So, the first article under consideration, “Financial structure: the first step to budgeting,” published in the magazine “Financial Director” No. 6 (December) 2002, is devoted to the issue of building a financial structure in holding-type enterprises. Thus, the author of the article, Oleg Dronchenko (financial consultant of the ROSSIUM concern), using the example of real-life enterprises, provides an analysis of their financial structure.
To begin with, the author defines the main task: “The main task of building a financial structure is to get an answer to the question of who should draw up what budgets in the enterprise,” that is, what is important for the author is not the development of the financial structure itself, but namely the definition of the “responsible person” when drawing up the budget and, most importantly, determining the type of budget. Based on this, he determines the procedure for further work on the formation of a financial structure: “... it is necessary to analyze the pattern of financial flows of the enterprise. The analysis should begin with the division or legal entity responsible for the execution of payments and the distribution of cash flows.” Using the example of a real-life holding company, the author of the article shows how to identify such a “person” on which all financial flows are closed. For clarity, he uses graphic objects - diagrams and tables, and also gives examples from the personal experience of practicing specialists.
You should pay attention to the dictionary of terms presented in the article. Here Oleg Dronchenko differentiates the concepts of central financial district, central financial institution and cost center. Thus, by the Central Federal District he understands “individual enterprises; subsidiaries of holdings; separate divisions, representative offices and branches of large companies; regionally or technologically isolated types of activities (businesses) of multi-industry companies”, under the CFU “main production workshops participating in unified technological chains at enterprises with a sequential or continuous technological cycle; production (assembly) shops; sales services and divisions”, and under cost centers “divisions serving the main business processes. The auxiliary services of the enterprise (economic department, security service, administration) can act as cost centers.”
Thus, the author of the article considers the financial structure of a company as a multi-level linear form, which is characterized by the development of a hierarchy of responsibility centers, at the top of which is the management company, which is a central financial district; at the second level there are also various central financial districts, based on the allocation and as business projects , and as separate structural divisions.
After determining the levels, Oleg Dronchenko proposes to conduct an analysis directly within each structural link and identify the functions characteristic of this link. The author sees the need for such division to determine a specific budget item for a given unit, since the topic and main goal of creating a financial structure is integrally related to the implementation of budgeting.
Thus, the author reduces the structural divisions of the enterprise to the corresponding budget forms at the level of central financial institutions and below. Within one legal entity, he identifies accounting centers and their further division into income centers, profit centers and cost centers.
Oleg Dronchenko focuses his attention on the relationship between the Forecast Balance Sheet and the Cash Flow Budget and their correlation with the structural divisions of the holding.
So, we can conclude that the author of the article, considering the financial structure of the holding from the point of view of a multi-level approach in the context of budgeting, comes to the conclusion that for the highest levels of the system it is necessary to set up three main consolidated budgets: a budget of income and expenses, a cash flow budget and a forecast balance , for the next level, depending on the function, one of the possible options for budget forms is developed, and so on.
That is, the development of a financial structure is necessary for the author of the article to answer the main question - who should create what budgets in the enterprise. This means that for the author, the formation of a financial structure is not a priority, but an auxiliary one.
An article was published on the official website of the INTALEV group of companies - a review of Pavel Borovkov, head of the Budgeting and Management Accounting department of the Intalev group of companies, about the work of Oleg Dronchenko. Thus, in his article, Pavel Borovkov tries to argue with Oleg Dronchenko, based on the experience of his own company, highlighting the differences and justifying his point of view. Basically, the disagreements between the two authors come down to different interpretations of the definition of “financial structure”, hence the difference in the definition of its tasks.
Thus, Pavel Borovkov defines financial structure as: “a mechanism for distributing responsibility for economic indicators,” but in Oleg Dronchenko’s article there is no definition of this term, he only talks about the main task of financial structure and ways to achieve it.
Obviously, based on this information, Pavel Borovkov comes to the conclusion that their points of view do not coincide. He also notes the difference in the understanding of budgeting as such: “Budget management (budgeting) is an operational system for managing a company by centers of responsibility through budgets, allowing you to achieve your goals through the most efficient use of resources.” It should be noted that the definition of this term in Oleg Dronchenko’s article is as follows no. In this case, the specialist of the INTALEV company uses, on the one hand, a more scientific approach (first gives a definition, then his interpretation of the understanding of this definition), but on the other hand, this approach is determined by the form of the article - this is a correspondence polemic. You can, of course, understand exactly how Oleg Dronchenko interprets the terms “budgeting” and “financial structure of an enterprise,” but these will only be assumptions, therefore, this omission can be classified as a shortcoming of the article.
If we omit the controversy and try to determine the principles of the approach to building the financial structure of an enterprise, then the following points are reflected in the work of Pavel Borovkov. Firstly, based on the previously presented definition of financial structure, the author indicates 5 main types of its indicators or a kind of classification, based on which the division into central financial districts in the holding enterprise takes place. Here, Pavel Borovkov uses the scope of authority and responsibility as the basis for determining a particular unit to the corresponding Central Federal District (see Fig. 1 for the classification of the Central Federal District): “ Expenses. Income. Interim financial results are “profit” from business areas as the difference between the income of these areas and their direct costs. Let's call it conventionally " marginal income». Profit as the difference between all the income of an enterprise (group of enterprises) and all its costs. Return on capital invested in the enterprise, expressed by the ratio of profit and the value of all assets of the enterprise that generated this profit.” In accordance with these types, the author of the article also identifies centers of financial responsibility, that is, he identifies a cost center, an income center, a marginal income center, a profit center and an investment center.
The author pays special attention to the concept of “responsibility”: “By “responsibility” itself we mean, firstly, the direct participation of each head of the Central Federal District in planning the values of the indicators “given” to him, and secondly, the performance of his duties in such a way as to achieve the planned values, and thirdly, accountability for their achievement after the fact.” Thus, for Pavel Borovkov it is not the nominal name of the center that is important, but its functional purpose. He, of course, allows for the option when “managers at a certain level (or an enterprise in general), for objective reasons, cannot influence some indicator, and, therefore, are not able to fully answer for it, but only take it into account. The most common example is the costs imposed from above for selling divisions, on the basis of which it is advisable to distinguish a CD with real responsibility and a Cost Accounting Center with only an accounting function.” Thus, the author of the article does not have the concept of “Accounting Center” as such, this is a kind of auxiliary option , when it is really impossible to attribute one or another central federal district to the corresponding type of classification for objective reasons. But this is the exception rather than the rule.
Finally, the purpose of creating a financial structure is to determine “... who is responsible for what indicators in the enterprise. Budgets are a tool for imputing and collecting this very responsibility. Indeed, budgeting is based on two equally important and necessary structures - financial and budgetary ... ". Thus, for Pavel Borovkov, the financial structure is primary and it is this that further determines the hierarchy of the Central Federal District and brings them under a certain budgetary form.
Further, in his article, Borovkov gives as an example the development of the financial structure of actually operating enterprises, for which the company’s specialists set the budget. Thus, for the group of trading companies “MONRO” (Novosibirsk), the criterion for identifying the Central Federal District was business areas: “Difficulties in setting up budgeting: ambiguity in the distribution of costs for stores between areas selling retail shoes and tights. Proposed solution: allocation of four independent business areas in the form of a digital business model: wholesale footwear, wholesale tights, retail footwear, retail tights. At the same time, the stores were moved to a separate central store, and the Direct Costing method was applied to the total costs of shoes and tights, i.e., not allocating costs, but covering them with the amount of marginal income by area. Together, TsMD Footwear Retail, TsMD Tights Retail and the common central store Stores formed a center for recording marginal income. Also, a CD Management Company was allocated to record other and financial income for the entire company and a CD Management Company to record administrative, financial and other expenses.”
Thus, thanks to this development, one can clearly imagine what kind of hierarchy of the Central Federal District the author is building: at the highest level there is an investment center (this is the entire Monroe enterprise, everything that is part of the structure of this company). The profit center, according to the proposed scheme, coincides with the investment center, that is, it is the Monroe company itself, as a set of marginal income centers and cost centers. Each business area was assigned its own center - the center of marginal income, and if the areas leading wholesale sales are independent, then retail is subordinated (shoes / tights) with one common cost center - the store.
For another enterprise, Wine World, Intalev specialists developed the following financial structure: “Difficulties in setting up budgeting: the company’s management is interested in managing income by dividing it by type of cargo, while it is impossible to divide costs according to the same principle. Proposed solution: the allocation of two business areas - CD (consulting services and customs services, and, within the CD, Customs services of CD were allocated by type of cargo, and CD - by functional basis). This solution was optimal, since the allocation of digital cargo by type of cargo was impractical. The central control center Administration was also allocated to manage administrative expenses, and the central control center and central control center Finance were allocated to control income and expenses for financial activities.”
Thanks to this example, we can conclude that the company’s specialists successfully combine various options for allocating a central financial district (both by business line and by functional method), based on the needs of the enterprise itself, objective external and internal conditions, as well as focusing on the wishes of the customer.
Thus, Pavel Borovkov sees a matrix form as the basis for building the financial structure of an enterprise, with the allocation of not only central financial districts, but also end-to-end central centers responsible for the accounting function. Unlike Oleg Dronchenko, his approach to building a financial structure is more structured and functional, thanks to a more precise definition of the goals and objectives of the financial structure and methods for determining the central financial district.
However, such a structure is not optimal for the following reasons: firstly, since the author represents only the highest level, we do not see how this scheme looks in totality, however, following the author’s logic, we can assume that this approach leads to overloading the scheme with elements , despite the fact that they are a necessary link. Since the business lines (in the case of the Monroe company) - wholesale and retail - sell identical goods - tights and shoes, produced in single production areas, it becomes impossible to clearly separate them. In this regard, it can be assumed that functional services of the same type operate independently of each other.
The magazine “Financial Director No. 5 (May) 2003 published an article “How to develop and implement a management accounting system in an enterprise,” the author of which is Alexey Molvinsky, General Director of the Cogito Investment company. It examines the issue of setting up a management accounting system and, as one of the elements, building the financial structure of an enterprise. Thus, for the author of the article, the purpose of creating a financial structure is to be able to clearly determine which divisions are able to provide the necessary data for management accounting.
He allocates all central federal districts based on the scope of authority and responsibility. Moreover
Cost centers have their own division: “A standard cost center is a division (a set of divisions), the head of which is responsible for achieving the planned level of costs per unit of product (work, service) (for example, a production department, a purchasing department). A management cost center is a division (a set of divisions), the head of which is responsible for achieving the planned level of total costs (for example, accounting, administration). "This is a kind of separation of the general and the specific. The same thing happened in the works of previous authors, with the only difference that they detailed not costs, but income.
Alexey Molvinsky takes a constructive approach to the issue of organizing the financial system and proposes not only to single out central financial districts, but also to assign them a level and code. One can understand why exactly such an integrated approach is carried out by Molivinsky - his main task is to provide management accounting.
The main point that I would like to focus on is an example from personal experience, which the author published in the article: “Currently, the management structure of our organization is of a project type: each income generation center is considered as a separate project. Similarly, we allocate branches and dependent companies to such central federal districts. Our company is constantly developing: trade turnover is increasing, product groups are expanding, new projects are being introduced for product distribution. In this regard, the organizational and financial structure of the enterprise is changing. Therefore, the financial structure must be designed in such a way that it can be adjusted to the newly emerging centers of financial responsibility.” Thus, we can conclude that another problem in the formation of a financial structure is the problem of the “mobility” of this structure, its ability to change depending on external and internal circumstances, its ability to be mobile and responsive.
The following publication is a commentary by Sergei Bezhin, senior consultant of the ITeam consulting company, on the article “Financial Responsibility Centers” by A.V. Mislavsky in the magazine “Double Entry” No. 10. Sergei Bezhin sees the goal of building a financial structure as: “distribution of responsibility for achieving financial results” and considers it precisely from the standpoint of budgeting. Thus, if Oleg Dronchenko’s priority was still Budgeting and financial structure was, as it were, “secondary” or “official”, here the author, on the contrary, shows their relationship: “Formation of the financial structure of the enterprise, namely the allocation of financial responsibility centers (FRC), - the first step towards creating a budgeting system. Each division of the company contributes to the final financial result of the company (in the form of raising income or making expenses) and must be responsible for its actions: plan, report on results. It is on the delegation of responsibility that the budgeting process is built.” That is, if the purpose of building a financial structure is to distribute responsibility for achieving financial results, it becomes clear that the financial structure is as important and necessary as Budgeting as such.
Unlike previous authors, Sergei Bezhin identifies 4 central federal districts in terms of the scope of powers and responsibilities and examines their varieties and tools of budget management: “ Cost center-- a structural unit responsible for performing a certain amount of work (production task) within the framework of the resources allocated for these purposes. As a rule, most divisions of the company belong to this type of central financial district. First of all, production (workshops of main and auxiliary production, service departments). At the same time, the cost center may also have income (for example, revenue from the sale of external services by a transport division), but if their value is insignificant, and the provision of these services is not the main business of the company, the Central Federal District is defined as a cost center. The budget management tools for this type of central financial district are the Production Budget (production program) and the Cost Budget (or Cost Estimate). Purchasing centers and administrative cost centers can be distinguished as a type of cost centers. Purchasing Center- this is a type of cost center; it is responsible for the timely and full supply of the enterprise with the necessary material resources within the limits allocated for these purposes. Such responsibility centers include, for example, purchasing departments. The budget management tools for this type of central financial district are the Procurement Budget (may include transportation costs) and the Cost Estimate. Management Cost Center- This is a type of cost center; it is responsible for the quality performance of management functions. This type includes the company's management apparatus, in most cases without dividing it into structural components (directorates, departments). The budgetary management tool for this type of central federal district is the Estimate of Management Costs.” Thus, the author considers not only possible approaches, but also clarifies what options for their modification may exist. Thus, the boundaries of the Central Federal District become mobile and can be expanded depending on the situation. The author of the article is not strictly tied to the framework; he allows for the emergence of new structural divisions, but clearly sets the requirements for the definition of the central financial district: “When identifying a center of financial responsibility, it is necessary to take into account the possibility of clearly defining the list of products, works or services provided to external clients or internal structural divisions. The center of financial responsibility is characterized by financial independence, that is, its head must be able to determine and manage the financial result of the Central Federal District. The activities of the responsibility center are planned and controlled through a system of key indicators.” Here, for the first time, the author focuses on “internal” and “external” processes. So, there is some optimization here, that is, a combination of positive effects from the business process and functional organization of the business.
The author divides business processes into external and internal. With this approach, functional services “common” for external businesses, such as procurement, logistics, production, advertising, and finance, can be separated into an independent business process. With this structure, they will represent independent business units with the financial responsibility of the Profit Center.
Like other authors, Sergei Bezhin builds a hierarchy of central financial districts and, like other CIs, this is the highest level: “In practice, in most cases, the enterprise itself is designated as the investment center as a whole, since only its management determines the investment policy, structure and amount of fixed assets and controls the financial condition of the company as a whole. Responsibility for the activities of the enterprise also includes control of current activities, therefore most often this center is defined as a center for profit and investment. The profit and investment center includes dedicated income centers and cost centers. If there are structural divisions responsible for the financial results of certain types of business (for example, manufacturing enterprises that are part of a holding company, have separate sales markets, their own suppliers, independently determine the pricing policy, but do not make decisions on investing the profit received as a result of current activities), profit centers are formed along with income centers and cost centers. Profit centers can be formed not only on the basis of a separate structural unit, but also as part of several structural units of various divisions of the company, located within the same technological or product chain. Further, within such a profit center, its own subordinate income centers and cost centers are distinguished. The subsequent allocation of centers depends on the complexity of the organizational structure and the need for delegation of authority (for example, within a cost center, cost centers lower in structure can be allocated). An example of such a structure is shown in Fig. 1.
Rice. 1
Thus, all centers except QI are “equal” and “divisible”. Another point that the author of the article talks about, but does not focus on, is the relationship between the financial and organizational structure. Thus, at the very beginning of the article, he notes: “The financial structure is only one of the sections of the company’s management structure. Therefore, it is not always correct to tie it rigidly to the organizational structure” and further we read: “The set of interconnected and subordinate centers of responsibility represents the financial structure of the company, which is based on the organizational and functional structure, but does not always coincide with it. Several divisions of a company can be defined as one central financial district (for example, management services can be defined as a cost center headed by the head of the company), at the same time, several central financial districts can be allocated within one structural unit (for example, within a trading house a wholesale trade income center and a foreign economic activity income center can be distinguished separately." Thus, this is the first author who identified another problem in building the financial structure of an enterprise - the coincidence or mismatch of the financial and organizational structure. Sergey Bezhin is of the opinion that financial structure is built on the principles of organizational structure, but since the first is subject to a clearer division, new “blocks” arise that are not in the organizational structure of the enterprise, but without which budgeting is impossible.
The final article, which was selected for analysis, was also posted on the portal of the ITeam consulting company and is devoted to building the financial structure of an innovative business unit. Its author, Egor Topchiev, is a company specialist who is developing a budgeting system for knowledge-intensive, high-tech industries, as well as for organizations of various forms of ownership during the period of their development of innovations (tax incentives, foreign economic support, targeted innovation orientation of lending from abroad, advertising of domestic innovations on the world market, development of leasing of high-tech equipment, etc.).
For such enterprises, the author proposes a project-functional approach as a basis for identifying the Central Federal District: “It is logical to apply all management functions of the IBE (investment business unit) to specific innovative programs (projects), since the activities of the IBE, unlike production business units, are focused not for serial or mass production of products, but for the creation of a single innovation (from an idea to specific knowledge, know-how, prototype or industrial design).” The author of the article simultaneously touches on the relationship between the organizational structure and the financial structure of an enterprise: “The financial structure of an IBE should be based on its organizational structure in order to avoid contradictions between the mechanisms of financial and organizational management involved.” Thus, we can conclude that Egor Topchiev separates the concepts of organizational and financial structure and says that changes and progress are possible, since, unlike “standard” production, the release of innovative products is not mass-produced. It is more susceptible to change and short-lived, its boundaries are more mobile. Therefore, the organizational structure is taken as the basis, and on the basis of it, the financial structure is built, that is, the allocation of the Central Federal District.
“The maximum efficiency of financial management in IBE, which actually manages innovative projects, cannot be achieved if the projects are not financial accounting centers (FACs). A financial management object is a financial management entity if a certain analytical section for all financial indicators in which this object participates provides financial information for this object. Accordingly, project managers should act as financial responsibility centers (FRCs), i.e. must be responsible to the IBE management for the financial side of the projects being implemented,” says Egor Topchiev.
Thus, any investment project implemented at an enterprise is, in turn, divided into IBEs, which are assigned the status of CFU, the manager of each CFU is a CFO, since it is he who is responsible for the financial performance of the implemented project. Further, the author focuses his attention on the “general structures” that ensure the work of different IBUs and assigns them the name cost center (cost center): “this is a source of obtaining information about costs, in contrast to DFIs, which are their “linking” point.”
Thus, a company specialist sees the financial structure of IBE as follows:
From this diagram it becomes clear that the financial structure is built here on the basis of an organizational structure, where the main one is the head of the IBE, who delegates authority to project managers, who in turn are responsible for the financial results of the projects being implemented. The presence of “end-to-end” structural units serving several projects simultaneously indicates that this scheme belongs to the matrix form.
One of the methods widely used in political science is comparative analysis. From the point of view of formal logic, any comparison is an action aimed at establishing signs of similarity or difference between two or more comparable events or phenomena, since “he who knows one knows none.” D. Dumas is famous for saying: “If you want to know the Greeks and Romans, study the English and French.”
Based on the principle of comparison, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Titus Lucretius Carus, N. Machiavelli, S.L. Montesquieu, K. Marx, F. Engels, V. Solovyov, P. Novgorodtsev, V. Lenin, L. Tikhomirov and others built their typologies of social and governmental structure, political regimes, power structures, forms of government, etc. In the modern sense, comparative analysis arose in the 50s of the 20th century. Adherents of this method proceed from the premise that the principle of comparison in politics focuses, first of all, on revealing, according to certain parameters, the common features of the political life of different countries, peoples, and eras. However, he cannot limit himself to this alone, since in politics we are dealing with systems of particular complexity. In this area, such “moving variables” as the personality of the political leader, the dynamics of political systems, the balance of political forces, the behavior of the electorate, etc. are of great importance.
Comparative analysis makes it possible to consider specific phenomena in the light of various historical and social prerequisites and involves the use of variables of a rather complex order that can be studied in comparison. Comparative studies require comparison of parameters against the background of real or analytical uniformity in order to identify factors motivating variability.
The object of comparative analysis is, as a rule, events, processes, structures, functions of various political systems and regimes, the arrangement of participants in political events and the level of their power, as well as state institutions, legislative bodies, parties and party systems, electoral systems, the institution of the presidency, mechanisms formation of political culture and political socialization, style of political management.
In a comparative analysis, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the policies of each state are implemented in the context of its political values, myths, ideologies and the logically resulting political culture, as well as the physical environment. All this represents the totality of national-political experience, diverse in each country. In this regard, studying the environment is very important. In this case, the following are analyzed: a) geography, which plays a large role in the formation of the social and political structure of the state; b) the economy, the national economy as a whole, including sectors of material production and non-production spheres, which largely determine the political system; c) religion, which gives society sociocultural specificity; d) communications – forward and reverse flow of information; e) education, from the point of view of its relationship with politics: the higher and better the level of education of subjects of political life, the higher the likelihood of their conventional participation in the political process; e) history of the state; g) ideologies and political beliefs.
From the point of view of comparative analysis methodology, it includes:
· collection and description of facts based on and subject to the use of carefully compiled classification schemes;
· identification and description of identity and differences;
· formulation of the relationship between elements of the political process, socio-political phenomena in the form of experimental hypotheses;
· verification (testing) of trial hypotheses through empirical observations in order to develop initial ideas;
· attraction of confirming factors, some fundamental hypotheses.
The most important task of benchmarking is the collection and compilation of data. Data collection requires a coherent logical system. If such a scheme cannot be created for some reason (for example, due to the undeveloped methodological tools, lack of theoretical and methodological equipment of the research object, etc.), it is possible to create a trial scheme that takes into account the interdependence between some of the most essential aspects of the object under study, as well as various non-political (economic, cultural, social) factors influencing it.
The benefits of benchmarking are undeniable. Its use makes it possible to identify general parameters and patterns of political phenomena in different countries and systems and use the experience of their functioning in one’s own country, taking into account its national specifics. Comparative research allows us to more fully reveal specific tools for achieving set goals, which significantly facilitates the implementation of the positive results obtained into practice. At the same time, the comparison is very relative.
More on the topic Comparative analysis:
- CHAPTER 4 THE PLACE OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE SYSTEM OF SEPARATION OF POWERS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
- COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MODERN SYSTEMS OF POLITICAL DEMOCRACY
- SOCIAL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT: COMPARATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS
- 11.2. Comparative analysis of domestic and foreign factors
In the process of studying or research, you often have to write papers on comparative analysis. For example, compare and contrast two historical figures, two political theories, two social trends, two scientific processes, etc. The classic comparative analysis structure involves comparing several objects. The author's goal is to identify and compare their similarities and differences.
There are various ways of comparative analysis. However, let us dwell on the key points that comparative analysis work should contain.
1. Context. Determine the context against which you will conduct your comparative analysis. In other words, describe the problem, theory, idea that contains the objects that you need to compare. For example, if you are analyzing two similar legal rules, it is useful to address the issues of the area of law in which they apply. To be more convincing, the basis should not be your own conclusions, but a link to authoritative sources. Comparative analysis without context will deprive you of the foundation on which you will build your arguments in the process of comparing selected objects.
2. Reasons for comparison. In the study, you need to justify the reason why you are comparing the selected objects. For example, you decide to compare which is healthier for a healthy diet: cabbage or beets. Readers need to be shown the logic that you followed when choosing objects for comparison. And explain why you don’t compare the nutritional benefits of carrots and cucumbers? This is necessary so that the reader sees that your choice is logical and conscious, and not imposed or taken out of the blue. So, state the reasons for your choice.
3. Arguments. You are writing a comparative analysis, so it is logical to operate with facts that can and should be compared when comparing two objects. Your statements are meant to show how objects relate to each other. Do these objects complement or enrich each other? Do they contradict, challenge, or exclude each other? The purpose of the arguments put forward is to show the relationship between two objects. Your facts are built on the basis of the context of the idea (problem, theory) from which you isolated the objects being compared (see Point 1). When showing the relationship between objects, you can use the following words: “whereas”, “while”, “on the contrary”, “in addition”, “complementing”, “excluding”, etc.
4. Methods of comparative analysis. Having written the introductory part of the work: context, reasons for comparison and arguments, determine how you will compare objects. There are three methods for this:
A) first state all the pros and cons of object X, then - the object Y.
B) sequentially compare similar elements of objects one by one X and Y.
B) compare X and Y , placing greater emphasis on one of the objects. This method is recommended if X and Y cannot be fully compared. Yes, the object X can act as a tool to determine whether an object conforms Y the arguments you put forward in Point 3.
One of the traditional techniques widely used in analysis is comparison. Comparison - is a scientific method of cognition, with the help of which the general and specific in economic phenomena are determined, trends and patterns of their development are studied.
The more bases for comparison there are, the more complete the analysis results.
Comparison can be carried out :
With a plan to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the plan;
With the previous period to study the phenomenon in dynamics;
With an economic model to establish the extent to which the theoretically possible best value of the indicator is achieved;
With a leading enterprise and industry average indicators.
To use the comparison technique, the indicators must be comparable. The comparability of indicators is ensured by the use of various techniques for bringing indicators into a comparable form. Such techniques include the neutralization of price and quantity factors.
When neutralizing the price factor to compare production volumes for two periods, one of them must be recalculated in the prices of another period, i.e. present volumes in comparable prices. At the same time, the methodological issue is resolved about which prices to use as comparable prices - those in force in the reporting or base period.
When neutralizing the quantitative factor, all indicators are recalculated according to one, most often the actual quantitative indicator. For example, planned and actual production costs differ not only due to changes in the cost of individual types of products, but also due to changes in the quantity of each type of product produced. In this case, the planned amount of costs should be recalculated to the actual volume of production for each type and then compare it with the actual amount of costs.
The following are distinguished: kinds comparative analysis:
1) horizontal, in which absolute and relative deviations of the actual level of the indicator from the base level are determined;
2) vertical , with the help of which the structure of the research object is studied by calculating the specific gravities of the parts as a whole;
3) trendy analysis - when studying the relative rates of growth and increase in indicators over a number of years to the level of the base year, i.e. when studying time series;
4) one-dimensional , in which comparison is carried out using several indicators of one object or several objects according to one indicator;
5) multidimensional , in which several objects are compared according to a set of indicators (for example, when assessing the competitiveness of products).
Lecture 2
3.5. The use of average and relative values, groupings, and balance techniques in the analysis.
3.6. Using indexes in analysis.
3.7. Graphic method.
3.5. Use of average and relative values, groupings and balance methods in the analysis.
To reveal general trends in changes in tex or other phenomena in the process of their analysis, relative and average values are widely used.
Percentages are used to study the degree of plan implementation, assess the dynamics of indicators, and express the qualitative characteristics of phenomena (for example, product profitability).
Coefficients are calculated as the ratio of two interrelated indicators, one of which is taken as the base.
Relative quantities are also used in studying the structure of phenomena and processes.
In practice, along with relative values, average values are often used. They are used for a generalized quantitative characteristic of a set of homogeneous phenomena according to some characteristic. Most often, to reflect mass phenomena, the average number, average wage, etc. are calculated. Economic analysis uses various kinds medium:
Arithmetic mean:
Average chronological;
Geometric mean;
Weighted average;
- fashion;
Median.
The grouping technique is one of the main methods of economic analysis and the study of socio-economic processes.
In order for a set of primary data to be used for economic conclusions, it must be systematized. Grouping is the combination of qualitatively homogeneous phenomena or processes into certain groups or subgroups based on some characteristic.
Depending on the analysis tasks, the following are used:
Typological;
Structural;
Analytical groupings.
Example typological grouping There may be a grouping of enterprises by type of ownership.
Structural groupings allow you to study the internal structure of the object of study, the relationship of its individual parts. With their help, they study, for example, the composition of workers by profession, length of service, age, compliance with production standards, etc.
Analytical (cause-and-effect) groupings used to determine not only the presence, but also the direction of the form of connection between the studied indicators. In this case, one of them should be considered as a result, and the second as its cause or factor. For example, grouping factors according to the direction of their influence on the cost of production: leading to an increase in cost; leading to its reduction.
Based on the complexity of construction, there are two types of groupings: simple and complex. By using simple groupings study the relationships between phenomena grouped according to any one characteristic. IN complex In groupings, such division of the population under study is carried out first according to one characteristic, then within each group according to another characteristic, etc. Thus, it is possible to build two-level and three-level groupings that allow one to study diverse and complex relationships and dependencies.
Balance method consists in comparing and measuring two sets of indicators tending to a certain balance. It allows you to identify a new analytical indicator as a result. For example, a metal balance compares its needs with its sources, resulting in a surplus or deficiency of metal. The balance method is widely used in studying the use of working time (working time balance), equipment operating time (machine time balance), and the use of raw materials and financial resources of an enterprise.
Distinguish planned, reporting and dynamic balances . Their comparison allows us to identify factors and reasons for the movement of resources.
The essence of this method is relatively simple: comparison of individual social phenomena and processes in order to discover their similarities and differences. Based on the identified similarities, a presumptive or sufficiently substantiated conclusion is made, for example, about their social homogeneity, more or less similar content, the general direction of their development, etc. In this case, known data about one of the phenomena or processes being compared can be used to study others. The differences in the studied phenomena and processes revealed during the comparative analysis indicate their specificity and, possibly, the uniqueness of some of them.
From the above it follows that the method of comparative analysis is largely based on such a general scientific method as analogy. At the same time, in the comparative analysis of social phenomena such general scientific methods of thinking and cognition as analysis and synthesis, modeling, induction, deduction, etc. are used.
The system of categories also corresponds to these methods, i.e. the most general concepts within the framework of which the mental procedures of comparative analysis are carried out: “comparison”, “similarity”, “difference”, “object of comparison”, “subject carrying out comparative analysis” (with his views, ideological attitudes and value orientations), “ angle of vision" of the compared phenomena", "whole", "part", "segmentation" (dividing the whole into separate segments for the purpose of studying them), "social homogeneity" and "social heterogeneity" of the studied phenomena and processes, "method of comparison", etc. .
The main significance of comparative analysis is to obtain new information not only about the properties of the phenomena and processes being compared, but also about their direct and indirect relationships and, possibly, about the general trends in their functioning and development. As French researchers M. Dogan and D. Pelassi rightly point out, “although comparison may initially be caused by the search for information, it is at the same time the key to cognition. This is what makes it one of the most fruitful schools of thought.”
Comparative analysis contributes to a critical revision of the researcher’s views on certain social phenomena and processes that have developed during his study of a particular country and which he is ready to consider universal, i.e. acceptable to many other countries. However, a comparative analysis will reveal specific features characteristic of different countries that were not previously known to the researcher, and the groundlessness of claims to the universality of his previous views, which are characterized by the concept of “ethnocentrism” (i.e., limited to the data of the study of one country), will become clear , above all our own).
So, a comparative analysis of various phenomena and processes of social life contributes to a deeper knowledge of their common properties and differences, trends in their development, as well as a more substantiated critical assessment of the experience of one’s own country and other countries. This, in turn, poses the problem of assimilating the experience of these countries, expanding cooperation with them in economic, political, scientific and other spheres of public life.
Benchmarking mechanism
Earlier, some components of the mechanism of comparative analysis of social phenomena and processes were already mentioned: general scientific methods of cognition (analogy, analysis, synthesis, etc.) and the logical apparatus (primarily the system of categories used in the logical operations of comparative analysis, its inherent judgments and inferences).
Let us now consider such a comparative analysis procedure as segmentation: division
the whole into segments and identifying those that will be subject to comparative analysis.
Thus, it is possible to identify such links in the economic process in a particular society as production, distribution, exchange and consumption of created material goods, and then examine each of them. At the same time, data about them can be compared with data on similar parts of the economic process in other countries, and a comprehensive comparative analysis can be carried out. From the system of political relations existing in different countries, one can single out, for example, the relations of the legislative branch and also conduct a comparative analysis of them. In both cases, similar phenomena are identified, which allows for their comparative analysis in more detail and depth.
The objects of comparative analysis can be social processes - economic, political, ideological and others, as well as their components, including the subjects of these social processes: classes, nations, other social groups, various elites, individuals, as well as diverse social institutions.
Segmentation as a method of comparative analysis involves studying not only the structural properties of the phenomenon being studied, but also the nature of its functioning within the framework of the whole (for example, a comparative analysis of the activities of various elites or political parties in different societies). It should be remembered that only by studying the functioning of any social phenomenon within the framework of the whole, including the corresponding economic or political system or the entire society, can one obtain reliable knowledge about its real existence and role in society, because it always functions and manifests itself in context of a particular society.
Important stages of comparative analysis are the processing of the data obtained, their systematization and scientific interpretation, which includes “simultaneously analysis and synthesis, searches for empirical evidence and formulation of concepts,” and other logical operations. In any case, it is necessary to show the validity of the phenomena and processes of their similarities and differences discovered in the comparative analysis, to reveal their social nature, the immediate reasons for their occurrence, as well as their social significance. In this case, useful practical conclusions can be formulated based on comparative analysis.
Comparative analysis can play a significant role in forecasting social processes. The simplest method of forecasting is direct comparison of data on the development of the processes being studied in different countries.
It is argued, for example, that the model of American democracy is a model of the future of democracy in developed European countries, etc.
Another method of forecasting based on comparative analysis is extrapolation (distribution) of the obtained data into the future “based on a number of hypotheses.”
It is argued (with good reason) that comparative forecasting has good reliability, “especially in cases of short-term forecasts,” and “remains one of the most promising approaches in the sociology of the future.”