Received 26.02.2022, Revised 29.03.2022, Accepted 18.05.2022
The article is devoted to the study of resource efficiency at the meso level using the production function. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficiency of labor and capital costs for agricultural, forestry and fisheries enterprises on the basis of the built model of the Cobb-Douglas production function. The parameters and the model of Cobb-Douglas production functions for agricultural, forestry and fisheries enterprises are calculated according to the statistical data for the period 2012-2020 and the main characteristics of the production function are calculated. It is determined how many manufactured products (goods, services) account for an average of UAH 1 per research period. labor costs (UAH 13.78) and UAH 1. capital costs (UAH 2.65), ie 5.2 times less. It is established how many additional hryvnias of manufactured products (goods, services) each additional hryvnia brings labor costs (UAH 12.22) and each additional hryvnia costs for fixed assets (UAH 0.13), ie 94.0 times less. It is calculated by what percentage increases the volume of output (goods, services) with an increase in labor costs by 1% (0.89%) and with an increase in fixed costs by 1% (0.05%), ie in 17.8 times less. It was found that for enterprises in agriculture, forestry and fisheries of Ukraine, the built production function has a declining return on scale and economic growth is not observed. Compared with the classical model of the Cobb-Douglas production function for the US economy for 1899-1922, for the model of the production function constructed by us, the ratio of parameters a1: a2 is not 3: 1, but 18: 1, but the condition a1> a2 is preserved. in human capital has a greater effect on the growth of production compared to investment in capital in 18 times
production; production function; marginal productivity; elasticity; capital; labor; resources; average productivity; agriculture, forestry and fisheries
[1] State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (2021). Labor costs by type of economic activity with a division into large, medium, small and micro enterprises (2010- 2020). Retrieved from http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/.
[2] Hrabovetskyi, B.Ie. (2016). Use of production functions as a means of improving the management of sugar beet enterprises. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhgorod National University. Serie: International Economic Relations and the World Economy, 8(1), 49-54.
[3] Hrabovetskyi, B.Ie., Tarasiuk, N.M., & Bezsmertna, O.V. (2013). The use of production functions in research of the dairy industry. Bulletin of Vinnytsia Polytechnic Institute, 5, 32-36.
[4] State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (2020). Non-current assets of enterprises by type of economic activity with distribution into large, medium, small and micro enterprises (2013-2020). Retrieved from http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/.
[5] State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (2020). The volume of output (goods, services) of enterprises by type of economic activity (2012-2020). Retrieved from http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/.
[6] Sharko, O.I., & Pashchenko, Yu.V. (2012). Application of the apparatus of production functions to assess the efficiency of using the resource potential of agricultural enterprises. Innovative Economy, 11, 60-64.
[7] Shcherbinina, S.A. (2010). A study of the development of construction companies in the region using the Cobb-Douglas production function. Scientific Bulletin of the Chernihiv State Institute of Economics and Management, 3(7), 60-67.
[8] Yankovyi, V.O. (2017). Modeling of Berezina bakery plant production with the help of production functions. Scientific Bulletin of Kherson State University. Serie: Economic Sciences, 22(2), 156-159.
[9] Cobb, C.W., & Dauglas, P.H. (1928). Theory of production. American Economic Review, Supplement, pp. 139-165.
