UDC 330.342:338.242
CUSTOMS SERVICE IN THE CONTEXT OF INSTITUTIONAL
THEORY
Rudnichenko Y.M., Pohorelov Y.S.
Аннотация. В статье рассматриваются понятия "институт" и "институт
таможенной
службы".
институциональной
Проведен
теории.
анализ
Исследованы
этих
понятий
подходы
к
в
контексте
формированию
институциональных определений в сфере таможенного дела. Предложено
авторское определение термина "институт таможенной службы".
Аnnotation. The article examines the concept of "institution" and "institution
Customs Service." The analysis of these concepts in the context of institutional
theory. Researched approaches to the formation of institutional definitions in the
customs area. An interpretation of the term "institution сustoms service."
Keywords: institute, Institute customs, government regulation, institutional
economics, foreign trade activities.
Introduction. The multiplicity of types of socio-economic relations in modern
conditions and global influence of state regulators determine the feasibility of using
the foundations of institutionalism in numerous scientific studies of economic and
legal nature. There is a significant lack of fundamental research papers in the national
science, the subject of which constitute separate economic entities. Thus, there is
definitely, a need to continue the comprehensive analysis of basic institutions of the
economy [1]. One of these institutions is the customs service of the state.
Analysis of recent research and publications. In the last decades worldwide
growth of interest in institutional research has been observed. A large number of
Nobel Prizes in economics to economists-institutionalists is, in particular, the
manifestation of this growing popularity: if for the first 20 years five scientists
received this award (Jan Tinbergen, K. Arrow, G. Myrdal, G. Simon, J. Buchanan),
then for the next 15 years there were already 9 of them (R. Coase, R. Becker, D.
North, R. Vogel, A. Sen, G. Akerlof, M. Spence, J. Stiglitz, D. Kahneman) [2, p. 1617]. Analysis of recent research and publications suggests that the issue of
institutionalism interest such famous scientists (R. Nureyev, V. Dementiev, Y.
Kuzminov, G. Kleiner, A. Nosova, D. Frolov, A. Anyutina, V. Martyniuk, S.
Alekseev, O. Markina, A. Shchetinin) who continued the investigations of D. North,
J. Hodgson et al. [1, 2, 4-8, 10, 14, 16, 21-25]. However, the research of the
mentioned problems in the customs sphere is rather slow; therefore the subject of the
study is rather relevant.
Presentation of the main material. Despite the large number of Nobel
laureates in institutionalism there is still no consensus on what the institution is. As
early as in 1934 J. Commons pointed to the existence of different approaches to the
definition of “institution” that caused difficulties in mutual understanding among
scientists and, consequently, in the further development of institutional theory.
According to J. Commons, at determining the scope of the so-called institutional
economics the difficulty is in the ambiguity of the word “institution”. Sometimes it
seems that the institution is similar to a building the frame of which is made of laws
and regulations, and individuals are the inhabitants of this building. And sometimes it
seems that the institution is the very behavior of the inhabitants [3].
According to the scientific views of scientists [10-20] the concept “institution”
is defined as follows:
by means of the category “custom” that is typical of the “old” historical school,
where institutions are considered as socio-psychological phenomena based on habits,
customs, instincts. Similar definitions appeared in the interpretation of the institution
by T. Veblen (institutions are established ways of thinking common to the people of
the given community [10, p. 40]), W. Mitchell, W. Hamilton;
institution is a system or a set of rules, norms, standards of behavior presented
in one form or another. This approach to institutions - as to the rules - are based on
the ideas of W. Hofeld (1913) [11] and on the late ideas of J. Commons (1968) [12],
and can be found in scientific works of V. Volchik, D. North , E. Ostrom, T. Parsons,
J. Rawls, A. Tarushkin, in dictionaries (of foreign words and the Ukrainian Soviet
Encyclopedia, etc.). According to this approach institutions for the most part exist
apart from specific individuals, constitute rules of the game rather than specific
players. D. North included a set of formal and informal rules into this concept.
According to E. Ostrom, rules determine what actions or situations for the
participants of the relationship are necessary, prohibited or permitted. The purpose of
these rules is ordering of specific relationships, ensuring of their predictability. Rules
contain possible positions or roles of participants (a member organization, an agent, a
subordinate, etc.); the order of taking up and leaving these positions by the
participants; actions which the organization employees who hold certain positions
can, should and should not do; the results which the participants that occupy certain
positions can, should and should not achieve. However, these rules only set the
framework in which the participants make a choice, rather than prescribe what kind
of choice they must make, i.e. the rules do not determine their behavior;
institution is contracts or agreements which are understood in the broad
institutional sense as an explicit or implicit contract that organizes transactions,
which is, by D. North’s classification, a kind of rules. However, the neo-institutional
theory considers rules and contracts as two independent areas of research;
institution is what creates a mechanism of interaction among individuals. This
definition is found in the works of J. Knight, D. North, T. Parsons. According to
L. Boland, all social institutions exist to solve social problems [13, p. 964]. D. North
believes, the main role that institutions play in the society is to establish stable
structure of interaction between humans [14, p. 21];
institution as a balance. One of the attempts to analyze institutions as
equilibrium has been made by E. Shotter. He wrote, “... What we call social
institutions is not the rules of the game, but rather alternative behavioral norms or
conventions that are formed around a certain game with certain rules. Other words,
institutions for us are properties of the equilibrium state of the game, rather than the
properties of the game. What is important for us is not the content of the rules, but
how the players follow them” [15, p. 155];
institution as collective actions to control individual actions and power. One of
the proponents of this view is John Commons who studied the effect of collective
institutions: family, industrial corporations, labor unions, the state, etc., as well as
collective actions aimed at controlling individual actions;
institution is a social structure that belongs to the social space. It means, firstly,
that the feature of the term “institution” is the existence of social ties among people.
J. Hodgson wrote that any institution is connected with social interaction [16, p.43].
Social institutions, by J. Knight, are common whenever individuals seek to live and
work together. They will be formed in the conduct of social life [17, p.1]. Secondly,
the institution is a social product, i.e. the product of human activity or human mind; it
is something established by people. Thirdly, the study of institutions presupposes
interaction among people. “We should realize”, R. Coase wrote, “that when
economists examine the work of the economy, they deal with the influence of
individuals or organizations on others working in the same system. This is our
subject. If it were not for these effects there wouldn’t be economies to be studied”
[18, p. 28];
institution is an external (social by its origin) regulating force that opposes an
individual, restricts his choice and economic behavior. T. Eggertsson stated that the
society affects the individual through its institutions that serve as social constraints.
Social constraints set by institutions are combined with familiar constraints of income
as well as technologies in standard economic theory and affect human motives and
form their choice [19, p. 665];
institution is a social order. A similar definition of the institution is given by
G. Schmoller. T. Verlaine wrote: institutions are the system of social life which is
accepted at present. In his opinion, social institutions are a special way of the society
and form a special sphere of social relations [20, p. 200].
The abovementioned definitions of “institution” and its key features contain
significant differences. Most authors define the term “institution” from the position of
the global approach, do not take the specifics of their operation into consideration,
and therefore some of their elements have been neglected by the authors. It caused
incomplete knowledge of some institutions today, in the national science in
particular.
One of the least studied economic institutions is the Customs. The institutional
analysis of the customs has been disseminated in legal studies, but it should be
admitted that a wide range of phenomena of different order though related to the
customs, but poorly structured, are designated as institutions here [21].
Nowadays there is no single approach to the definition of the customs: it is
considered both as an institution and as a state body, and sometimes as a combination
of both simultaneously [22, 23]. According to O. Markina, the customs institution is
an integral set of ideas, rules and mechanisms that determines, shapes or develops a
certain organization or is the organization (institution) itself as an open system that
evolves [24]. The customs institution is an abstract functional model of specific
customhouses (customs organizations) that records their specific status and the most
general institutional features. The institution of the customs is, figuratively saying,
“the amount of customhouses” where their specific characteristics - area of operation,
legal address, structure and staff size – “dissolve”. The institution of the customs is
an aggregated analytical category that combines abstractly the whole complex of the
customhouses of the country or of the group of countries or of the world (depending
on the scale of the analysis) on the basis of their common specific status [25, p. 10].
The term “institution”, “institution of the customs service” should be interpreted as a
state social and economic institution that not only regulates the movement of goods
across the border, but also creates favorable conditions for the development of
foreign trade, ensures the safety of the society and implements the protection of the
customs interests of Ukraine [26]. This interpretation is primarily conditioned by the
overall vision of the place of the customs service in the structure of the government,
as well as by its main purpose, which according to the Customs Code of Ukraine is to
regulate the movement of goods across the border, creating favorable conditions for
the development of foreign trade, ensuring public safety, protection of the customs
interests of Ukraine. The importance of this institution is that it ensures customs
payments to the state budget of Ukraine, which amounted to 36.5% of the total
revenue in 2011 (in 2010 - 35%) (Fig. 1), that indicates a growing role of the State
Customs Service of Ukraine in its economy.
Fig. 1. Customs payments to the State budget of Ukraine in 2011 [27]
Conclusions. Taking into account the importance of the institution of the
customs service in socio-economic relations and the lack of scientific studies on this
issue, we believe that in the near future in the national science there will be a need for
a more comprehensive research of the essence and nature of certain state institutions
in general and the institution of the customs in particular. It is difficult to develop
practical recommendations for the improvement of the institutions without
identifying key characteristics and basic elements of the impact of such institutions
on socio-economic processes in Ukraine, because any practice is based on the
statements of fundamental theories.
Bibliography
1.
Nureyev, R.M. (2001). Economic Subjects of Post-Soviet Russia (Institutional
analysis) (in Russian). - Moscow: Moscow Public Scientific Foundation. - 804
p.
2.
Dementiev, V.V., Nureyev, R.M. (2005). Post-Soviet Institutionalism (in
Russian). - Kiev: Kashtan. - 480 p.
3.
Commons, J.R. (1934). Institutional Economics: Its Place in the Political
Economy. - N.Y.: McMillan. - 369 p.
4.
Kuzminov, J.I. (2006). Institutional Economics Course: Institutes, Networks,
Transaction Costs, Contracts (in Russian). - M.: Izd. Dom GU VSA. - 445 p.
5.
Dementiev, V.V. (2009). What do we research researching institutes? (in
–
Russian).
Available
at:
http://www.instud.org/user/Demantiev_%20Instituty.doc.
6.
Kleiner, G.B. (2006). A New Institutional Economics: On the Way to
“Supernew”
Economics
(in
Russian).
–
Available
at:
http://www.kleiner.ru/skrepk/K012006.pdf.
7.
Nosova, O.V. (2006). Institutional Approaches to the Study of Transitional
Economics
(in
Ukrainian).
-
Available
at:
http://www.ief.org.ua
/Arjiv_ET/Nosova206.pdf.
8.
Martyniuk, V.P. (2011). Financial Aspects of Building Custom Systems for the
Benefit of Ukraine's Economic Security (in Ukrainian). - K.: Condor. – 326 p.
9.
Istomin, S.V. (2008). Main Stages of Development and methodological
Potential
of
Institutionalism
(in
Rusian).
-
Available
at:
http://www.lib.csu.ru/vch/102/008.pdf
10. Hodgson, J.M. (1997). Vitality of Institutional Economics (in Rusian). - M.:
Japan Today. - P. 29 - 75.
11. Hohfeld, W. N. (1913). Some Fundamental Legal Concepts as Applied in the
Study of Primitive Law. - Yale Law Journal. Vol. 23. - P.16 - 59.
12. Commons, J. (1968).The Legal Foundations of Capitalism. - N.Y.: McMillan,
1924 (repr. - Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. - 412 р.
13. Boland, L.A. (1979). Knowledge and the Role of Institutions in Economic
Theory. - Journal of Economic Issues. Vol.13. No. 4, December. - P .957 - 972.
14. North, D. (1997). Institutes, Institutional Changes and Functioning of
Economics (in Rusian). - M.: Foundation of Economic Book “Nachala”. - 180 p.
15. Schotter, A. (1981). The Economic Theory of Social Institutions. - Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. - 362 р.
16. Hodgson, J.M. (2007). What are Institutes? (in Rusian). - Issues of Economics.
No. 8. - P. 28 - 48.
17. Knight, J. (1992). Institutions and Social Conflict. - New York: Cambridge
University Press. - 234 p.
18. Coase, R. (1993). The Firm, the Market and the Law (in Rusian). - М.: “Delo
Ltd.” with the participation of publishing house “Catallaxy”. - 192 p.
19. Eggertsson, T. (1997). Neoinstitutional Economics / The New Palgraive
Dictionaty of Economic and Law. - V.2. - The Macmillan Press Limited:
London. - P. 665- 671.
20. Veblen, T. (1984). Theory of Leisure Class (in Rusian). - Moscow: Progress. 367 p.
21. Frolov, D.P., Anyutina, A.V. (2010). Basic Categories of Institutional Analysis
of Customs Affairs (in Russian). - Modern Economics: Problems and Solutions.
No. 9 (9). - P. 17-25. – Available at: http://econ.vsu.ru/downloads/pub/
seconomic/9/FrolovInyutina.pdf
22. Alekseev, S.I. (2005). Customs Service as the Institution of Development and
Safety Ensuring of the Country’s Economy (in Russian). - M. - 173 p.
23. Shchetinin, A.A. (2004). Institution of Customs as a Regulatory Body of
Functioning of Mixed Economy of Russia (in Russian). - Vladivostok:
Vladivostok Branch of RCA. - P. 9-12.
24. Markin, A. (2008). Theoretical and Conceptual State of Development of
Russia’s Customs Based on Institutional Approach (in Russian). - Journal of the
State University Administration. - No 4 (14). - P. 123-128.
25. Frolov, D.P. (2011). Institution of Customs: Theoretical Analysis of Potential (in
Russian). - Journal of the State University of Volgograd. - No 1 (18). - P. 6-12. Available
at:
http://new.volsu.ru/upload/medialibrary/
8c1/1_mgbyucomzenl_gwqzyopfedvugv.pdf
26. Customs Code of Ukraine (of March 13, 2012) (in Ukrainian). - No 4495-VI.
http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4495-17
27.
Informational Materials to the Hearing at the Government Meeting of January
02, 2012 of Ihor Kaletnik, the Head of the State Customs Service Ukraine, on
the Activities of the Customs Authorities in 2011 (in Ukrainian). - Available at:
http://www.customs.gov.ua/dmsu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id = 3154299 &
cat_id = 3181080 & search_param =% D0% 86% D0% BD% D1% 84% D0%
BE% D1 % 80% D0% BC% D0% B0% D1% 86% D1% 96% D0% B9% D0%
BD% D0% BE-% D0% B0% D0% BD% D0% B0% D0% BB% D1% 96%
D1% 82% D0% B8%