IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/areint/322721.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting for transactions costs of agricultural producers in the shadow economy

Author

Listed:
  • Mukoviz, Vasil
  • Leshchii, Lesya
  • Khodakivska, Olga
  • Prokopova, Olena
  • Kuzub, Mykhailo

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of the study – to explain the features of disclosure of transaction costs in the accounting of agricultural enterprises, taking into account the peculiarities of the shadow economy; to identify the main factors that lead to transaction costs and make suggestions for improving their accounting. Methodology / approach. The main methods used in this study are: statistical analysis to assess the dynamics and cost structure of agricultural enterprises; graphical and analytical methods used to determine the level of the shadow economy; theoretical generalization and comparison, induction and deduction are used to reveal the content of transaction costs and their values for agricultural producers; the current state and trends of the shadow economy in Ukraine in general and in the agricultural sector in particular are assessed through synthesis and economic analysis. Results. The role of transaction costs as an institutional economic category in the activities of agricultural producers and their impact on the growth of shadow economic processes in agribusiness is studied. The article shows that the share of transaction costs of agricultural enterprises is significant, and this reduces the efficiency of these enterprises. About 8 mln ha of agricultural land are used unofficially, which is about 25 % of all cultivated agricultural land in Ukraine. The classification of factors that contribute to the development of the shadow economy in Ukraine, in particular, the shadow agricultural market, and increase the transaction costs of agricultural producers has been improved. The factors of occurrence of transaction costs and flaws of their coverage by the accounting are investigated, recommendations on their reflection in the accounting are given. The possibilities of reducing the level of transaction costs are substantiated, in particular, due to their more correct accounting, the implementation of information systems and the formation of marketing service cooperatives. Originality / scientific novelty. The transaction costs of agricultural enterprises were further studied. For the first time, the relationship between the main problems of agricultural producers, transaction costs that arise and accounting sub-accounts, which will allow more accurate accounting of these costs, is schematically presented. Our own vision is proposed to identify the transaction costs of agricultural producers under the influence of non-institutional economic theory, their reflection in the methodology of accounting and their minimization through actions of formal and informal accounting institutions. Practical value / implications. The results of the study can be used in business operations of agricultural producers, in particular, the peculiarities of accounting for transaction costs are recommended to be taken into consideration when forming the accounting policy of the entity and also judgment of a professional accountant to be considered. It is also recommended to introduce accounting engineering, ie the format of joint management actions.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukoviz, Vasil & Leshchii, Lesya & Khodakivska, Olga & Prokopova, Olena & Kuzub, Mykhailo, 2022. "Accounting for transactions costs of agricultural producers in the shadow economy," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 8(2), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:areint:322721
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.322721
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/322721/files/4_Mukoviz_article.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.322721?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano Ciliberti & Angelo Frascarelli & Gaetano Martino, 2020. "Drivers of participation in collective arrangements in the agri‐food supply chain. Evidence from Italy using a transaction costs economics perspective," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 91(3), pages 387-409, September.
    2. Hou, Jianyun & Huo, Xuexi, 2015. "Transaction Costs and Farm-to-Market Linkages: Empirical Evidence from China Apple Producers," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211746, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    4. Zhuk, Valerii & Zamula, Iryna & Liudvenko, Dmytro & Popko, Yevheniya, 2020. "Development of non-financial reporting of agricultural enterprises of Ukraine," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 6(4), December.
    5. Olha Tylchyk & Tetiana Pluhatar & Oleksandr Kotukha, 2018. "Determinants Of Shadowing Of The Economy: The Genesis Of Economic And Legal Doctrines," Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, Publishing house "Baltija Publishing", vol. 4(3).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Assel Kaziyeva & Lazzat Zhazylbek & Kairatbek Kh. Shadiyev & Yerkin Nessipbekov & Raushan Azbergenova, 2023. "The green economy determinants to ensure sustainable modernisation of Kazakhstan," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1 suppl.), pages 167-182.
    2. Maria Blikhar & Valerii Syrovatskyi & Ulyana Bek & Maria Vinichuk & Lesia Kucher & Maryana Kashchuk, 2023. "Shadow Economy vs Economic Security: Trends, Challenges, Prospects," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 3, pages 130-147.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    2. Qiuyue Xia & Lu Li & Jie Dong & Bin Zhang, 2021. "Reduction Effect and Mechanism Analysis of Carbon Trading Policy on Carbon Emissions from Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    4. Usher, Dan, 2001. "Personal goods, efficiency and the law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 673-703, November.
    5. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    6. Mario Jametti & Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, 2005. "Assessing the Efficiency of an Insurance Provider—A Measurement Error Approach," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 15-34, June.
    7. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    8. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    9. Liu, Duan & Yu, Nizhou & Wan, Hong, 2022. "Does water rights trading affect corporate investment? The role of resource allocation and risk mitigation channels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    10. Valcu-Lisman, Adriana & Weninger, Quinn, 2012. "Markov-Perfect rent dissipation in rights-based fisheries," ISU General Staff Papers 201209260700001037, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    12. Kurtis Swope & Ryan Wielgus & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan, 2011. "Contracts, Behavior, and the Land-assembly Problem: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 151-180, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    13. Ralph E. Townsend, 2010. "Transactions costs as an obstacle to fisheries self-governance in New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 301-320, July.
    14. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    15. Whitten, Stuart M. & Salzman, James & Shelton, Dave & Procter, Wendy, 2003. "Markets for ecosystem services: Applying the concepts," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58269, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Rambaud, Alexandre & Richard, Jacques, 2015. "The “Triple Depreciation Line” instead of the “Triple Bottom Line”: Towards a genuine integrated reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 92-116.
    17. Karsten Neuhoff, 2002. "Optimal congestion treatment for bilateral electricity trading," Working Papers EP05, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    18. Maximiliano Marzetti & Rok Spruk, 2023. "Long-Term Economic Effects of Populist Legal Reforms: Evidence from Argentina," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 65(1), pages 60-95, March.
    19. Steven Shavell, 2003. "Economic Analysis of Accident Law," NBER Working Papers 9483, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Financial Economics;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:areint:322721. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://are-journal.com/are .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.