{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019596541786743516, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005763688760806916, 'mean_word_length': 5.4397031539888685, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Transformation of organizational and legal forms of agriculture from multistructure to latifundation

The purpose of the article is to analyze the post-reform state of the organizational and legal structure of agriculture and outline the possible risks of latifundation with the introduction of a market turnover of rights to land plots. Research methods. The research was based on general scientific and economic research methods, the work of Ukrainian scientists on terminology, regulations, data from the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine and Internet resources. The principle of historicism helped to elucidate the root causes of the origin of the term "multistructural nature" of the organizational and legal structure of agriculture in the 1920s of the last century and the prerequisites for the possible spread of latifundia in the context of the proposed model of the market turnover of rights to land plots. Analytical and statistical tools and an empirical approach made it possible to compare the dynamics of agricultural assets, the productivity of economic entities and use the method of grouping by their number, absolute and relative land area in cultivation (including rural households) for 2010-2019. Abstract-logical techniques made it possible to reveal the archaic nature of the term "multi-structuredness" to characterize the post-reform functioning of agriculture, conceptually characterize its main features, formulate appropriate conclusions and determine the prospects for further research in line with the designated topic. Research results. It has been proved that “multistructurality” is historically conditioned, that is, transitory, since it was used in another socio-political formation and had a purely party-ideological justification for measures aimed at eliminating private forms of farming in the countryside in the 1920s. Hence, the "multistructure" does not carry a positive-meaningful definition when characterizing the agricultural production of Ukraine, and even more incorrectly when defining it as one of the indicators of the strategic development of the industry. In our opinion, taking into account the main features of the transitional state of the agricultural sector, it is advisable to define it as a mixed agrarian economy with various organizational and legal forms of activity and organizational and production structure, but with real prerequisites for a creeping process of latifundation and monopoly and the displacement of small and medium-sized enterprises in the future. enterprises. The basis for this is lobbying by agricultural holdings, companies with foreign investments, international lenders and foreign technical projects of their interests on the introduction in Ukraine of a neoliberal model of the market turnover of rights to agricultural land. Scientific novelty. The incorrectness of the use of the term "multistructure" in scientific works and regulatory legal acts to characterize the current transitive state of the organizational and legal structure of agriculture in Ukraine has been proved. Practical significance. Compliance with the terminological culture of agroeconomic science in general and the use of the concept of "multistructure", in particular, can be useful in the study of the post-reform state of the agricultural sector of the Ukrainian economy and in the development of draft legislative and other normative acts on sustainable development. Tabl.: 1. Figs.: 1. Refs.: 25.