State Policy Financial Support of Development of Agricultural Sector

Ukraine Abstract. Research background: The current state and main directions of state policy of financial security of agriculture production based on the evaluation of financial results of entities that are defined by a set of financial and economic indicators. The problems and prospects of the state policy on directions and volumes of budget support to the agricultural sector by analyzing the content and scope of government support. Despite some positive trends in the development of agriculture of Ukraine, one of its main problems is the lack of funding from the state. Purpose of the article: The purpose of the study is to identify the according financial policy action for financial providing agricultural production for basic analysis of indicators of its financial and economic development, and identifying key targets for economic growth of the industry. Methods: The methods of monitoring stаtе rеgulаtion of finаnciаl support for thе dеvеlopmеnt of аgriculturаl sеct or are: information-analytical, information-statistical, sociological, geo-information. Findings & Value added: State financial policy should direct participants in financial relations to implement political, social and economic targets, defining goals and ways to achieve it. The state should play a key role in the innovation process and address its effects on the financial support of research and development and act big, and sometimes the main investor in the new knowledge and


Introduction
In Ukraine, the agricultural sector (agriculture, food and processing industry) has a significant impact on the economy. It generates 17 percent of gross domestic product and about 60 percent of the population consumption fund. In addition, the agricultural sector is one of the main budget-forming sectors of the national economy, whose share in the consolidated budget of Ukraine is 8.9 percent and is the second largest economic sectors in the commodity export structure [1,2].
Despite some positive trends in the development of agriculture of Ukraine, one of its main problems is the continuous decline in public funding. State support for agriculture should be aimed at the overall development of agricultural production based on socioeconomic indicators: salary increase, employment in rural areas and investment attractiveness of the industry on the one hand with another increase revenues to local budgets to create favorable social conditions of rural residents and improve welfare.

Methods
The methods of monitoring stаtе rеgulаtion of finаnciаl support for thе dеvеlopmеnt of аgriculturаl sеctor are: information-analytical, information-statistical, sociological, geoinformation.

Results
The effectiveness of the strategy of the state policy of financial support to the agricultural sector is characterized by a level of financial performance and financial condition of the company, defined by a set of financial and economic indicators ( Table 1).
The main directions of the state policy of financial security of agriculture production by the Law of Ukraine "On State Support of Agriculture of Ukraine", the Law of Ukraine "On the State Budget of Ukraine for the current year," the state target program of development of Ukrainian village till 2015", State Target Program sustainable Rural Development for the period until 2020, the concept of comprehensive state reform program and agricultural development of Ukraine program "Agrarian reform in action" and others.  [3,4] Let us analyse the composition of government expenditure aimed at funding the development of agriculture of Ukraine during recent years ( Table 2).
The total amount of expenditure over the period decreased by 352.8 million. UAH (or 6.13%). Regarding the structure of expenditures, the largest share in the total in 2018 with spending on training, retraining and workforce -54.2%, the share of this area has increased by 14.66%, while -at 45.44%. For this area provides for funding training for agriculture universities I-II and III-IV accreditation level, institutions of postgraduate education and training of workers [9].
Another important component is government support for the livestock industry -13,83% of the total expenditure in 2018. It should be noted that funding for the development of livestock in 2016 had the largest share in the structure of spending on SHS Web of Conferences 9 2, 0 (2021) Globalization and its Socio-Economic Consequences 2020  The current practice of direct public funding of agriculture of Ukraine did not ensure effective and efficient use of financial resources. Using these funds were in violation of certain requirements of the current legislation, no clear criteria for determining the allocation of funds, and most were not worked out a clear strategy for development of the agricultural sector [7][8][9].
Unfortunately, Ukraine is rapidly losing market of genetic resources (seeds-varietal crop and livestock breeds). By purely Ukrainian cultures such as corn, sunflower, sugar beet, potatoes, vegetables, and melons in Ukraine has already registered more than 50% of foreign species selection [10].
Cancelled funding a number of important programs to support the agricultural sector, including: scientific developments in standardization and certification of agricultural products, state support of agricultural service cooperatives, funding for protection, reproduction and improvement of soil fertility, budgetary livestock subsidies and state support of crop production State support for agricultural advisory services program of partial compensation of sophisticated agricultural machinery of domestic production and procurement of breeding heifers and cows, domestic equipment for agriculture, followed by the implementation of an agricultural enterprise under financial leasing. (tab.3) [11,12] Not Effective proved and the State Program of development of domestic machinery for agriculture, which led to the fact that the domestic market for almost 80% of sales accounted for by technical means foreign production, while the existing machine-tractor fleet by nearly 70% needs to be changed [13]. In 2015 the program was cancelled public funding laying on young orchards, vineyards and berries and supervising them.

Conclusion
The most effective today is a form of indirect state support of agricultural producers on the basis of a special VAT regime, which allows you to leave it at the disposal on productive activities. Experts estimate the total amount of the state support in 2019 exceeded 16 bln. UAH, which on average is 754 USD. 1 ha. However, with the decrease in the tax burden in agriculture, investment (public benefits) is not accompanied by the modernization of existing facilities and increased focus on exports [14][15][16][17].
The most influential negative factor in the current situation is the lack of state policy of agriculture and support domestic producers, without providing interaction of all participants in the state, scientific and industrial sectors of agriculture, which led to the adoption of inefficient management decisions and ineffectiveness of such support and not promoted as effective development of the industry, and solving social problems of rural areas.
State support of the village in Ukraine due not only common features of agricultural production, and the fact that the conducted reformation, change of ownership, the creation of new legal forms of enterprises transition to market principles of management, etc., caused a number of social and demographic reforms in agriculture that began after Ukraine gained independence implemented inconsistently, did not have the character of consistency and comprehensiveness [18][19][20][21][22]. State financial policy should direct participants in financial relations to implement political, social and economic targets, defining goals and ways to achieve it. The state should play a key role in the innovation process and address its effects on the financial support of research and development and act big, and sometimes the main investor in the new knowledge and technology. SHS Web of Conferences 9 2, 0 (2021) Globalization and its Socio-Economic Consequences 2020 2052 https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219202052