Increasing the competitiveness of domestic goods, industries, regions and the country as a whole largely depends on the quality of management of competitive advantages of various objects, the quality of state regulation of the competitive environment.
Currently, the most common forms of state aid and support are direct subsidies, tax exemption, state loans at preferential interest rates, the provision of land plots and other state property to enterprises free of charge or on favorable terms, interest-free or low-interest loans, full replacement of costs in case of project success, deferral of tax and social payments to the budget, preferred access to government contracts. The unsystematic implementation of these measures, which is currently taking place, complicates the formation of competitive relations and brings to the fore the task of creating a regulatory framework for state aid to equalize the conditions of management with the mandatory regulation of its individual types.
In a crisis economy, public assistance should lead to the restoration of the long-term viability of enterprises and industries by addressing problems, not just by upholding the status quo.
In sectoral and regional demonopolization programs, it is planned to focus on the development and implementation of targeted projects for regulating barriers to entry into commodity markets, i.e. economic, technical, organizational and legal conditions that impede or impede the creation and conduct of business in the analyzed market. Moreover, we are talking about those markets and in relation to those barriers that most affect the development of competition.
At the same time, the transition from the super-monopoly state of the economy is possible only with the most powerful state protection and guardianship of new business, especially small and medium-sized ones. Such assistance is most feasible in the following areas:
allocation of budget funds and attraction of private investment in the sphere of small and medium-sized businesses, including in the development of its infrastructure; preservation of the current system of preferential taxation for small enterprises; reducing administrative barriers to entry, especially on the part of local administration; informing and educating entrepreneurs, including legal, in order to form their skills of competent behavior in market conditions; protection of entrepreneurs from criminal encroachments [16 p.166-168].
Recently, when choosing a model of state regulation, it is more often inclined to believe that the determining point here should not be the size of state participation in economic transformations (it is clear that it should be large-scale and active), but the content of this participation. And it is as follows:
development of legislation that creates conditions, guarantees and incentives for entrepreneurship, competition and structural adjustment; strict control over the implementation of legislation; formation and redistribution of financial flows; distribution on a competitive basis of the state order secured by resources; targeted social guarantees for certain categories of the population; investment activity (as a guarantor) at the level necessary to attract private investment.
Today, the degree of implementation of these functions of the state is far from making it possible to achieve the goals for which these functions are intended. Therefore, modern enterprises, when developing their own competition strategies, have to take into account the imperfection of the legislative framework of entrepreneurship [1 p.18].