Table of contents
Introduction……………………………………………………… 3
Chapter I
1.1.
Theoretical basis for determining efficiency public administration and adopted by government management decisions…………….…………………………………….…… .……...7
1.2.
Regulatory and legal framework for the system for assessing the effectiveness of public administration in the Russian Federation …..……………………………….…12
1.3.
Structure of the State Automated System “Management” ……………………………………………… ………………17
Chapter II
2.1.
Analysis of the current situation in the current system performance evaluation public administration and government management decisions made ………………………………………….……21
2.2.
Problems in the system for assessing the effectiveness of public administration and ways to solve them …………………………………………...24
Conclusion……………………………………………………………28
List of sources used……………………………...32
Introduction.
"The state apparatus must be
efficient, compact and working"
From the Message of President V. Putin
Federal Assembly April 18, 2002
Our time, without a doubt, is a time of change. “We are facing serious threats. Our economic foundation, although much stronger, is still unstable and very weak. The political system is underdeveloped. The state apparatus is ineffective.”(1) Increasing the efficiency of government bodies and the quality of their implementation of government functions has become the leitmotif of all major reforms of the civil service. The reforms have been going on for twenty years, and there is no end in sight. What does this mean and where are the ways to return to stability - historical, political, social? Demands for change and shifts are heard from everywhere, the direction of which is determined in different ways by the opposing sides, but equally presupposing another sharp turn in national life. Liberals want accession to the European Union and NATO, nationalists and statists want a fair people's trial of the regime, Soviet power and dictatorship; the government, in turn, “reboots stabilization” with the slogan of modernization and innovation. In essence, a process of reform is taking place, behind which the subject of reform itself is lost. Reform, with a capital R, excludes the very raising of questions about Russia and represents a modern form of social unrest, a civil war, much more tangible in its consequences than the mythical confrontation between whites and reds that allegedly continues to this day. “Russia is sick” and “Russia is on the verge of destruction” are popular theses, but, alas, only in the context of the competition for Reform. In fact, “sick Russia, standing on the brink of death,” is once again being asked to forcefully pose as a “normal country” - either in the form of the average European Czech Republic or Hungary, or in the form of the “Asian Tiger” or the USSR during the period of imperial power. No one is interested in what state the people are in, what about their creative abilities and what kind of statehood the Russian people are actually able to build and maintain today.
It should not be denied, of course, that in recent years an exceptionally large and difficult work on the formation and development new system state power. However, state power and management in modern Russia are in a very difficult pre-crisis, if not critical, situation, a way out of which is possible only through a sharp increase in the efficiency of the entire system. state power. If public administration is to succeed, it must provide citizens with comfortable conditions existence in accordance with the promises that made this management legitimate. It is no secret that such actions in a situation of limited resources (both human and material) are very difficult, and the task of meeting the needs of the entire society, especially in the current situation, is almost insoluble. According to many experts, the organization of mutually beneficial and effective cooperation with the private sector and the public requires reorganization, or rather, restructuring of the public administration system. Currently, there is a significant number of studies on the effectiveness of government agencies and civil servants. Significant contributions to the theory of efficiency are made by economics, management theories, and public administration. However, transferring the problem of efficiency to a practical plane, implementing theoretical developments in practice is associated with a number of complex, complex issues, and, first of all, with assessing the effectiveness of management decisions. An analysis of scientific literature, analytical and expert developments has shown that there is no single systematic approach to the interpretation of the concept of performance assessment, its essence and meaning. An acceptable regulatory and legal framework for assessing effectiveness has not yet been created. But at the same time, the results of public administration are assessed by the entire society, its individual groups and each person individually, because they are clearly visible through changes in the level and quality of life of the population, through the development of the social and spiritual sphere, through the results obtained in the sphere of economics and national security , international cooperation, etc. However, this assessment does not replace the need for a special, formal assessment of the effectiveness of public administration. Moreover, the assessment of management effectiveness should be carried out at the stage of preparing a management decision, which to a certain extent can guarantee its sufficient level. Sufficient to ultimately create a situation where the Government, using a transparent and understandable system of indicators for assessing the activities of government agencies, makes appropriate management decisions in a timely manner, and the population of the country knows how the country’s government apparatus works and how rationally taxpayer funds are used.
During the study, scientific developments were analyzed that help to uncover the problems of work devoted to assessing the effectiveness of management, carried out by such scientists as Atamanchuk G.V., Stiglitz J., Nord D., Diamond L., Haggard St., Kaufman R., Niskanen V., Rawls J. The work is based on the report “Efficiency of Public Administration in the Russian Federation in 2008”, authors:
- O. V. Gaman-Golutvina - Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor at MGIMO (U) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Vice-President of the Russian Association of Political Science, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Pedagogical Sciences;
L. V. Smorgunov - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Head of the Department of Political Management of St. Petersburg State University;
A. I. Solovyov - Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Political Analysis at Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosova;
R. F. Turovsky - Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor State University- Higher School of Economics, vice-president of the Russian Association of Political Science.
Object research is a system for assessing the effectiveness of government management decisions.
Subject The research is the effectiveness of the practical application of the “system for assessing the effectiveness of government management decisions made.”
Methods research - analysis; synthesis; generalization method.
Tasks research:
- Study theoretical foundations and the regulatory framework for assessing the effectiveness of public administration in Russian Federation;
Analysis and generalization of the practice of implementing the “system” in public administration, identifying the structure and mechanisms for assessing effectiveness operating in the Russian Federation.
Identification of problems and development of recommendations for the formation of a system for assessing the effectiveness of public administration in the Russian Federation.
Chapter I
1.1. Theoretical foundations for determining the effectiveness of public administration and government management decisions made
It is difficult to disagree with the judgment of the famous economist J. Stiglitz that public administration is one of the most important public goods. (4) The problem is especially of public administration as an activity that differs from other types of management, primarily in that it is carried out with the help of state power and state bodies. Also, the priority role here is played by political leadership, politics, which is a concentrated expression of the public interests of social groups and citizens. Therefore, the substantive definition of the concept of “efficiency of public administration” and its criteria is not a technological operation, say, according to the “input-output” model, but represents an element of the management activity of a political subject, which carries a certain political aspect. “Public goals” are ultimately politically significant goals. “Results” - objects, services, processes related to meeting public needs and interests (expressed in policy). “State resources” are economic, social, political, ideological and information capitals regulated by the state, both in terms of social expediency and possibility, and legal validity. The specific content of the concept of “efficiency of public administration” can also be defined through a model - the “input-output” relationship, which characterizes the activity of the political system as a whole and the management subsystem as part of it. At the “input” of the system are the requirements of society (the managed object), which determine the adoption of appropriate decisions, the support of the managing subject - legitimacy (public trust) and the resources that the state has to implement possible decisions. The “output” is a real change in the object as a consequence of the decisions made and the achievement of the goals of the managing subject (system). Within the “input-output” system model, subsystems are formed and operate, duplicating the system one, as applied to the analysis, efficiency as an internal management activities individual bodies of the state in relation to other bodies, and external - in relation to society or its part. In this context, the concepts “partial efficiency” and “ full efficiency" The first is characterized by indicators of the effective solution of part of the problems, individual components of the overall goal, the second - by indicators of the successful solution of the entire complex of problems that form the overall goal. final goal managing subject. For the public administration system as a whole, the concept under consideration is interpreted primarily as “full efficiency”.
Having defined the concept of “efficiency of public administration”, it is necessary to move on to clarify the main issue - the criteria for efficiency. This is the crux of the problem. The concept of “efficiency criterion” of public administration denotes a characteristic or a set of characteristics on the basis of which the effectiveness of the management system as a whole, as well as individual management decisions, is assessed. The core element of this concept is the term “assessment”. Its specific meaning predetermines the ambiguity of the procedure for people to evaluate the results and consequences of the same actions and decisions of the managing subject. Assessing the effectiveness of public administration is necessary both for government authorities and for society. It allows society to control the quality of activities of state institutions. And managers and civil servants need it for self-control and improvement. management process. The problem of performance assessment is the problem of analyzing management activities and decisions made. Evaluation as the core of the concept of “performance criterion” is a term derived from the concept of “value”, which indicates the social significance of certain phenomena (social and natural). The objects of assessment are various results of management activities, means of subsistence, types public relations, processes, specific acts of activity, etc. They are called “subject values”. Objects are evaluated (their social significance is determined) in accordance with ideals, principles, goals, concepts, norms, etc. These phenomena are classified as “subjective values”. They should be distinguished from “subject values” (objects of assessment).
Modern approaches to assessing public administration are based on a broader “social approach”, which not only appeals to a generalized view of the structure of social relations, but also links the stages of production and consumption of a social product. It is no coincidence that in the research literature of recent decades the concept of social efficiency has been developed as an alternative to economic (or mechanical) efficiency. Turning to the development of methods for assessing the effectiveness of public administration in relation to government bodies at the national level, it should be noted that they have a certain practical significance. In a number of countries, these assessments are built into the executive branch system and are elements of monitoring and control over the functioning of its bodies. Assessing the effectiveness of public administration is a multifaceted and multi-level process that involves the use of general, sectoral and other, more specific, additional criteria. Including those that reflect delayed effects that can manifest themselves in the short or medium term of the activities of the state apparatus. Along with approaches that reflect the cost or organizational indicators of the work of the state apparatus, its institutional and quantitatively described parameters, the assessment of the professional activities of the state apparatus in the exercise of the powers of state power also involves the use quality criteria that allow us to understand and explain the various processes and mechanisms of the public administration system. The use of such a heterogeneous set of criteria and approaches primarily reflects the differentiated nature government activities. Ultimately, this makes it clear that success in some areas of the government’s management activity can be combined with completely unsatisfactory work in others. In short, on different social platforms or in relation to different socio-economic projects, public administration can demonstrate varying degrees of its effectiveness and efficiency. In this context, the concept of social efficiency defines the function of minimizing transaction costs and is directly related to the efficiency of the functioning of the mechanism for coordinating social interactions. Conceptualization of the concept of “social efficiency” in modern literature is based on the following premises:
- The social efficiency of the administration lies in reducing political uncertainty at the macro level, formulating clear rules of the game and monitoring their implementation.
Social efficiency is higher, the more more investment society in increasing the state’s ability to “effectively conduct and promote collective events” (5).
The key way to increase the potential of the state and, accordingly, social efficiency as a result of using this potential is to create effective system norms and rules that clarify social interactions and limit risks of various kinds (6).
- The overall social efficiency of management characterizes the results and consequences of functioning management system. In relation to the public administration system, this construct characterizes the contribution of the public administration system to the qualitative development of society as an object of management.
Special social efficiency is a tool for assessing the quality of the organization of the subject of management in terms of its content and structural-functional characteristics (content and meaning of activity; structure, functions, operating technologies, etc.); in relation to the public administration system, this indicator is intended to characterize the quality of functioning of the public administration apparatus.
Specific social efficiency correlates with the detailed features of the organization of the management process (in the case of public administration, with specific elements and features of the functioning of the state machine system) (7).
Historically, the assessment of the effectiveness of public administration was dominated by the criterion of economic efficiency, which significantly affected existing system assessment of the effectiveness of public administration in the Russian Federation that has developed within the framework of certain main directions of administrative reform carried out in the country since 2003. It should be noted that this system was influenced by both specific guidelines associated with parallel budget reform, civil service reform and local government reform, as well as general ideological guidelines that determine the general nature of the reform of various areas of state activity. With the dominance of the ideology of the “economic approach” to public administration (“new public management”, “quality of public production of services”, “resource saving”), the performance assessment system was also formed under the influence of the ideology of rational management (the principle of bureaucracy), paternalism, and the “reactive state” etc. The efficiency assessment system turned out to be heterogeneous, with a pronounced narrowness of “economism” in relation to public administration. Associated with this is the weak interest specifically in the social efficiency of public administration. However, a positive step was the desire to transfer the idea of effective public administration to the development of a national assessment model and its implementation in public administration practice.
1.2. Regulatory and legal framework for the system for assessing the effectiveness of public administration in the Russian Federation
In previous years, the assessment of the effectiveness of public administration was carried out on the basis of the introduction of a results-oriented budgeting system, PB, during the budget reform (Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 22, 2004). Within the framework of this system, a mechanism for assessing efficiency has been formed, associated with the preparation of reports on the results and main areas of activity of executive bodies of state power (DROND). In 2007, by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of June 28, a system and list of indicators were defined for assessing the effectiveness of executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. On February 9 and March 28, 2008, the Government of the Russian Federation made changes to the Concept of Administrative Reform and pushed back the deadline for its implementation from 2008 to 2010. At the same time, the focus was on improving the efficiency of the activities of executive authorities. Significant changes in this approach to efficiency were the following:
- the performance assessment system was linked to the creation of a comprehensive system of departmental and interdepartmental planning and project management by goals and results of activities;
the task was set to develop key measurable indicators of the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities in the main areas of their activities in accordance with the strategic goals of the state;
the task was set to “implement a unified vertically integrated automated system for monitoring the performance of state authorities and local governments in achieving the most important indicators of the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation and the execution of their powers (GAS “Management”)”;
creation of mechanisms for competitive distribution of resources in departments;
determined the formation of an incentive system for civil servants based on performance indicators, job regulations, as well as fixed-term service contracts with leading employees.
The Order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated November 17, 2008 No. 1663-r approved the “Main directions of activity of the Government of the Russian Federation for the period until 2012”. One of the key conditions for success in solving the tasks defined by this document “is improving the quality of work of the public administration system and local self-government. At the same time, the main emphasis is on the final effectiveness and efficiency of the execution of the functions and powers of the Government of the Russian Federation, federal executive authorities, executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments, on the motivation of state and municipal employees in achieving their goals. At the same time, it was planned to launch a fight against corruption and bureaucracy at all levels of government.” In the “Effective State” section, five main tasks were identified to achieve the corresponding management goals:
- creation of a strategic management system;
increasing the focus of the activities of federal executive authorities and civil servants on results;
optimizing the functions of executive authorities and improving the quality of public services;
increasing the efficiency of the public sector of the economy;
openness of public administration, interaction of the state with business and civil society.
On December 25, 2009, by Resolution N 1088 “On the unified vertically integrated state automated information system (GAS) “Management”, the Government of the Russian Federation decided to create a unified vertically integrated state automated information system “Management” and identified the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media as the state customer communications of the Russian Federation. The creation and commissioning of the "Management" system is planned to be carried out during 2009 - 2012 at the expense of federal budget funds allocated for the implementation of the federal target program "Electronic Russia (2002 - 2010)". It is also recommended that government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation create and ensure the functioning of regional automated information systems, information resources which are intended for their subsequent integration into the "Management" system. (8)
Clause 4 of Regulation No. 1088 “On the unified vertically integrated state automated information system “Management”” states that the GAS “Management” system is designed to solve the following tasks:
- providing information and analytical support for adoption higher authorities state power decisions in the field of public administration, as well as when planning the activities of these bodies;
monitoring, analysis and control of the implementation of decisions adopted by these bodies, implementation of the main directions of activity of the Government of the Russian Federation, implementation of priority national projects, implementation of health improvement measures Russian economy, processes occurring in the real sector of the economy, financial, banking and social spheres, socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, efficiency activities of government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
- GAS "Management" is considered by the country's leadership as a tool in the system of public administration and monitoring the effectiveness of the activities of executive authorities.
The concept of the monitoring and management system for national projects, GAS "Management", approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 516-r dated April 24, 2007, was developed by the Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications of the Russian Federation together with:
- Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation;
Ministry of Health and social development RF;
Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation;
Ministry agriculture RF;
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation;
Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation.
The structure of the system includes three levels of information systems. The first level (regional) consists of information and analytical systems in which the collection and preliminary processing of reporting information on the performance of the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments is carried out. The second level (departmental) consists of information and analytical systems that ensure the collection and processing of reports on the performance of the federal authorities of the Russian Federation. The third level (federal) provides a compilation and analytical presentation of information from the regional and departmental levels of the State Automated System “Management” in the interests of the highest government bodies of the Russian Federation, as well as federal executive bodies. Within the framework of GAS “Management”, the “vertical” movement of information is ensured in accordance with the management hierarchy (from first-level systems to second- and third-level systems and receipt of information by third-level systems).
Table: “Structure of segments and users of GAS “Management””
| Segments and users of GAS "Management" | |
| segments | users |
| Federal | |
| Monitoring socio-economic development | Office of the Government of the Russian Federation
Ministry of Regional Development Ministry of Economic Development |
| Monitoring of priority national projects | Federal and regional authorities of the Russian Federation |
| Unified interdepartmental
information and statistical system |
Federal authorities
Russian Federation |
| Departmental | |
| ICT in public administration | Ministry of Communications and Mass Communications |
| Monitoring industry and defense industry |
Ministry of Industry and Trade |
| Regional | |
| Typical regional solution |
Regional executive authorities |
Purpose of GAS “MANAGEMENT” systems:
- Monitoring socio-economic development
- monitoring, analysis and forecast of socio-economic development and budgetary and financial state of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the effectiveness of the activities of regional executive authorities.
Monitoring of priority national projects - monitoring and control of the implementation of priority national projects, achievement of targets in accordance with the approved network schedules for their implementation.
ICT ( information and communication technologies) in public administration - Monitoring and analysis of indicators of the use of ICT in the socio-economic sphere and public administration, programs and projects in the field of communications and ICT.
Industry and defense industry monitoring - Monitoring and analysis of indicators characterizing the development of industry in the Russian Federation by industry, types of activities, constituent entities of the Russian Federation and individual defense industry enterprises.
etc.............
WHEN MANUFACTURED BY THE MASS-VOLUME METHOD
DEVIATIONS ALLOWED IN THE TOTAL VOLUME OF DROPS
Appendix 2
Management efficiency is one of the main indicators of management excellence, determined by comparing management results and resources spent on its achievement. The effectiveness of management can be assessed by comparing the profits received and the costs of management. But such an elementary assessment is not always correct, since the result of control is:
· not always expressed as profit;
· leads to direct and indirect results; the immediate result hides the role of management in its achievement; profit often acts as an indirect result;
· can be not only economic, but also social, socio-economic, political, socio-psychological, etc.
Assessing the effectiveness of government management decisions is understood as a set of models and methods for studying and measuring the actual results of government activities or programs that have been completed or are under implementation.
Criteria, on the basis of the values of which the assessment of the results of public administration is formed, there are quantitative and qualitative.
Criteria and assessments are used to improve decision-making, reporting systems and government processes themselves, the quality of which can be assessed in accordance with the needs, desires and resources of society. At the same time It is possible to distinguish two measurable components of public administration activities: technical efficiency and economic efficiency. The technical efficiency of public administration is determined by the degree to which the set goals are achieved, taking into account public interests. It reflects the compliance of public administration with the requirements external environment taking into account the impact it has on the state of society, and is related to quantitative and qualitative indicators, important characteristics which are their efficiency and regularity.
Economic efficiency public administration is defined as the ratio of the cost of volumes of services provided to the cost of volumes of resources attracted for this purpose. Economic efficiency reflects the internal state of affairs in the public administration system, its own activities.
Until recently, to characterize the economic efficiency of management at the state level, among others, a general indicator was used - national income (newly created value) for a specific period of time; at the industry level - an indicator of labor productivity; at the enterprise level - profit.
One of the well-known approaches to assessing management effectiveness is to use the concepts of “efficiency in a broad sense” and “efficiency in a narrow sense.” Efficiency in a broad sense is understood as the result of activity achieved through the work of the entire team (including management staff). In a narrow sense, efficiency reflects the effectiveness of management activities themselves. In one sense and another, general indicators and a system of private indicators of economic and social efficiency are used to characterize efficiency. The sequence of calculations within this approach is shown in the diagram (Fig. 1).
Rice. 1. Calculation scheme for assessing management efficiency
To assess the economic efficiency of management in a broad sense, the following general indicators are used:
Resource efficiency Cost efficiency
Particular indicators of economic efficiency of activities labor collective a lot (more than 60). Among them: profitability, turnover, return on investment, capital intensity, capital productivity, labor productivity, growth ratio wages and labor productivity, etc.
General indicators of social efficiency in a broad sense can be:
– degree of order fulfillment;
– share of sales volume, etc.
Particular indicators of social efficiency are:
– timeliness of order fulfillment;
– completeness of order fulfillment;
– rendering additional services;
– after-sales service, etc.
Economic efficiency of management () in a narrow sense is characterized by the following indicators:
Summary indicator
Private indicators:
– the share of administrative and management expenses in the total costs of the enterprise;
– share of the number of managerial employees in total number workers at the enterprise;
– controllability load (actual number of employees per one employee of the management apparatus), etc.
General indicators of social efficiency in the narrow sense are:
– the share of decisions made at the suggestion of employees of the work collective,
– the number of employees involved in the development of management decisions.
It is also legitimate to evaluate the effectiveness of individual management functions: planning, organization, motivation, control (the work of individual divisions of the management apparatus). For this purpose, a set of indicators is also used that reflect the specifics of activities for each management function. For example, the planning function evaluates the degree of achievement of set goals (planned objectives); by organizational function - equipping the enterprise with modern technological equipment, staff turnover; according to the motivation function - the methods used to influence the team (reward, punishment, their ratio); by control function - the number of violations of labor, technological discipline, etc.
When analyzing the effectiveness of public administration special meaning plays a social effect. Russian sociologist G.V. Atamanchuk divides the social efficiency of public administration in general and the activities of public authorities in particular into three types:
1. Overall social efficiency. It reveals the results of the functioning of the public administration system (i.e., the totality of government bodies and the objects they manage). Types of criteria for overall social efficiency:
– the level of labor productivity, correlated with world parameters for its corresponding types;
– the rate and scale of growth of national wealth, calculated in the UN methodology;
– the level of national well-being of people per capita and with a breakdown of income of various categories, as well as in comparison with the standards of developed countries;
– orderliness, safety and reliability of social relations, their reproduction with increasing positive results.
2. Special social efficiency. It characterizes the state of organization and functioning of the state itself as a subject of managing social processes. The criteria for this type include:
The expediency and purposefulness of the organization and functioning of the state management system, its large subsystems and other organizational structures, which is determined through the degree of compliance of their control actions with the goals. It is necessary to establish legislatively what goals each government body should implement and, upon achieving them, evaluate the relevant managers and officials;
Standards for time spent on solving management issues, on developing and passing through any management information;
The style of functioning of the state apparatus;
Regulations, technologies, standards that every manager and civil servant must follow;
The complexity of the organization of the state apparatus, resulting from its “fragmentation”, multi-stage nature and abundance of managerial interdependencies;
Costs of maintaining and ensuring the functioning of the state apparatus.
3. Specific social efficiency. It reflects the activities of each management body and official, each individual management decision, action, relationship. Among the criteria we can highlight such as the degree of compliance of the directions, content and results of the management activities of bodies and officials with those parameters that are indicated in legal status(and competence) of the body and public office; the legality of decisions and actions of state authorities and local self-government, as well as their officials; reality of control actions.
Evaluating the effectiveness of certain government programs(economic, social or cultural development) is possible using the following indicators: the volume of work performed and activities carried out, correlated with costs; implementation of officially established standards for the consumption of goods and services; the level of satisfaction of the needs and requests of the population for certain services and necessities of life, which is recorded, in particular, by surveys of the population and analysis of complaints and suggestions from citizens; dynamics of growth of budget allocations, etc.
In practice, management effectiveness is most often determined by analytical or expert methods based on a comparison of the values of a set of indicators (signs). There are several main types of public administration assessments:
· evaluation of the implementation process;
· evaluation of results;
· impact assessment;
· assessment of economic efficiency.
The task of assessing the effectiveness of a public management decision is to assess:
· management activities of government bodies and public sector enterprises;
· policies pursued by government agencies;
· implementation of government programs;
· consequences of the policies pursued and the implementation of government programs.
The choice of assessment type and assessment methods depends on management goals, the interests of the organization or stakeholder group, socio-political conditions, the availability of necessary resources, and much more.
To determine estimates, as a rule, evaluation studies are carried out, which are divided into two groups: scientific and traditional forms.
Scientific forms involve conducting research using various scientific methodologies and techniques for studying social, economic, and political processes. Their use brings good theoretical and practical results, but requires a lot of time and large financial costs. When conducting scientific research The following methods are used:
· sociological surveys (questionnaires and interviews);
· observations (open and hidden);
· expert assessments;
· modeling;
· formation of control groups;
· conducting experiments, etc.
Traditional forms assessments of the effectiveness of public management decisions are represented by political or administrative control and are the results of parliamentary hearings, reports of managers and control commissions, state audits, etc.
The effectiveness of government management decisions can be assessed using special management models - “business models”. In business models, assessment is determined not only by functions, but also by the processes associated with them, since it may turn out that all functions are clearly defined and distributed among government employees, and the process itself is “broken.” Therefore, it is very important to “prescribe” all management processes, indicating the moments of decision-making in them.
Business modeling in public administration, just like business modeling in other areas of activity, includes three stages (Fig. 1):
1) organizational modeling;
2) modeling of business processes;
3) quantitative modeling.
The first stage consists of a functional and structural model of the government body. The functional model answers the question: what?, or what functions does the public authority implement, and the structural model answers the question who?, or who exactly implements the functions specified in the functional model. The organizational model has a hierarchical structure and can be presented in three types of documents: “Regulations on the organizational structure”, “Regulations on divisions”, “Regulations on job descriptions”.
At the second stage functional model is transformed into a process model: individual functions are presented as a sequence of interconnected business processes, reflecting their cause-and-effect nature, which is carried out by defining input and output parameters for each function. At the same stage, the structural model is transformed into a role model. The process model answers the questions: what, to whom, when?, thereby determining what role a certain position (a civil servant in a certain position) plays in the process. A system of process and role models is a process-role model of a government agency that answers the questions: what, who, to whom, when?
At the third stage of business modeling, the selected business processes are described quantitatively if they allow such a representation. A quantitative business process model answers the question: how much?
Rice. 1. Stages of business modeling
This approach to assessing the effectiveness of government management decisions makes it possible to automate it based on the support of modern computer programs. A “paper version” of business modeling is also possible, which requires a lot of labor.
Business modeling represents an integrated sequence of steps and is designed to allow government authorities to create and support these business systems themselves.
Assessing the effectiveness of government management decisions can also be carried out on the basis of creating a quality system in government bodies - a set of organizational and technical measures necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of standards, contracts, etc.
Note that assessment is included as one of the stages in planning, development and decision-making. In Russia, assessing the effectiveness of public administration is a relatively new area, although in practice its elements have long been used in government bodies. Currently, the task is to comprehensively implement assessment studies of management decisions in all government bodies at all levels.
results of this kind, ultimately demonstrating in whose interests and how the decision-making system operates. Various criteria are applied to the activities of the state as a whole, its central, regional and local government bodies, specific decision-makers, individual projects, including those where the state acts as the main actor.
both the acting person and the co-executor. Relevant ratings
are designed to take into account the nature of direct and collateral, planned and unintended consequences, and evaluate the activities of direct and indirect participants.
When evaluating implementation government decisions most often used quality criteria.
They allow you to record compliance results achieved preliminary strategic guidelines and priorities of the authorities, general ideological preferences of the regime, as well as the current situation. For example, …
How consistent (if at all) are the actions to reform the health care system with the principles previously stated by the authorities? social policy, or the capabilities of the state in this matter, or at this stage development of society, i.e. resources available today. In this case, the criteria may include both in-country requirements and use world-class healthcare development standards.
When using this type of criteria, their choice is determined by the one who directs the activities of the management system, and not by analysts, experts or even public opinion. Therefore, the level of arbitrariness and bias in the assessment here is very high. On the one hand, this is understandable, since, for example, it is impossible to determine from the expenditure side of the budget how well the funds were spent and the planned results were achieved. On the other hand, it should be recognized that there is significant variability in the estimates obtained when using these criteria. Thus, officials today can give the same assessments, and tomorrow - when there is a change in the ruling circles or the regime of power, as well as in cases of changes in assessments of the opposition or the international situation - completely opposite judgments can be formulated on behalf of the state. Differences in political assessments are especially noticeable during public discussions of the results of reforms.
The use of qualitative criteria in assessing the effectiveness of decisions, as a rule, involves different responsibilities of representatives of the political and administrative wings of managers. Usually, other things being equal, politicians bear moral responsibility for the results of implementing decisions, and public managers bear administrative responsibility. Therefore, elected politicians more often retain their status positions even with a general negative assessment of a particular project (largely also because such procedures for influencing them as impeachment, recall of a deputy are very difficult to apply), and administrators lose them (resignations, dismissals, transfers, etc.).
It should also be said that the use of qualitative criteria inevitably presupposes the organization of an appropriate translation of the emerging assessments into public opinion. In order to establish proper communication with the public (i.e., establishing mass contacts that facilitate the broadcast of positive or negative assessments of a decision in public opinion), the state must have the ability to concentrate its information resources for the required organization of discourse with public opinion.
Another criterion for assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of government decisions is comparison of the changed situation with the previous period. The application of this criterion also contains the possibility of using qualitative, including corporate, approaches. However, here this procedure provides more opportunities for an objective comparison of the results and results of management activities.
It is also important comparison of achieved results with projected goals. This criterion, using basic, projected results, assumes obtaining equally specific (expressed in quantitative indicators) evaluated final data. In this case, government bodies can have very clear indicators of the results of the activities of specific management structures and individuals, trace the dynamics of the implementation of goals, calculating the results obtained from the point of view of various phases and stages of activity.
Mention should be made here of a very pioneering approach recently put forward by Russian government: strengthening the personal responsibility of managers of various industries was supplemented by a proposal to allocate budget money to ministries and departments only when they achieve specific economic indicators. In other words, by 2007 it was proposed to distribute from 30 to 50% of the state budget in a similar way 139 .
Comparison of goals and means as another criterion for determining the effectiveness of the management activities of government bodies, evaluation procedures are oriented toward determining the price of the issue, i.e. to account for material, financial and other costs incurred by management structures to obtain achieved results. In general, we are talking about assessing the resource load on the state for certain activities of management structures. Moreover, the nature of this type of activity identified in this way makes it possible to understand the type of resource distribution, i.e. understand whether in this case the state worked for society or for itself.
Often the basis for assessing the results of implementing government projects is taking into account unforeseen consequences of management actions. On the one hand, this is an assessment of the resources used, or rather, unplanned resources that were not taken into account during preliminary planning. The greater the resource costs, the lower the efficiency of the management activities of government bodies. On the other hand, this is a quality assessment decisions made(including secondary decisions) from the point of view of the correct determination of the social, personnel and any other side consequences included in the goal achievement associated with solving the problem. Here, both short-term and long-term consequences that are possible in the long term are taken into account. For example, implementation of computer systems, construction nuclear power plants can affect the decline in employment, birth rate, migration and others social processes, which have their own rhythms of social embodiment. That's why this method evaluation of the effectiveness of pre-
139 Litvinov A. Mikhail Fradkov returned from vacation to fight the collective irresponsibility of the government // Newspaper. August 13, 2004. P. 2.
assumes a fairly long phase of application, which will allow (sometimes by indirect evidence) to state and calculate all these long-term (social, scientific, technical, etc.) results of management activities.
Thus, this method of evaluating effectiveness, focused on identifying all the unintended consequences of implementing the corresponding social project, allows us to record the complex nature of management actions. For its full application, as a rule, various corporate standards are used, which in turn involve the involvement of specialized non-governmental organizations, independent expertise, etc.
It is becoming increasingly important environmental impact assessment implementation of management decisions. The assessment of any consequences of any actions of government bodies to implement decisions is reduced to a single indicator, a kind of common denominator of the state’s management activity. In this sense, even saving colossal material and financial resources for the state, which do not increase the level of environmental protection, cannot positively attest to the government’s activities. So the value of this indicator embeds the actions of all states in relations with nature, that part of the external environment that puts forward truly historical criteria for assessing public administration.
Environmental expertise in public administration first began to be used in the United States in 1969. The high cost of this kind of indicators predetermined their introduction into the development of decisions at the earliest stages of designing management actions and developing goals. However, narrow state interests (including due to the high cost of nature protection measures) often remove this criterion from the system of evaluative actions. At the same time, authoritative international organizations, including those with the right to apply sanctions against violating states, insist on the use of such a criterion. Independent international expertise plays a major role here, designed to conduct appropriate audits in individual countries and government bodies.
Often offered more specific criteria assessing the effectiveness of implemented goals. For example, the American specialist T. Poyster identifies six such indicators:
· technical efficiency;
· economic efficiency;
· adequacy;
· justice;
; 5) reaction (response);
6) relevance.
Technical efficiency, in his opinion, characterizes the connection of the chosen alternative with the implementation of goals by managers and the fulfillment of their obligations. This criterion is to a greater extent focused on justifying the choice made. However, it is often measured in monetary units or absolute indicators of manufactured products. Economic efficiency directs managers to take into account the efforts (resources) necessary to achieve a set goal or a certain level achieving technical efficiency. This is an indicator of the ratio of results and costs to achieve the goals. Adequacy expresses the level of compliance with technical and economic efficiency.
The criterion of justice characterizes the level of minimum well-being of citizens that the state should strive to achieve. Essentially, this is an interpretation of the Pareto principle, which suggests that improvement is nothing more than any change that causes no loss to anyone and benefits some people (in their opinion). own assessment). True, here we should also remember Arrow's theory of impossibility, according to which, given the presence of more than two persons and three alternatives, maximizing the welfare of all individuals on the basis of their individual values is impossible.
The criterion of reaction (response) expresses the degree of satisfaction of the needs and preferences of various groups, and the criterion of appropriateness characterizes a reasoned choice, including a comparison of various (technical, economic, legal, social) forms of rationality.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
143 Is society always a counterparty to the state when implementing decisions?
144 In what cases is the state not interested in maintaining feedback from the population when implementing its decisions?
What are the specific tasks of operational management of the process of achieving goals?
· What are best practices assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of government decisions?
· What can hinder the environmental assessment of decisions made and the results of their implementation?
145 Humanitarian technologies and the political process in Russia / ed. L. Smorgunova. St. Petersburg, 2001.
146 Kolobov O.A. Making foreign policy decisions. Nizhny Novgorod, 1992.
147 Makarenko B.I. Decrees and laws: the process of making legislative decisions // Politics, 1997, No. 3.
148 Morozova E.G. Political market and political marketing: concepts, models, technologies. M., 1998.
149 Nikitinsky V.N. Assessment of the voting procedure and results when making legal decisions // Soviet State and Law. 1990, no. 11.
150 Peregudov S.P., Lapina N.Yu., Semenenko I.S. Interest groups and the Russian state. M., 1999.
151 Plunkett L., Hell G. Development and adoption of management decisions. M., 1984.
152 Rainey H.J. Analysis and management in government organizations. M., 2004.
153 Comparative public administration: theory, reforms, efficiency / ed. L.V. Smorgunov. St. Petersburg, 2000.
10. Erdman G., Schaeffer D., Mundchenke D. Government organizational structure and management structure. M., 1998.
I. Efficiency of public administration / ed. S.A. Batchikova, S.Yu. Glazyev. M., 1998.
12. Farazmand A. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. N.Y., 1991.
The quality of a management decision is the degree of compliance with its internal requirements of the organization or standards adopted in the organization.
The effectiveness of a management decision can be defined as the ratio of positive results to acceptable ones.
One of the important factors influencing the quality of management decisions (labor organization) is the number of tiers in the organization, an increase in which leads to distortion of information when preparing a decision, distortion of orders coming from the subject of management, and increases the sluggishness of the organization. The same factor contributes to the delay in information received by the subject of the decision. This determines the constant desire to reduce the number of management tiers (levels) of the organization. A serious problem associated with the effectiveness of management decisions is also the problem of implementing these decisions. Up to a third of all management decisions do not achieve their goals due to low performance culture. In our and foreign countries sociologists belonging to a variety of schools pay close attention to improving performance discipline, including ordinary employees in the development of solutions, motivating such activities, nurturing “trademark patriotism,” and stimulating self-government.
There are several approaches to assessing the quality of a management decision.
So E.A. Smirnov proposes to evaluate quality according to the process principle. When developing and implementing SD, the manager must pay attention to each stage of the process of developing and implementing SD. The quality of each stage makes a significant contribution to overall rating quality of the entire SD. Quality is measured in relative units from 0 to 1. The lowest quality of the SD is assigned the value 0, and the highest - 1. The overall quality of the SD is calculated as the product of the quality values of all constituent stages, stages and operations performed sequentially. Let’s say that during the development of the SD, 10 operations were performed with the following quality values: 0.8; 0.9; 0.7; 0.8; 0.7; 0.8; 0.8; 0.9; 0.7 and 0.8. The quality value of each operation itself is good, but the overall quality of the UR will be equal to 0.091. This is a very low level. Therefore, only with a professional attitude towards all components of the process of development and implementation of SD can one ensure acceptable quality total UR.
In practice, to assess the quality of the management decision made, we will use the method of control questions.
The criterion for evaluating management decisions is efficiency.
Efficiency is a characteristic of the degree to which a set goal is achieved. Management decisions are made in almost all types of activities of the organization, so we can talk about different types of effectiveness of management decisions:
1 Organizational effectiveness of management decisions is the result of achieving organizational goals through less effort, fewer employees, or less time. An expression of organizational effectiveness (organizational result) of a management decision can be:
For a person - changing work functions, improving working conditions, compliance with safety regulations, etc.;
For the company - optimization organizational structure, redistribution of work functions, improving the incentive and remuneration system, reducing the number of personnel, etc. As a result, a new department, an incentive system, a group of successful organizers of production or management, new rules and instructions, etc. can be created.
2 The economic efficiency of management decisions is the ratio of the cost of the surplus product obtained through the implementation of a specific management decision and the costs of its preparation and implementation. The surplus product can be presented in the form of profit, cost reduction, or obtaining loans. Economic efficiency is associated with the implementation of all the needs of a person and a company.
3 Social efficiency of management decisions is considered as a result of achieving social goals for more workers and companies, in a shorter time, with fewer workers. This effectiveness can be expressed in the following:
For a person - the opportunity to participate in creative work, the opportunity to communicate, self-expression and self-display;
For the company - the degree to which the population (consumers, customers) demand for goods and services is satisfied, reducing staff turnover, ensuring stability, development organizational culture. The result can be a good socio-psychological climate in the units, mutual assistance, positive informal relationships.
4 Technological efficiency of management decisions is the result of achieving industry, national or global technical and technological level production in a shorter time or with lower financial costs. The expression of this efficiency can be:
For a person - a decrease in labor intensity, monotony, intensity of work, an increase in its intellectual content;
For the company - the introduction of modern high-performance equipment and technology, increasing labor productivity, quality of goods and services. As a result, they can be implemented modern techniques creative work, increased competitiveness of products, and increased professionalism of personnel.
5 The legal effectiveness of management decisions is assessed by the degree to which the legal goals of the organization and personnel are achieved in a shorter time, with fewer employees or with lower financial costs. Efficiency is expressed in the following factors:
For a person - ensuring security, organization and order, legal protection from administrative arbitrariness;
For the company - ensuring legality, security and stability of work, positive results in relations with government agencies and partners. The result may be work in the legal field, a reduction in penalties for legal violations, etc.
6 Environmental efficiency management decisions are the result of achieving the environmental goals of the organization and personnel in a shorter time, with fewer employees or with lower financial costs. It is expressed as follows:
For humans - ensuring safety, health protection, sanitary standards of working conditions (level of noise, vibration, radioactivity);
For the company - reducing harmful impacts on environment, increase environmental safety products. The result could be environmentally friendly production clean products, favorable working conditions for humans, environmentally friendly production.
When assessing the effectiveness of management decisions, various approaches are used, you can:
Calculate economic and social efficiency separately;
Calculate organizational, economic, social, technological, psychological, legal, economic, ethical, political effectiveness for each decision as a fact of achieving the relevant goals.
The effectiveness of management decisions in this course work it is advisable to evaluate using the method expert assessments according to criteria that correspond to types of efficiency and simulation modeling.
Thus, when considering the theory of developing and making management decisions, it was found that all management decisions are divided into two large groups: qualitative and quantitative. There are certain technologies for making management decisions that have similar features. Many authors have mentioned that a management decision should be aimed at achieving the set goal, with a minimum of costs. It is also necessary to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of management decisions, since only an effective and high-quality decision contributes to the prosperity of the enterprise.
The quality of a management decision depends on a number of factors:
The quality of source information, determined by its reliability, protection from interference and errors;
The optimal or rational nature of the decision being made;
Timeliness of decisions made, determined by the speed of development, adoption, transfer and organization of execution;
Compliance of decisions made with the current management mechanism and management methods based on it;
Qualifications of personnel involved in the development, adoption of decisions and organization of their execution;
Readiness of the managed system to execute decisions made.
To be of high quality, a control solution must be resistant in efficiency to possible errors in determining the initial data and flexible to allow for changes in goals and algorithms for achieving goals. Otherwise, minor deviations in the initial data will move management decisions from effective to ineffective.
The most important element of the final stage of decision-making is monitoring their implementation. Control allows you to compare the actual results of decisions with what was planned. Without systematic verification of execution and feedback, it is difficult to achieve purposeful activity, high organization and responsibility for the assigned work.
Under all conditions, the goal of control is the timely detection of deviations from the tasks assigned to the management system. It is important to determine whether the observed deviations are caused by the indiscipline of the performers or by objective circumstances.
The manager is responsible for the decisions he makes. The responsibility mechanism is being adjusted in such a way as to create the possibility of timely influence on persons who make mistakes and evade consideration and resolution of issues within the scope of their competence.
Various methods and means are used to monitor the implementation of decisions. The effectiveness of control can be significantly increased through the use of modern technical means of recording decisions and documents that facilitate monitoring their execution.
20 Government decisions: concept, content, typology
Social-administrative norms - state-administrative decision - state decision - types of state decisions: political, administrative - legal force - rules of law - properties of state-administrative decisions - forms of state-administrative decisions: legal, non-legal - classification of state decisions - document flow in the system public administration - a unified state system of office work
In order to manage any social communities or processes, social norms are necessary, the requirements of which are recognized and observed by both the subjects and objects of social management. The need for this kind of norms is most significant in public administration, which is the most important type of social management. It is the production a certain social and managerial norm underlies any government decision, the adoption of which is always the choice of a norm capable of resolving issues on a priority social problem. Social and managerial norms are requirements expressed in rules of behavior that organize social relations in accordance with the chosen goals of human activity. With their help, the requirements of management subjects are translated into models and standards for the proper behavior of management objects. They are realized in real life in the process of developing and implementing management decisions, which can be considered the core of management activity.
At its core, a management decision is a developed and adopted, formally recorded project of social change. Therefore, every management decision is an act of implementing management influence, a means of expression and a way of regulating management relations in specific historical conditions and the social environment.
A public management decision is a conscious choice made by a subject of public administration to have a purposeful impact on social reality, expressed in official form. Meanwhile, there is a broader concept of a state decision - this is the authoritative will of the state, which takes on an officially expressed form, being enshrined in existing state acts issued by a state body or official in accordance with its competence and within the limits of the powers granted. Making a government decision is traditionally viewed as a stage of a volitional act performed by a subject endowed with government powers when choosing one of the existing opportunities to achieve the intended result of the planned actions. Thus, a government decision is, as a rule, an ideal model of the future, which contains information given by the subject power, about the desirability and necessity of what must be fulfilled.
The social nature of management decisions of government bodies is that they affect not the natural or technical environment, but people. The purpose of their stimulating influence is to mobilize people for the practical (material) transformation of social reality. The main content of this management process is the volitional influence of managers on the managed. If the activity of preparing and making management decisions is always spiritual, then the activity of implementing these decisions is mainly material, no matter in what social sphere it is carried out. The execution of management decisions is the practical, and therefore the material side of management activity, since it is in the process of organizational and as a result of practical activity that the social norms contained in management decisions are “materialized”, translated into real physical actions (relations, processes, results) under the influence of the control subsystem on the controlled one in order to transform it into a new qualitative state. However, management decisions can have a dual nature, since they can be directed both externally - to the managed subsystem, and internally - to the managing subsystem. But at the same time, the qualitative specificity of management decisions lies in the transformation and stabilization of the managed social object.
The variety of social relations requiring government intervention gives rise to many types of government decisions and, accordingly, actions of an authoritative nature. In management activities, as a rule, two types of problems are solved: original (non-trivial) and similar, repetitive ones. Hence, the solutions that have to be found and taken responsibility for their adoption and direct execution can also be original or typical. Original tasks do not lend themselves to unification and standardization in full. But they can be applied general principles solving management problems. In most cases, it is advisable to standardize both the technology for solving repetitive tasks of the same type and the forms of providing information.
Government decisions are to a certain extent political and administrative. The first ones are adopted on the most important socially significant problems by the political leadership, i.e. supreme bodies of state power, or leaders directly exercising the powers of state bodies (president, chairman of the government, chairmen of the chambers of parliament, heads of legislative and executive regional authorities, ministers and some others). Political decisions constitute the primary level of government decisions, while administrative decisions are secondary, having a subordinate and auxiliary significance. Administrative decisions are derived from political ones in the sense that they are aimed at providing conditions for the preparation, adoption and implementation of decisions of the political leadership. A distinctive feature of government decisions at the administrative level is that they are, as a rule, impersonal in nature. A large number of specialists from various fields are involved in their preparation, adoption and implementation and therefore their authorship is not associated with the name of a specific civil servant. Although for the most part these decisions are prepared by specific people, they cannot be their personal decisions of a private nature, since they are made on behalf of government bodies. Hence the task of their legal consolidation in the proper form arises.
In public administration, decisions are developed, adopted and executed in the prescribed manner by the relevant authorized entities: government bodies and officials. The legal expression of the will of a managerial subject of state power presupposes the onset of certain consequences. The adoption and implementation of government decisions also give rise to legal consequences or conditions necessary for the occurrence of such consequences. Therefore, it should be emphasized that decision-making is not only a right, but also a responsibility of authorized entities (state bodies and officials), and at the same time it also provides for responsibility not only for their adoption and implementation, but also for the resulting consequences. And for the same reasons, management decisions of the state must be clothed in the proper forms of their official expression.
In everyday life, there are many government decisions related to management in various spheres of social relations, the differences between which are very significant for law enforcement practice. The main thing in them is the state command with the aim of regulating (streamlining, resolving, etc.) social relations affecting various manifestations of the life and activity of a human citizen in a society-state. The need for legal regulation of the adoption and implementation of government decisions raises the need for their documentation, proper recording and generally valid verification of facts, events and conditions. The adoption (publication, publication) of government decisions in documentary form is a method of written communication (transmission) of information necessary for management and other activities. All official decisions that have the status of state are duly formalized in the form of various documents (acts). A document is a written form of a management decision, an act is a type of document.
Documentation presupposes compliance with established rules for recording and processing management decisions. Proper compliance with such rules is mandatory, as it gives them official expression and legal force. Legal force is the property of mandatory execution of decisions contained in an official document (in the theory of state and law - a legal act), imparted to it by the current legislation, the competence of the body that issued it and the established procedure for execution. Giving a document legal force and confirming the fact of its publication is the main purpose of the registration procedure. It is provided by a set of details established for each type of document - mandatory elements of document registration (including the name of the document, its number, date of acceptance, approval stamp, information about the signatory: position title and surname, seal, etc.). So, until a document, for example, a ministerial order, is registered, it does not legally exist; if the received document is not registered, none of the officials will take responsibility for it, since the fact of its receipt has not been confirmed. Registration details also allow you to keep records, search and identify all documents, as well as monitor the implementation of management decisions. Modern Russian requirements for the preparation of organizational and administrative (administrative) documentation are recorded in the state standard GOST R 6.30-97 “Unified documentation systems. System of organizational and administrative documentation. Documentation requirements." Along with many functions (social, communicative, historical, etc.), documents also carry legal and informational functions. The legal function is performed by documents containing decisions of public authorities, since they are a means of consolidating and changing legally significant states associated with management decisions and legal relations. Performing an information function, the document is the main carrier of management information about decisions made.
State decisions made by public authorities are formalized by issuing legal acts, which can be normative and non-normative. Depending on the degree of legal significance, government decisions can be in written form (regulatory or non-regulatory legal acts) or in oral form (instruction, order, order, assignment, official assignment).
State decisions, taken in the form of normative legal acts, are issued by an authorized body and establish, amend or repeal rules of law. Rules of law are generally binding rules of proper behavior established by the state. They, like all law in general, are aimed at regulating and developing certain social relations. They indicate the conditions under which this rule should be followed (hypothesis), the subjects of regulated relations, their rights and obligations arising under the circumstances provided for in the hypothesis (disposition), and also determine the consequences that must occur for persons who violate this regulation ( sanction). Typically, the rules of law are more or less general in nature, regulating a certain type of social relations. The universality of legal norms is ensured by the state through the education of the legal consciousness of citizens and the application of state coercive measures to violators. The totality of legal norms in a given society constitutes its law.
The basis of all rule-making activities of state bodies is the preparation and adoption of laws, which are acts of public administration that have the greatest legal force. The highest legal significance among them is the country's constitution. Therefore, it is natural that the main procedures for the adoption of legislative acts are fixed in constitutions, changing the norms of which has a particularly complex procedure. The Constitution of the Russian Federation can serve as a confirming example of this.
The most characteristic properties of public management decisions are as follows. Decisions made by public authorities and formalized as legal acts characterize the legal significance of the actions prescribed by them. At the same time, the measures established in them are usually mandatory. Hence, such a feature of a state decision stands out as its directiveness and obligatory nature. Being an authoritative act, a state decision, as a rule, obliges, prescribes, prohibits, authorizes, deprives, terminates, permits, encourages, punishes, etc. Authority is manifested in the unilateral adoption of such a decision, which therefore cannot be the result of an agreement between the parties. Public management decisions are also distinguished by their active organizing and creative role. Public administration and the decisions made in the process of its implementation are usually characterized by not one, but several interconnected goals. For example, the strategic, main, permanent and always relevant goal can be considered the satisfaction of social needs in priority areas of development of society and the state. This is served by a series of ensuring, often changing and therefore not distinguished by constancy goals, the achievement of which is carried out through subsequent government and administrative decisions. Another important property of government decisions is the presence of a system of rules that determines the order of their development, discussion, adoption, entry into force, amendment and cancellation. Regulation in this case serves as a strong guarantee of the leading role of decisions of government bodies in real management processes. Thus, we can note the parameters characteristic of all types of management decisions made by the state. These include: 1) the presence of subject-object relations; 2) content of decisions - information about what should be done and for what (for what purposes), etc.; 3) decision-making procedure; 4) form of the decision; 5) the duration of the decision.
Among the numerous forms (external expressions of internal connections and methods of organization, interaction of elements and processes both among themselves and with external conditions), management acts of government bodies and officials occupy an important place. Such acts are decisions of competent state bodies expressed in writing, which contain management provisions. A special group consists of government decisions, which always contain an indication of responsibility for their violation. These primarily include codes: on administrative offenses, criminal, customs, tax, etc. Another group consists of court decisions, which, according to Russian law, are issued in the form of sentences in criminal, arbitration and administrative cases or in the form of decisions of a judicial authority (court) how the consideration and resolution of civil cases on the merits, as well as in cases considered in the process of constitutional proceedings, ends.
Government decisions are usually formalized in the following types of legal documents: laws, decrees, resolutions, orders, orders, regulations, guidelines, provisions, instructions, sentences, etc. The types and forms of public administrative decisions are universal for all government bodies of a certain type. For example, for Russia, a law is an act of the legislative body, regardless of its level (federal or federal subject), a resolution is an act of the Government of Russia or the governments of federal subjects, etc. Such types of documents that are very often used in intra- and interdepartmental document flow, such as official letters, memos, reports, recommendations, notices and others, do not contain authority requirements that are mandatory for their addressees to fulfill, and therefore are not acts that have the nature of government decisions .
The legal version of a management decision is a legal act of management, which is a type of official documents constantly used in the process of public administration activities of government bodies (officials). These documents (various types of certificates, reporting materials, certificates, protocols, acts of audits and inspections, etc.) reflect certain circumstances of legal significance. A legal act of governance is usually issued as a written legal document, but can also be expressed orally. For example, in the form of an oral order in the military command and control system, within the framework of official relations between the leader and the employees of the management apparatus directly subordinate to him.
With the help of legal acts of management, the rules of proper behavior in the field of public-administrative relations are determined. By issuing them, government bodies and officials resolve certain issues (general or individual) that arise in the course of their activities. Legal acts of management, along with some government-administrative actions, are sometimes characterized by a term from civil law- as conclusive (from the Latin conclude - I conclude, I draw a conclusion). This means that they express their will to establish legal relations (for example, making a transaction), but not in the form of an oral or written expression of will, but by behavior from which one can draw a conclusion about such an intention. In public management practice, there are often commands that are not necessarily expressed in the form of a written act. This is, for example, a siren signal, a traffic light, a policeman’s whistle, road sign etc.
According to the criterion of publicity, it is useful to identify open and closed forms of management decisions. Open forms are available to everyone, closed forms formalize decisions usually related to state security, operational-search, intelligence, military, partially foreign policy and similar activities that require compliance with state secrets and secrecy.
In addition, documents of public authorities may contain various information relating to certain issues of public administration. Such information contained in government administrative decisions is recorded on tangible media that have the status of official documents of government bodies. These may include documents drawn up in the form of certificates, reports, projects, estimates, schedules, programs, plans, diagrams, maps, etc. Moreover, the one-sided expression of the will of a subject of state power usually provides legally authoritative information about the instructions contained for its addressee.
If we keep in mind the activities of all subjects of public administration, the forms of public management decisions are understood as the forms of external expression of specific legally or organizationally significant regulations in which they are clothed. There are legal and non-legal forms of public management decisions.
Legal decisions are those that involve decisions that entail certain legal consequences. Among them are: 1) legal acts (decisions); 2) legal contracts; 3) other acts confirming the implementation of legally significant decisions. Regulatory legal acts contain decisions that establish new legal norms, change or cancel old ones, i.e. formalize the law-making activities of government agencies. Legal acts of management contain decisions with the help of which new legal relations are formed, previously existing ones are changed, terminated, legally significant actions are carried out and recorded, i.e. law enforcement activities of government agencies are formalized. For example, a legal fact is the issuance of an order (instruction) on the appointment of a civil servant to a position, since this event is associated with the emergence of a certain scope of powers for him. The significance of a legal fact is the decision of the relevant body (official) to impose an administrative penalty on the person guilty of committing an offense. Regulatory and individual law-making and law enforcement acts are the main and most significant forms of government decisions. There are others, for example, those that draw up various types activities of government agencies in connection with decisions on registration, licensing, issuance of documents confirming the presence or deprivation of any special rights (for example, to drive a car, hunting, entrepreneurship), on reports on control and surveillance, inspection, audit and other activities. In all such cases, the legal will of the government agency (official) is expressed, which is typical in most of them for decisions made in the course of executive and administrative activities. Solutions developed in the course of contractual practice are also becoming widespread - forms of employment contracts, administrative contracts-agreements between different subjects of management, contracts for service in government bodies, state legal agreements between constituent entities of the Russian Federation, interstate and other agreements.
Non-legal forms - registration of organizational measures and material and technical operations carried out in the process of public administration, which do not directly entail legal consequences. Organizational forms - decisions of meetings, discussions, inspections, dissemination of best practices, development of forecasts, programs, methodological recommendations, accounting and statistical reporting etc. Material and technical forms - decisions relating to record keeping, paperwork, financial accounting and reporting, information and communication, reference and analytical and similar supporting activities. Non-legal forms of government decisions are not associated with the publication of legal acts and the commission of legally significant actions. They do not create, change or terminate legal relations. Such decisions and actions cannot be considered as forms legal regulation. But they may have a different meaning (for example, the issuance of a certificate) or be the authoritative physical actions of a government body (representative) (for example, the suppression of an offense by a policeman). Non-legal forms of public management decisions can precede or follow legal ones. At the same time, in contrast to legal forms, they do not require full and strictly defined legal support; are of an auxiliary nature in management activities. The division of all forms of management decisions on any basis is arbitrary, since they are closely interrelated and overlap one another. But still they are different in their legal meaning. The effectiveness of management activities depends to a large extent on their skillful combination.
Work on the unification and standardization of government management decisions and their documentation is carried out in many countries around the world. Such work has been carried out for a long time by standardization organizations in England, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Sweden and other countries. The role and importance of unification and standardization of documents have especially increased in connection with the possibilities of using computer technology in management.
All government decisions are drawn up in accordance with existing standards, which set out the basic requirements for their preparation and publication (publication). Thus, a court decision usually consists of an introductory (descriptive), motivating and operative parts. The textual content of a document adopted by an executive authority in the form of a resolution, regulation or order most often consists of two parts: stating and resolving (directive, administrative). The ascertaining part sets out the grounds (motives) for issuing the document, and the directive part indicates specific activities (measures) that should be taken to implement the intended actions. All measures are described separately for each item, indicating the responsible executors, deadlines for implementation, and at the end those who are entrusted with control over the implementation of this act as a whole or its individual items are indicated.
State administrative acts are subject to general rules for the preparation of official documents in accordance with the requirements for their texts, sample forms, the procedure for drawing up and execution, their registration, accounting, transmission, reception and storage. A list of cases is compiled, systematization and unification of official documents is carried out. All this is determined by a unified state system of office work, standard and separate instructions for office work in government agencies. For government decisions contained in regulatory legal acts, the procedural order (procedural rules) is especially important, determining the entire cycle of their development and implementation: preparation, adoption, registration, publication, application, etc. At the same time, all regulatory legal acts constitute a single system, built on the principle of mandatory compliance of acts of lower bodies with acts of higher ones.
Along with this, each prepared solution must be designed in a certain style in terms of language, logic and form of presentation, as well as ease of perception of special terminology and its adequate understanding by everyone for whom this decision is intended. It must clearly and accurately convey the meaning and essence of the actions required to be performed, contain the information required for this, and indicate specific methods of execution. Directive documents (orders, instructions, resolutions, etc.) should not contain vague phrases and unaddressed formulations that make it difficult to clearly understand the assigned tasks and violate the procedure for implementing planned activities or allow for contradictory, mutually exclusive measures. The decision will only be properly executed when it is completely understandable to its executors.
In public administration, it is necessary to express as accurately and correctly the meaning of the appropriate forms that contain government requirements, i.e. the decisions themselves. Therefore, in legal practice, requirements are usually established for legal documents of various kinds, their construction, the relationship of parts divided into articles, clauses and subclauses, the formulation of provisions, the terminology used, etc. Among the rules of legal technique, we highlight: a) the correct formulation of legal norms and regulations; b) a clear definition of the semantic meanings of the concepts and terms used; c) clear legal language; d) succinct and precise headings of chapters and articles; e) links to other articles; f) correct designations of government agencies, officials and other entities; g) details. Details of government decisions are usually the following: coat of arms (state, federal subject, city), name of the government body, name of the act (decree, order, resolution, order, etc.), title (about what), number, date of adoption (signing), signature of an official, approval visas, executor, etc.
In an effort to streamline the process of developing management decisions, government agencies standardize general requirements to them in departmental instructions, memos, recommendations on official office work. True, attempts by various departments to simplify the development of solutions by unifying them in internal office work ultimately only lead to unnecessary paperwork. Therefore, a general regulatory act on unified requirements for the development of uniform decisions of government bodies is highly desirable.
The process of making management decisions is carried out using a number of special procedures. The essence and expediency of their observance is to ensure the most optimal conditions for adoption necessary solutions in proper order. Typically, a set of procedures for making management decisions is called “regulations” (from the French reglement, regie - rule). For example, the General Regulations of State Collegiums of 1720 and the regulations of Peter I are known from Russian history; Currently in force: Regulations of the State Duma, Regulations of the Federation Council, Regulations of the Government of the Russian Federation, etc. Regulations of public authorities are very voluminous documents detailing in detail the technology for adopting the acts they issue.
Management procedures associated with the adoption by public authorities of relevant decisions serve to ensure the smooth functioning of the state apparatus, ensure completeness, comprehensiveness and objectivity of the analysis of problems and circumstances of specific cases, correct application material norms of various branches of law, serve to achieve the goals of public administration, contribute to its scientific validity and legality, create conditions for the implementation of the rights, obligations and legitimate interests of citizens and other participants in public administration, help to implement the principle of responsibility of each body, official for assigned task. When making management decisions, the public authority exercises the powers assigned to it to perform tasks and functions within its competence, i.e. realizes state, otherwise - public, interest. The implementation of public interest, expressing the need for the effective and rational use of government powers, is directly related to the obligation of clear procedural rules for participants in such relations. Such relations arise in connection with or regarding the performance by a public authority of its jurisdictional activities within the limits of the granted legal competence.
The development, adoption and implementation of government decisions is a complex, multi-stage process in which positions on a wide variety of socially significant issues are developed and agreed upon in order to practically implement measures of government influence on social reality.
The multifaceted manifestations of social life and the situations that arise in it explain the wide variety of relevant decisions, the adoption of which is required by the state. The classification of government decisions makes it possible to systematize them on various grounds, for example, by subjects of management, time and scope of action, content and form, etc. So, government decisions can be classified as follows.
1.By subjects of governance: a) national (elections, referendum); b) federal, regional (federal subjects), local; c) legislative power, executive power, judicial power; d) individual, collegial.
2. In terms of goals and time, actions are strategic (long-term); tactical (medium-term); operational (short-term).
3. In terms of scale of action - national; local (within an administrative-territorial unit); intradepartmental; interdepartmental.
4. By normative nature - general (normative), particular (non-normative).
5. By legal force - highest (constitutional), legislative; subordinate.
6. By type of government - civil, military.
7. According to the forms of legal acts - laws (constitutional, codes, federal, federal subjects); decrees (royal, presidential); resolutions (of parliament, chamber of parliament, government, court, prosecutor's office); orders (of the president, government, heads of legislative and executive authorities); orders (of heads of government agencies and their structural divisions; military); verdicts (courts); sanctions (investigative, prosecutorial authorities); decrees; directions, instructions, instructions, etc.; programs, declarations, regulations, charters; interstate treaties and agreements.
8. According to the order of adoption - the method of registration and giving legal force: primary, i.e. directly acquiring legal force (laws, decrees, regulations, etc.); secondary, i.e. put into effect and approved by other decisions (for example, an instruction approved by order of the minister; a regulation approved by a resolution of the head of administration, etc.).
9. By development methods - typical (similar), atypical (original).
11. According to the form of presentation - written, oral.
12. According to the mechanism of action - direct (immediate) action, frame (referential).
13. According to importance for execution - mandatory, recommendatory.
14. By the nature of the impact - stimulating, protectionist, motivational, restrictive, prohibitive, etc.
15. According to the degree of publicity (openness) - general use, official use, secret, top secret.
This classification expresses the systemic characteristics of the entire complex of government decisions. It covers the most general, but also characteristic features of such solutions.
Loading...
