Ownership is among the exclusive rights. This means that the owner is entitled to exclude the impact of all third parties to the belonging-to-him scope of economic domination, including through the measures of self-defense. This, however, does not mean that the power of ownership over belongings is boundless. In accordance with the permissible thrust of civil regulation, the owner can actually perform, with respect to his property, any action, but not contrary to the laws and other legal acts. The owner is obliged to take measures to prevent harm to the health of citizens and the environment, which may be caused in the exercise of his rights. He must refrain from conduct which brings anxiety to his neighbors and others, and especially from the actions perpetrated solely with the intent to cause someone harm. The owner also has the obligation, on the terms and conditions and within the limits prescribed by law and other legal acts, to allow limited use of his property by others. These circumstances must be considered in formulating a common definition of property rights. Finally, giving the definition of property rights should be based on a common definition of subjective civil right, which extends to the right of ownership.
As for the right of property this general definition should be elaborated taking into account the specific traits inherent to the right of ownership. The purpose of the use of any property right is to obtain economic benefit. In law the basic rights of property are complemented by a number of provisions that reinforce and develop those rights, it is the right of inheritance, the indefinite possession, receipt of income from the use of goods belonging to the social protection system, etc.
CHAPTER 2. OWNERSHIP FORMS AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION.
Ownership is called its type that is characterized, above all, by who is the owner. Ownership type determines the identity of various objects of property to the subject of a single unified nature, say, a person, family, group, team, people. We cannot understand the economy, if we do not learn how to classify the property. That is, we must be able to distribute the relations of classes and assign them to subordinate species, specific forms, depending on their common characteristics. Classification assignment is largely hampered by the fact that there are two types of property relations - in the economic and legal sense. Hence, there are two distinct grounds for classification.
The basis for the classification of property in its economic sense is the degree of cooperation of labor and production. This test shows how many people are united in the process of labor and during the process appropriate funds and the results of production. Thus, the real property socialization level is determined. In its scope socialized production has three main levels:
1) the lowest level - one-man assignment (small enterprise, on which one person or his family are based);
2) the average scale of socialization (more or less a large enterprise or business association, which is united under the work of many people);
3) the highest level - a national complex (labor is cooperated in the national scale).
Classification of property in the legal sense is grounded in different kinds of powers of the owners and the character of the property. The following are different: the nature of attribution and the relationship between property owners and not owners;
1) the ability or inability to freely share the common property among individual owners at their discretion.
Sometimes the form of ownership in general is reduced to two types: private and public, to facilitate their consideration and study. In light of the above let’s concentrate on the three forms of ownership, which on the one hand have received wide recognition in science, but on the other hand are among the most common.
In the vast majority of countries private ownership is now prevailing in varying degrees. The use of private property is one of the basic elements of a mixed economic system. Much of the capital is privately owned. Private ownership of capital, produced goods and services, and the received revenues are essential to support the free enterprise system. Property is called private, in relation to which the owner is personified, isolated as an individual. Private ownership requires a certain rejection of others, not related to the number of owners; it requires the right of control over certain objects - capital, land, income, final goods, etc. All of those are personalized and have concrete owners. In other words, property is considered private if the right to it belongs either to one person or a relatively small group of people, each of which has a partnering owner, has his or her personal share of the property.
Private property belongs only to individuals. A variation is a private individual ownership. Individual, private firms, which form a legal entity, are small and are represented in a few sectors: handicrafts and agricultural production, services of all kinds, including the most modern, such as consulting. Their owners are either one person or a small number of individuals; the natural work (one person or family, as it takes place on farms in the countryside) prevails, but in addition thereto paid employment may be applied. Worldwide, there are several hundred million such households, but they are characterized by a huge rotation: every year a large number of such firms go bankrupt and are liquidated, but replaced with new ones. Besides small firms, individual private property category includes used-for-income property objects of individual entrepreneurs (small traders, artisans and liberal professions), working on the relevant resolution (patents, licenses) from the authorities and not forming a legal entity. Intermediate position between the private and public ownership is common property of a number of subjects. Common property is divided into a joint and shared. The common joint property is owned by all the owners together and not divided between them to pieces. The common share ownership is divided into shares, parts. In cooperatives, societies the share of each owner is called eral resources. In many cases, shared ownership extends only to the value of ownership property, it gives the right to participate in the management of the subject, but the owner can not withdraw their share in tangible, physical form, pick up "a piece".
Common share ownership is difficult to distinguish from the private; the boundary between them is blurred. For example, stock ownership can be considered both private and commonly shared, as the shareholder contributes its share to the capital of stock company. Stock ownership is also called the corporate as it is the property of a single corporation. Corporative enterprises exist wherever the technological base of an industry involves formation of medium or large-scale production, which requires large amounts of capital. These companies exist in the form of companies (corporations and limited liability companies), partnerships (complete, in faith, and others), cooperatives, non-profit organizations (foundations, associations). The subjects of common property can be any property owners, including the state. If the owner separates their part of the common property, it becomes private property.
The common property understood in the broadest sense extends from the narrow sectional to state property. The subject of property as an individual is not stressed in public property, and property rights apply to all citizens. At the same time, it would be inappropriate to assume that in the public property (sometimes called social) the individual as an owner does not appear. State property is something that belongs to all, together and separately, i.e. every member of society at least to some minimal but to some extent has the rights of the owner. Often, public property is identified with the state that is not quite correct.
The overall, including the national, property is sometimes divided on a territorial basis. In that case, those forms of ownership are distinguished as a regional (territorial) and municipal (local). Separation of those forms of ownership emphasizes the fact that the property to a certain extent is managed by the authorities of the territory, say, the municipality. Municipal property adjoins directly to the public, which, however, in the West, and in Kazakhstan is qualified as differing by the state. Nevertheless, in its economic nature, they are related to each other. The only difference is that municipal ownership is linked with the budget of the lower level and operates in geographically limited areas of national economy; ownership of a region does not extend to the entire country.
State ownership is ensuring for the state the right to control objects. State ownership in the developed capitalist countries today is concentrated in a very limited range of industries, which for one reason or another are low profit or even unprofitable, which makes them unattractive to private capital. These are mainly the socio-economic infrastructure (railways, utilities, education). In other industries there is only "point" of state participation in the form of stakes in companies. The average for developed countries of the share of public enterprises in the creation of GDP does not exceed 7%. In developing countries and countries with transition economies, the figure is 11 and over 40%. Companies that referred to as the state company, either are wholly owned or the state owns a controlling stake (or at least, has a solid blocking minority). Legally the owners in federal states are the federal land agencies (such as the land of Germany or U.S. states), and in unitary states the owners are the relevant central and regional institutions.
Companies and institutions (e.g. educational or health) in which the state participates at a level below a blocking minority could be called mixed.
In countries with a federal system the government property is divided into federal and sub-national, i.e. it is the property regions, subjects of the federation.
To clearly distinguish between the state and public property is difficult. The objects of public property, logically, should be good, generally available to all citizens on an equal basis, such as vacant land, water and river spaces, public parks and beaches, forests. If the possibility of using them by all the people is limited, then there is the principle of priority applied. And such places as zoos, nature reserves, which are administered by state governments, as well as are already in state ownership, as well as state enterprises, institutions, the main types of natural resources, defense facilities.
Now let’s turn the important question: which of the considered forms of ownership is better? Usually this question is in the form of a dilemma: public or private property? In fact, such an alternative formulation of the question is counterproductive. It should go about finding the most rational, optimal combination of both forms. Criterion for evaluation can be only one: what kind of property in a given historical moment and in longer term, offers higher level needs satisfaction of the population, while taking into account the indicators of life quality. From the combination of these criteria, preference should be given to private property, which is now the core of the developed market economies of the West. To create just such an economic system, developing and former socialist countries are striving. It contains the profit motive and competition, the realization of which brings the highest economic efficiency and better meets the needs. However, private ownership has its drawbacks, especially regarding employment and unemployment. After all, the profit motive and competition is forcing businesses constantly to seek perhaps a greater reduction in production costs, including economy in labor force. In Western countries, a wave of privatization in the 80's, the first half of the 90's led to a reduction in the proportion of state ownership in the production of GDP from 9 am to 7% on average, that means overcoming the legacy of the prewar and early postwar years. In the 30-ies state's direct participation in the economy expanded in the process of overcoming the deepest crisis in the history of capitalism of 1929 - 1933 years. State ownership in the prewar years in most Western countries was significantly strengthened as a sort of "backup" of private enterprises, that had revealed the sequential weaknesses, and as an instrument of maintaining the strength of the social system. In the late 40's - 50's in Western Europe and Japan, private capital was temporarily weakened by war damage and certain other circumstances. Such a gap as a need occurred was filled by the state, what is now not necessary.
The potential for further privatization in the Western countries has largely been exhausted. The state share in it, at least in the medium term, will remain approximately at current levels with slight changes in some countries. However, in some cases to deal with the possible appearance of unemployment, in labor-intensive industries (especially in infrastructure) new enterprises can be created through public investment. Programs of Western social democracy, which came in power recent years, in several countries, including France, Britain, Germany and Italy, provide for such measures. In developing countries in the same period, the mentioned rate remained at 11%. On one hand, this was due to the influx of foreign private investment, through which the creation of new private enterprises was possible. On the other hand, the weakness of national private capital forced the state to maintain a relatively high level of its presence in the economy. As in the medium term, we can not expect a massive increase in inflows of direct investment from Western countries, as well as other reasons, the current figure is unlikely to change significantly in the foreseeable future.
Former socialist countries have embarked on the transition from planned to market economy mainly at the turn of the 80's and 90's. Market transformation, of course, first of all requires displacement of state ownership with private through privatization and the creation of new private enterprises. In this regard countries with economies in transition since the early 90's had already passed (each in varying degrees) a significant segment of the path. However, the share of government property in the production of the GDP of these countries, on average, still accounts for 20 - 30% or more, i.e., noticeably exceeds the corresponding figure for developed and developing countries.
CHAPTER 3. Change of ownership
3.1 Change of ownership is an essential condition for the formation of the market
For the successful development of the property it is necessary to satisfy many economic and social conditions, in particular, it requires a review of the relationship to the property in the new economic conditions.
Modern economics today anew considers many of the processes occurring in our society. This applies to issues of ownership, the ratio of plan and market methods to regulate economic activity, direct and indirect methods of management of public processes.
With the democratization of our society motives of transition to a market economy appeared, therefore, attempts were made to implement this goal, sometimes not very successful, but, in our opinion, worthy of consideration, since it is with them that a slow and painful break-up of our old economic stereotypes began.
Adjustment period was marked by increasing attention to the plight of the Soviet people. Nevertheless, the essence of economics lies in the fact that the sympathy and desire to help taken separately here do not decide anything. For us to live better, we must produce more goods and services of high quality. Unfortunately, we still have not mastered this art. But the government performed an active social policy through increased emissions, but if adequate quantities of goods are not produced for this money, then it does not increase the standard of living, but increases queues, shortages and profiteering, as observed in the early stages of transition to a market economy.
We believe that for the transition to a market we need, above all, in general terms, be aware of something that moves our society: what the modern market is.
Having decided to build a market economy, we must, above all, create its image, to see at least the outlines, to assimilate the essence of market relations. However, there are several reasons that prevent deep perception and understanding of the market for a Soviet man.
First, we have seen and known a true market economy in all its many manifestations, almost never. If anyone was in the countries of the free market, then he or she saw only of its appearance, without delving into the essence of the internal mechanisms of market relations.
Secondly, we are not taught the market economy. In schools, colleges, institutes, radio and television, we were told that overseas was decaying crisis economy with exploitation and enslavement of the working people. Textbooks containing the true description of the market and the market economy, the works of so-called bourgeois economists were either not translated or published or became known only to a narrow circle of specialists.