . / . // . . 2010. 32 (158). . 5.9. . . : / . ., . ., . . ; . . . .. .: "", 1999. 800 .10. . / . // . 2007. 23. .2426.11. . / . //. 2006. 5. . 4654.12. . . / . . // . 2003. .13.4. , . . 181183.13. . . / . . // . 2006. 5. . 4149.14. . // . 2009. 2. . 3639.15. - 2010 [ ] :http://www.minagro.kiev.ua/page/?1094816. . . / . . // . 2007. 1 (16). . 99103.17. . . / . . // . 2009. 4. . 4849.18. 2009 [ ] :http://www.minagro.kiev.ua/page/?893219. . . / . . , . . , . . // . 2009. 4 (16). . 1. . 154162.140 141. 20. Burke G. Managing your money / Gibbons Burke // Active trader. 2000. July. P. 6873.21. Ruggiero M. A. The truth about money management / Murray A. Ruggiero jr. //Futures. 2004. August. P. 5053. 17.03.11 , .. . , , , :; ; ; ; ; .. : , ,- .Cash flow management is an important constituent of an economic playersactivity in any economic sector, including agro-industrial complex. Consideration ofall organizational and economic mechanisms which regulate the economic activity ofa farm enterprise and its cash flow will ensure: stable functioning; efficient use ofmonetary funds; increase in net cash flow; reduced need for loan capital; financialbalance and the improvement of financial situation; increase in the level of solvencyetc.Key words: cash flow, cash flow management, organizational and economicmechanisms. 338.439.4.003.13:637.12 .. , .. , "" . . . . 141 142. , , , , . , , . , , , . , , , : ..,.. -, .. , .. [13]. . , . . . - . . . , . 2010 . , ,198,4 . , 82 . 380 . , , , 900 38,4 . /. , (, ,, , -, ), 3642 /. - 4850 63100 /. , " " (. 1), , .142 143. 1. - " " (. ) *2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . () 11948562106 94233 149187(, ) 18964 10119 15609 24203 () 10052151987 78624 124984 91367 54373 74692 110088(, ): 915423863932 14896 5735279238324866 1179260345259262 2340275419882686 : 1001053564131918 209 15542 1124 19826 204 631 103807741 21702 155 103807741 21702: 126 103807741 21702 (, %)0,1 -19,1-10,4-19,7* , , , . 143 144. . , . , . , . "" 5 . , , , . , , , , , , , . . 500600 . , 4 . . . 2010 . 4,5 / 3,4% 3%. 33 (3,5 / ) 44,2% 3,4%. , 1,3 [4]. " ". , . , , , , , . , , . , , 10%. , , , , , . . . 2010 ., , 2 718 . , 99,5 . (3,5%) , .: 589,2 . ( 23,9 ., 3,9%); 2 129 . ( 75,6 . , 3,4%).144 145. - 9 813 . ( 355,9 . , 3,5%, , 2009 .: 1 922 . ( 22 . , 1,1%); 7 891 . ( 333,9 . , 4,1%). 3 716 . , 57,9 . , 1,5 .: 1 463 . ( 15,3 . , 1%); 2 ( 83,3 . , 4%). " " , , 253 . 40,6 . . 2010 4,55 , 2009 . . 1 2010 . 220,3 . , 4 1995 ., .. 100,5 . 2,8 1995 . 1995 . 727,4 . , 2009 . 491 . 32,1% 1995 . [5]. , , . , . (, ) 10 ( 20%) ( 13%) . [6], - . , ; , ; - . : , ., : , , , 50% , 20% - , .145 146. - - . , , , -() , "", "","" 3...4 . , , " " 2 (. 2). 2. " " 2 2001 . 2005 . 2006 . 2007 . 2008 . 2009 . , .206 210 228 285 341 345 , 6601 12217 13539 16373 20380 20193 1 , 320458175938574559765853, 5609 10685 12508 18101 19481 20151 , % 85,087,592,4110 95,699,8 1 , . . 7,3 4,9 4,8 4,5 4,9 5,1 1 , 1,29 1,0 1,1 1,0 1,1 1,2 . . 1 , 49,2358,49 80,8198,18 137,67148,29 1 , 63,82 122,58126,16154,52190,96207,77 1 , 14,5964,09 43,3556,34 53,2959,48 , 398 32572488370530433474 , % 29,6109,656,1 57,438,7 40,1 , ,, . , . 1015% () , , 1015 34-. , , : ;146 147. ; ; ; , "", "", ; - 3...4; , ; .. , , , , . " " () , - , , , . . , . , , , . (20072009) 38,7 51%, 45, 3 . , , 80%. ,, , , , . 1. .. / .. // . 2010. 9 . 5457.2. _ .. / .. - // . 2010. 6 . 812. 147 148. 3. .., .. : / . .. , .. . . , 2005. 340 .4. . / . // . 2010. 12. . 1819.5. 2009 // . , 2010.6. .., .., .. / .., .., .. // . 1997. 7. . 2529.7. .. / .. // . 2010. 1 . 3638. 17.03.11 , , . : , , , .The intensification of dairy cattle breeding makes it possible for farmenterprises to raise productivity, decrease cost price, ensure the competitiveness ofproduction.Key words: intensification, nutritive base, pedigree stock-breeding, dairycattle breeding. 336.77 .. , , , , , . - , , , .148 149. , ,, . . , . . , , . . [1]. , . [2], , , - , . , , , - . , -- . . , , . , . , , , . : , , , . 149 150. , . , , , , , . , , , . , , -, . , , , . , , , . , , , , . . , [3]. , , , , . , [4], - , , , , . , , , , , , (. 1). , , , (, , ,), . . . 1 , , , .150 151. 1. , , * , , . , , , , , . .. , -, , ,, ( , , ( ,, ) . ) . (), ) . ; () , , () , , . . , [4], ( - ), 151 152. . () (). , . , [4], . , , . , . ( / ), , . , , , , , , . , , . (, , ), ( ) , . . , . , , .. , , , , , , , , , , , , . 1. . . : / . . . .: , 1998. 92 .2. . . / . . // . 2007. 5. . 100105.152 153. 3. : . / [. . , . . , . . .] ; . . . . .: , 2001. 602 .4. : 16 2003 . 435 V / // . 2003. 11. 18.03.11 , , , , , , , . : , , , , The results of the conducted research indicate that it is inadmissible to identifythe terms loan, borrowing and credit as synonyms, because they have essentialdistinctions, as loan covers a wider range of economic interrelations, than credit.Key words: credit, credit providing, loan, borrowing, credit relations 336.144.2 .. , . , , , , , . . .. , .. , .., .. , .. , .. , .. C, .., .., .. [25]. 153 154. , , , , . . . , . . , , , . . , . , . , , . , , [1]. [8]. : , ( ). t = 0 , t=1 . t = 0 t = 1. ; t to. , , , . , 154 155. . ; () . . t = 1 t = T 1 . , , (), , ; . . , , . t : to , . , , t . , . , . : (t) , , (t+1) , . . : t (t +1). , . , . t=0 : + + = 0. , , . (), () . , . 155 156. , : [7]. () : ; ; ; ; . () : ( ); ; , ; ; . , , , . . . : , ; ; . . . . , , , . 20000, +10000, + 8000, +5000 5000 , 15% 10%. . 1 , 3, 88325 . . , 156 157. . . , 500 1,331= 665,5 . 1,331 10% .1. 0 1 23 () 10000 ()20000+10000 +8000+5000 (): 7250 +82500() +825 (): +10000 +950+10000750 () 950 () 0 0 0+88325 , ( = 88325 ) ( = 665,5 ) , >. , . , [8]. , . , (), , , , . , 2; 3, . , 2, ( ), , , . . 2,3 , . 157 158. 2. ( 012 3) 800800 800 111011501400 .1 .2 (),888000898000950000 (.050 2) .. 177600179600190000, . 060,070, 085 33800 35200 38800 2 , 743890753250798200.3+.4 4 . , : , t= const; , , t + 1 = t k, k ; , , t max; . , , , [8]. . , . , . , , . .158 159. 3. ( / 0 123 ) , 1. 376300 379800 379800 : : .1 . 5 1.1155000 157500 157500 .040 1.2 650006500065000 2 .20,23,26; .40(46). .6 .045 21.3 300003000030000 .43; .46 1.4 5000 5000 5000 1.5 100001000010000 1.6 2000 2000 20001.7203002030020300 1.8 300003000030000: .1. 6 1.9 .045 22. 500005100051000 .44; .80. 3. 8000 8000 8000 .040 2 ,4. 1000 1000 1000 5. . 3200 3200 3200 6. 2000 2000 2000 .1.67. 381500 385000 385000159 160. 4. / 0 123 1. 743890 753250798200 2 2. 381500 385000385000 3 , , 3. (, ) ( ) 4. , 34803 31775 29010 22.05.97., 8 5. 327677336475384190 .1.2.3.4 , , . 1. .. / .. // 1112.,2007. . 2831.2. / .. , .. , .. ..; ...., .. . .: , 2005. 478 .3. .. / .. // . 2002. 4. . 6671.4. .. / .. // . 2005. 12 . 86 92.5. .. /.. // : , 5. .: . . -, 1999. .175178.6. .. / : . .: , 1998. . 120 123.7. .. / 3. . 97.160 161. 8. .. . / ., 2, 99.9. 22.05.97., 8. 21.03.11 , , , . - , . . , , , , , . The article reviews methods of evaluation of the efficiency of financialinvestments, formation of investment strategy, investment support of innovations andprojects, stages of its development and international experience of application. Thepeculiarities of introduction of program-target methods under perspective financialplanning are defined; the methodology of recording the effectiveness of investmentprograms and their performance is suggested. Key words: Financial plan, financial investments, investment expenditures,earnings, profits, payment of credit and interest on credit. 657. 37 .. , ., , , , . , 161 162. . , , . , : .. , .. , .. , .., .. , .. , ... , ., ., .. , .., .. , .., .. ,.. . . , . , , . (, , ). . , - . - , , , , , , , , , , , (. 1). , , . , . . , , , . , , ..162 163. , .. , .. , .. [4, 5, 7, 9]. , .. ,.. , . [2; 3, . 168; 10, . 111114]. , , , , , . 1. , , ,, , (. 2). . , - , . , - . , 163 164. , [8]. , , , , (5 10 ), , , . (), , , , . , .. - . 2. , 2015 , [1], , , , . , , 164 165. , , , , . , , , , ( , ). , , , . , , . , , . , , , , . , , . [6]. , , . , . , , . . , . - 165 166. , . 1. 2015 , 19. 09. 2007 . 1158: [ ]. : http://zakon.rada/gov/ua.2. . . () 30 " " / . . // . 2006. 11. . 91 95.3. . . : , , : / . . . : ,2007. 236 .4. . . : / . . , . . ; . . . .. : " ", 2009. 156 .5. . . ()30,, / . . // . 2006. 9 10. . 23 24.6. " " 28. 02. 2000 . 419 [] : http://zakon. rada.gov/ua.7. . . / . . // , : . . . . (29 30 2010 .) : , 2010. . 86 92.8. . 24. 10.2007 . 911-. [ ]. : http://zakon.nau.ua/ doc/?uid=1095.2115.0.9. . . / . . , . . // . 2006. 9 10. . 128 134.10. . . /. . // . 2007. 6 7. . 107110. 21.03.11 . , 166 167. , , , . : , ,-, , . The branch peculiarities of the formation of financial reporting areconsidered. It is defined, that data communication and communication support ofbusiness participants, including branch executive authorities, will contribute to theresponsibility of both economic players for the results of their activities and statebodies for the introduction and execution of outlined strategies of the plans ofdevelopment of agricultural sector.Key words: branch financial reporting, functions of financial reporting,information communication, branch objects of reporting, branch industrial processes. 338.26 .. , ,.. , . . , , , - . . - . . , , . 167 168. -. , [1]. -, . , , . , (, ). , , , - [2]. , , , , . : , , ,, , , , . , , . . . . , [3]. . , , , , [4]. , , . 168 169. ., - , , , [5]. , , 1850 . , , . , , , : , ; , ; , , ; ; . , : ( ); ; ; . , , , , . , , , , , , ., , , , , , . , , , 169 170. , , . , , , , , , . , . , - , ,, , , . (.). , , , , , , , . . , , . . . , -, , , . , [1], , . , , . , , .170 171. , , , ,, . 171 172. , , . , . , . , ( ), ( ) ( , ) . , ( , 1, 1 ), , 1 , . , , , , , , . , : , , , , , . , - , , . , , . 1 . , . . . , , 172 173. . . , , , , ( , , , ). . , , , . , . 1. . . / . . , . . // . . . . . : , 2003. . 8. . 2831. (: ).2. . . / . . // . , 2009. . 67. . 161.3. . . : . . / . , . . .: . 2001. . 13.4. . / . // , , . 2002. 8. . 20 25.5. . . / . // . 2006. 6. . 4251. 21.03.11 - ,, , , , . : , , , .Budgeting for agricultural enterprises is the process of planning of businessactivity, elaboration, realization, control and analysis of a financial plan whichcomprises all parts of activity of an organization. It makes it possible to compare allcharges and get results for the next period.Key words: budgeting, planning, control, principles and tasks of budgeting.173 174. 631.15:330 - .. , - - - - . , , . -, , , ,, . , , , , , . , , - , , . , - . , , : G. James,J. Brian Hardaker, . , . , . , . , . ,. , . ., - .174 175. - . . [1]. , , , . - , , - , , . , , , , - () . , , - . , (.). - . , , , . , , . , 2010 . ( ) 12,8 7,2 2009 ., ( ) 20,6% 13,4 . 73% , 1 2,3 ( 2009 . 63% 1,8 ). , 27% , 1 1,1 ( 2009 . 37% 993,5 )[2]. 175 176. , , . , , , , - , , , ,, , , , , , , . , , - , , . 176 177. , , , , . , 2009 2,8 3,8 . , 743 , 767 , , [3]. 70 [4]. ,, , . (2004 .) , . , , , , . . , , . , , , , , , . , , . , , 177 178. -