Assessment оf entreрreneurіal rіsks іn agrісulture

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2312-8372.2019.146943

Keywords:

entrepreneurial risk, risk assessment methodology, agriculture

Abstract

The object of research is entrepreneurial risks in the agricultural sector of Ukraine and the degree of their influence on the results of agricultural activity. One of the biggest problems of business is the presence of risks, but it is difficult to measure them. Currently, the standard (protocol) of risk assessment, which describes its tasks, methodology, procedures, statistical aspects and organization of research, is not recognized by the scientific community and expert practitioners. So, the improvement of methodological approaches to assessing entrepreneurial risks remains important.

During the study, the following methods were used: abstract-logical, comparative analysis, statistical, monographic, expert assessments, graphical, tabular and dialectical. For risk analysis, a system of indicators is proposed, which are formed taking into account the methods of decomposition, analysis and synthesis. When selecting types of risks, a content analysis of literature sources of authorship of experts in the field of agricultural risks is applied to the indicator system.

The result is development of the concept of the author's methodology for the qualitative assessment of the impact of risks in agriculture performance. The methodology has a number of features, in particular, it takes into account the impact of the largest industry risks – natural, macroeconomic, internal economic, political and criminal.

The proposed assessment methodology includes the stages:

5. Expert assessment of 20 factors that may most significantly affect the results of agricultural activity. Experts in points on a scale of 1 to 5 assess the degree of influence of the factor.

6. Check the consistency of expert opinions.

7. Calculation of the average scoring risk with the subsequent gradation of the degree of risk by groups: low or moderate, acceptable and critically dangerous level of risk.

8. Formation of conclusions on risk management activities.

Compared with similar methods of risk analysis, the proposed method has the following advantages:

  • an integrated approach, the possibility of detailing individual risks;
  • simplicity of mathematical calculations;
  • saving time and resources based on the analysis of a small number of factors that have the greatest impact on agricultural activities;
  • minimization of the subjectivity of expert assessments;
  • possibility of using the results in assessing the insured risk or assessing the investment attractiveness of projects.

Through the use of this methodology, it is possible to obtain an unambiguous and scientifically based answer to the question «How high is the risk of incurring losses in this activity?».

Author Biographies

Olena Yehorova, Poltava State Agrarian Academy, 1/3, Skovorody str., Poltava, Ukraine, 36003

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Economic Theory and Economic Research

Liudmyla Dorohan-Pysarenko, Poltava State Agrarian Academy, 1/3, Skovorody str., Poltava, Ukraine, 36003

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Economic Theory and Economic Research

Liudmyla Chip, Poltava State Agrarian Academy, 1/3, Skovorody str., Poltava, Ukraine, 36003

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Economic Theory and Economic Research

References

  1. Lohvinova, O. P., Semenenko, I. M. (2015). Obgruntuvannia hospodarskykh rishen i otsiniuvannia pyzykiv. Kharkiv: Lider, 370. Available at: http://pidruchniki.com/86392/ekonomika/yakisne_otsinyuvannya_pidpriyemnitskih_rizikiv#710 Last accessed: 10.05.2018
  2. Smith, A.; Soares, S. M. (Ed.) (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Books I, II, III, IV and V. MetaLibri Digital Library. Available at: https://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf
  3. Tetens, J. N. (1785–1786). Einleitung zur Berechnung der Leibrenten und Anwartschaften. Leipzig.
  4. Herasymchuk, N. A., Mirzoieva, T. V., Tomashevska, O. A. (2015). Ekonomichni i finansovi pyzyky. Kyiv: TsP Komppynt, 288.
  5. Donets, L. I., Shepelenko, O. V., Barantseva, S. M., Serhieieva, O. V., Veremeichyk, O. F. (2012). Obgruntuvannia hospodarskykh rishen ta otsiniuvannia ryzykiv. Kyiv: Tsentr uchbovoi literatury, 472.
  6. Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of Economics. Labrary of Economics and Liberty. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd. Available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall/marP.html
  7. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Hart, Schaffner, and Marx Prize Essays, no. 31. Labrary of Economics and Liberty. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin. Available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Knight/knRUP.html
  8. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan, 472.
  9. Markowits, H. M. (1952). Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance, 7 (1), 71–91.
  10. Vitlinskyi, V. V., Velykoivanenko, H. I. (2004). Ryzykolohiia v ekonomitsi ta pidpryiemnytstvi. Kyiv: KNEU, 480.
  11. Osnovin, S., Mal'tsevich, N., Osnovin, V., Osnovina, L. (2018). Funktsii upravleniya riskami organizatsii. Agrarnaya ekonomika, 8, 11–18.
  12. Borovkova, V. A. (2018). Refreyming protsessa menedzhmenta riska organizatsiy. Ekonomicheskiy analiz: teoriya i praktika, 17 (8), 1428–1448.
  13. Babenko, V. A. (2018). Metody i modeli otsenivaniya riska na primere proizvodstva produktsii sel'skogo khozyaystva. Vіsnik Khmel'nits'kogo natsіonal'nogo unіversitetu, 1, 182–186.
  14. Zhmurko, I. (2017). Ryzyky v ahrarnomu sektori ta neobkhidnist yikh strakhuvannia. Ekonomichnyi dyskurs, 1, 42–49.
  15. Lobova, O. (2014). Efektyvnist strakhuvannia pyzykiv pidppyiemnytskoi diialnosti v ahrarnomu sektori. Visnyk KNU im. Tarasa Shevchenka. Ekonomika, 3, 70–76.
  16. Pimenov, N. A. (2018). Upravlenie finansovymi riskami v sisteme ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti. Moscow: Yurayt, 326.
  17. Nazarchuk, T. V., Kosiiuk, O. M. (2015). Menedzhment orhanizatsii. Kyiv: Tsentr uchbovoi literatury, 560.
  18. Zorina, O. A. (2011). Metody analizu finansovykh pyzykiv. Elektronnyi resurs. Problemy teorii ta metodolohii bukhhalterskoho obliku kontroliu i analizu, 2 (20), 221–229.
  19. Druzhbliak, N. (2018). Ukraina mozhe vstanovyty rekord z vrozhaiu. Vysokyi zamok. Available at: https://wz.lviv.ua/article/370259-ukraina-mozhe-vstanovyty-rekord-z-vrozhaiu Last accessed: 10.05.2018
  20. Ukazaniya. Departament veterinarnogo i prodovol'stvennogo nadzora Ministerstva sel'skogo khozyaystva i prodovol'stviya Respubliki Belarus'. Available at: http://www.dvpn.gov.by/normativnye-dokumenty/veterinarnaya-sluzhba-respubliki-belarus/ukazaniya/ Last accessed: 10.05.2018
  21. Spearman, C. (1904). The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15 (1), 72–10. doi: http://doi.org/10.2307/1412159

Published

2018-12-20

How to Cite

Yehorova, O., Dorohan-Pysarenko, L., Chip, L., & Tyutyunnik, M. (2018). Assessment оf entreрreneurіal rіsks іn agrісulture. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 1(4(45), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.15587/2312-8372.2019.146943

Issue

Section

Economics and Enterprise Management: Original Research