Problems of state, regional and municipal management in the Russian Federation. Modern problems of science and education Research of the problems of the public administration system

Problems government controlled are a very complex, controversial and controversial area. They are the subject of analysis and serious discussions among both scientists and practitioners.

Today, in the context of dynamic changes taking place in the theory and world practice of public administration, innovative management technologies are beginning to play an increasingly important role, which act as a knowledge-intensive resource that allows the state to study the processes taking place in society, make optimal management decisions and thereby actively influence them. to get the desired result in a timely manner and at the lowest cost.

In the public administration system, the rational principle, knowledge, scientific forecasting, programming, modeling are becoming increasingly important, and the human factor is being used more and more fully.

The number of professional managers who are able to provide an effective impact on the management object in a given direction is growing. The state, as a subject of management, is more and more clearly reconciling the scope of its activities, freeing itself from functions unusual for it, delegating them to regions, unions, associations, and citizens.

At the same time, situations often arise in real life that reflect certain contradictions between the intellectual potential of science and the level of use of modern knowledge in public administration, there are problems of both objective and subjective nature.

So, for example, the global contradiction of the modern world, which is manifested in the lag of the pace of social progress from scientific and technological progress, manifests itself in public administration through a certain gap between the intellectual potential of science and the level of its use in management technologies, methods, and mechanisms.

Serious problems are observed in the formation of the conceptual foundations for the interaction of society and public authorities as an object and subject of management; in ensuring compliance in their levels of development; in orientation to the possible consideration of the interests of a person, a team, society as a whole when making management decisions. The problem of achieving high results at the lowest cost, choosing a criterion for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the activities of government bodies remains relevant.

The most important problem remains the problem of increasing the scientific validity of public administration, expanding the directions and scope of application of new varieties of systemic and situational analysis - critical, axiological, classification-typological, based on modern innovative approaches.

Critical analysis is a certain set of assessments and opinions that allows you to determine the need for a particular process or situation, to compare what is happening with what should be. At the same time, criticism is considered as one of the effective forms of new thinking, which makes it possible to identify and evaluate behavior and actions of any scale and at any level.

The main directions of the expediency of applying critical analysis are:

• - analysis of problems and problem situations;
• - promotion and substantiation of hypotheses;
• - development of practical recommendations.

An innovative approach to public administration predetermines the feasibility of using axiological analysis, the essence of which is to identify certain values ​​in the life of society and the state, to the formation and implementation value orientations when making managerial decisions in establishing the nature of the relationship between values ​​of a different order, different levels and scales.

For the purpose of a differentiated approach to control objects and their classification, a classification-typological analysis can be used, which allows you to group objects according to certain characteristics, properties, qualities or divide an object as a complex whole into parts according to the same characteristics, properties, qualities.

One of the problems of public administration remains the problem associated with the objective need to improve the level of organizational culture of public administration, as well as with increased attention to socio-psychological factors in management, the development of highly professional human resources public service.

Undoubtedly, of great interest both from scientific and practical points of view in the study of public administration problems, are the materials of the analysis of the experience of ongoing public administration reforms over the past 1015 years in fourteen countries of various regions: Australia, Brazil, Hungary, Great Britain, Germany, Canada, China, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, USA, Finland, Chile and South Korea.

The analysis was conducted by the World Bank at the request of the Government of the Russian Federation, with the involvement of public administration specialists from these fourteen countries, as well as Russian scientists and specialists.

The main areas of analysis were:

• - determination of the tasks, scope and depth of public administration reforms carried out in these countries, as well as measures taken by the governments of these countries in the field of reforms;
• - selection of variables most suitable for the conditions of the Russian Federation;
• - drawing lessons from international experience for reforms in the Russian Federation.

The analysis outlined the most common problems, large-scale tasks and significant differences in the reform activities of these countries, as well as the fact that at present there is practically no international convergence of ideas in the field of public administration.

Reform in these countries has a very wide range - from comprehensive tasks in China to specific and focused tasks in the Netherlands.

The most common problems and, accordingly, large-scale reform tasks in the selected countries are:

• - reduction of public spending;
• - improving the ability to develop and implement policies;
• - improvement of performance of the state functions of the employer;
• - Improving the quality of service provision and strengthening the confidence in the authorities on the part of the population and the private sector.

From the mid-1980s to the end of the 1990s, changes in the analyzed countries affected:

• - public spending management;
• - personnel management and public civil service;
• - organizational structure executive power;
• - responsibility in the public administration system in the field of development and policy implementation.

In Russian practice, the improvement of public administration is a continuous process associated with socio-economic transformations in the country, with the processes of transition to a market economy and sustainable development. At the same time, the problem of developing an efficiently functioning system of public administration, which has a well-functioning mechanism for the interaction of its bodies, organizational flexibility, target and functional optimality, is being solved. management structure in general and its links, efficiency.

This requires the implementation of the following tasks:

• - optimization of the organizational structure of management based on the elimination of unnecessary links and minimization of costs for the implementation of management functions;
• - increasing the role economic methods management, formation of their integral system that meets the requirements of the market;
• - introduction of modern technologies management activities based on computer information networks;
• - creating conditions for effective use information resources in the activities of government bodies;
• - carrying out a systematic personnel policy; creation of an effective system of training and retraining of managerial personnel;
• - increasing the level of controllability of various, especially new industries and sectors of the economy, the effectiveness of managerial influence, the use of scientifically based management methods;
• - further formation of state bodies on a purely functional basis, which makes it possible to exclude the possibility of using narrow sectoral management methods;
• - development and implementation of effective anti-corruption measures.

In addition, the goal of effective public administration should be the implementation of a strategy within which it is necessary to coordinate and harmonize targets in the field of market transformations, anti-crisis regulation, structural and technological restructuring, improving the living standards of the population, and effective inclusion in the world economy. At the same time, public administration should have a transformational-anticipatory strategy and acquire a clear social orientation.

Performance Indicators of Public Administration Reforms in Russia: Possible Approaches

The Federal Program for Reforming the Civil Service of the Russian Federation and the ongoing administrative reform in the country are aimed at improving the efficiency of public administration. Therefore, it is now so important to take into account the historical experience of the formation of public administration in the country in order to improve the entire system of modern Russian statehood, to find ways and mechanisms to transfer it to a state more adequate to the new social and political conditions.

In administrative management, efficiency is defined as the ratio of net positive results (the excess of desirable consequences over undesirable ones) and acceptable costs. The criteria for the effectiveness of the civil service are those signs, aspects of the manifestation of management, through the analysis of which it is possible to determine the level and quality of management, its compliance with the needs and interests of society. The most generalizing are the criteria for the overall social efficiency of the civil service.

The paper presents models for assessing the effectiveness of public service.

Table 6. Models for assessing the effectiveness of the civil service

	scheme "resource support for management activities - costs - results"	highlighting the role of support resources and costs in improving the efficiency of management activities
	organization efficiency model by R. Likert	efficiency is determined by three groups of factors: intra-organizational - the formal structure of the organization, the economic base and social policy, the professional and qualification composition of the personnel; intermediate variables - the organization's human resources, organizational climate, decision-making methods, the level of trust in management, ways to stimulate and motivate activities; the resulting variables are an increase or decrease in labor productivity, the degree of customer satisfaction
	according to the degree of protection of the balanced interests of society and the state	efficiency is expressed in expanding the opportunities for an active civic life of each person and the whole society. One of the grounds for determining the effectiveness of the civil service is the level social partnership political and administrative elite and the population in the public administration system
	depending on the presence of regional bureaucracy	is under the real control of society, expresses the interests of social progress, is minimal in terms of its quantitative and qualitative parameters

The development of a system of goals and indicators of the effectiveness of reforms in Russia, taking into account international experience in assessing administrative reforms, is based on a number of basic principles:

the principle of interconnection of reforms in the sphere of public administration;

the possibility of identifying individual blocks of reforms (administrative, civil service reform, etc.) related to the implementation of approved and being prepared policy documents;

providing the possibility of comparing the indicators of public administration between the countries of the world.

IN international practice diagnostic tools for conducting research on corruption, public procurement and the state of financial reporting can be identified, providing an empirical basis for assessing the initial state of the public administration system and determining the direction of reforms.

Conditionally allocate two approaches used to monitor public administration reforms. The data are presented in table 7.

Table 7. Approaches in the field of public administration

		The essence of the approach	Note
	Approach developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)	is to assess the progress of reforms compared to the initial state in the following areas: public service; management of policy development and implementation; public spending management; control over international financial transactions; external audit; state procurements
	integral indicator of government (Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot - GRICS)	evaluates the effectiveness of governance and consists of six indices reflecting six parameters of public administration: efficiency of government, quality of legislation, rule of law and control of corruption.	restrictions: despite the fact that a wide range of information sources are used to build indices, there is a certain influence of subjective factors; the GRICS indicator assesses the state of governance in a particular country compared to other countries; the number of countries covered in the course of compiling integral indicators may change, which will affect the country's ranking; identifying the causes of changes in the dynamics of indicators can be complicated, etc.

For a more detailed analysis of the status of public administration, performance indicators of the "second generation". The system of these indicators is based on the assumption that the executive branch operates in a system of external and internal restrictions and has the ability to carry out its activities, characterized by process indicators and performance indicators.

Examples of "second generation" indicators

It should be noted that the indicators of "second generation" public administration vary significantly over time, as well as the degree of external influence. At the country level, public administration performance indicators tend to be “targeted” and tied to the achievement of national priorities in improving government processes. For example, in the UK, the achievement of such priorities is expressed in a list of targets, the achievement of which, for example, in the Cabinet Office, is the responsibility of the performance assurance department. Of all the performance indicators (over 100), 30-40 of the most significant are selected. The agencies responsible for achieving the priority indicators develop a plan to achieve the set goals. The Performance Assurance Division monitors the implementation of this plan.

Monitoring the implementation of reform programs necessitates the development of program performance indicators. These indicators used to measure progress were developed by the World Bank experts for Bulgaria:

share of government bodies with clear strategies of activity;

the proportion of territorial administrations that have clear strategies for their activities;

the proportion of civil servants who know the priorities of the activities of the state bodies in which they work;

share of achieved strategic goals;

the number of government bodies whose regulations have been changed during the last year;

the number of functions transferred to another level of government.

To assess progress in public administration, such program performance indicators should be supplemented with generalized indicators reflecting the effect of government actions on the effectiveness of public administration as a whole. It seems that in the context of monitoring and evaluating the complex of reforms currently being implemented in Russia in the field of public administration, it is advisable to develop an integrated approach that would make it possible to link various reform programs and evaluate their effectiveness in relation to the goals set by the Government of the Russian Federation.

The presented system of goals and indicators is focused on federal executive bodies with the possibility of adaptation for regional and municipal level. The list of required indicators is not exhaustive and can be supplemented depending on the clarification of the goals and objectives of individual reforms.

In the modern world, especially in Russia, there are a number of problems in state and municipal administration.

Public administration is the practical, organizing and regulating impact of the state on the social life of people in order to streamline, preserve or transform it, based on power. public demands and expectations, the real life of people.

In public administration, its controlling influences are based on state power, supported and provided by it, and extends to the whole society, to every sphere of society's activity.

Therefore, the restructuring of public administration requires, first of all, the restoration of relations of trust, mutual understanding, sincerity and honesty between the state and citizens, between state bodies and all public structures.

To the main organizational problems of public administration in modern Russia can be attributed:

1. Undeveloped regulatory and legal support of the state. management, especially in terms of powers, the specifics of state bodies, relationships, both between authorities, and the relationship of state bodies with citizens.

2. Authoritarian management methods. The managerial spirit and atmosphere developed under the conditions of a command-planned economy, to some extent, the methods remain the same today. New organizational forms do not correspond to the old content of managerial relations in the state apparatus.

3. The vertical of power in the country has not been sufficiently worked out, and many issues of interaction between federal and republican (subjects of the Russian Federation) governing bodies remain controversial. In most such cases, the population, society as a whole, loses. In this atmosphere, federal, republican and regional bodies get an excellent opportunity to avoid responsibility, shifting their mistakes and shortcomings on each other.

4. Insufficient level of education and qualifications of civil servants. Many of the employees do not have professional education in their field of work, although the degree of importance, responsibility, and the level of requirements in the public administration system clearly require this. Moreover, it is not uncommon for civil servants to have no higher education at all.

5. Corruption. Corruption literally corrodes the system of public administration.

Corruption (lat. corruptio) means bribery; corruption and venality of public and political figures, government officials and officials. The United Nations reference document on the international fight against corruption defines corruption as the abuse of public power for personal gain.

main goal in the fight against corruption, there should be measures aimed at changing the public's attitude towards corruption by creating an atmosphere of rejection of corruption in all its manifestations and creating conditions that prevent corruption. As a result, the anti-corruption policy should serve to strengthen the confidence of the population in the power structures of the state.

6. Unprofessionalism of public administration employees is compensated by their number. Becomes unjustified and obvious. Basically, this is not so much a physical increase in the staff of the state apparatus, but an unfortunate ratio of elements of the management vertical, primarily the growth of middle management. The latter takes place not only at the regional and local levels, which is partly justified by the need to strengthen the independence of these management units, expanding their functions; but also at the level of central and territorial offices of federal government bodies.

7. Inefficient structure of government agencies. To date, there is no consistency, there is no conceptual nature of numerous transformations, often leading only to the disorganization of the state apparatus, to the organizational instability of state structures.

8. The decline in the prestige of state bodies in the eyes of citizens, and the scale of alienation of people from the state apparatus as a whole, according to some estimates, even exceeds the corresponding level of distrust recorded by experts in the last years of the existence of the USSR. However, the president's trust rating is growing, especially against the backdrop of recent events in Ukraine.

Thus, with the existing problems of the state structure, the decrease in service discipline, the aging of personnel, poor information and technical support for the activities of the state apparatus, etc. seem to be insignificant. Although these problems need to be addressed.

We observe that the system of public administration in Russia is at a crossroads and the choice of ways for its development (Western traditional, our own) is still relevant. Russia will make this choice, it is only important that it be carried out with sufficient system, information-analytical, personnel, organizational and technical support.

THE MAIN PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, THE IMPACT ON THE FORMATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE

Loginov Maxim Igorevich

Russia, Yekaterinburg

Krahmal Alexander Andreevich

Student, Department of Belarusian Railways, the direction of training technosphere safety Ural Institute of the State Fire Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia

Russia, Yekaterinburg

Budanov Vladimir Borisovich

Supervisor, Senior Lecturer, Department of BC Ural Institute of the State Fire Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia

Russia, Yekaterinburg

Annotation. In this article, analyzed actual problems public administration today, issues of public service, as well as issues related to personnel policy are considered. The decisions that are worth paying attention to when changing the state administration of subjects are highlighted, as well as the conduct of state power.

abstract. In this article, the current problems of public administration are analyzed at the present day, the issues of public service, as well as issues relating to personnel policy. Highlighted solutions that are worth paying attention to when changing the state administration of subjects, as well as considering the conduct of state power.

Keywords: public administration, state power, state civil service, bodies, management system, civil service, high level.

keywords: state administration, state power, state civil service, bodies, management system, civil service, high level.

Public administration is the activity of public authorities and their officials for the practical implementation of the developed plan for the benefit of society and the strengthening of the state. Public administration activities are traditionally opposed to political activity as well as policy-making activities. The main approaches to formulating the basic principles of public administration are managerial, political, legal approaches.

By the concept of public service, we mean professional activity in the state administration. A large number of state institutions have been created in the Russian Federation to manage the country, perform its functions and tasks, and the existence of the country in principle. At the moment, information on the number of state (municipal) institutions in the context of types is 179,646 thousand.

The formation of the civil service depends on the form of public administration, since the main goal of the civil service is to fulfill the tasks and functions of public administration, and the functioning of public administration as a whole is determined by the productivity of their implementation.

Basic law? on which the system of state administration is based is the constitution of the Russian Federation, which in this way strengthened the transition to a new system of state administration. The transition took place from a regime in which the citizen was the object of complete control and management, a social system, rigidly subordinate and strictly hierarchical, command economy, to a regime where the population participates in the exercise of state power, a market economy, and the separation of branches of power.

The leading method of public administration is the power-administrative impact of government bodies, officials with legally established competencies, on social development, as well as on areas in the field state development. The system of the given techniques is the degree of interaction between the object and the subject, which carry out managerial influence, from this the techniques are divided into two types: direct and indirect.

The public civil service plays an important role in the civil service system, which implements public administration, because the public civil service works closely with the population and satisfies the most important public needs.

One of the problems of public administration is the state personnel policy. The importance of training specialists in this field is high. At the moment, a good situation is developing in the region military service, as well as in law enforcement agencies, where financial security is at a high level, and it is also here that mandatory contractual relations are concluded, with subsequent distribution to duty stations, which cannot be said about state civil services.

In the course of public administration, a legalized political direction is carried out, in which there is always the inevitability of inconsistency in the adopted strategy due to a change in course. If the principle of continuity were observed at all levels, and not only at the level of the political leadership of the country, then with a high level of inefficiency in public administration, the change would lead to positive changes, but due to too frequent change of course, this leads to the opposite results. Since at a low level of management, when changing the subject of state administration to a new one, the first thing they do is take up a “personnel cleansing”, thereby disrupting the work of interaction between the activities of state administration subjects.

Violation of the principles of public administration leads to the impossible achievement of the tasks and goals, as well as the effective functioning of the country. The theoretical foundations of public administration are based on the practice of other states with different forms of government. By theory, we mean a unique form of government, which is the so-called "guiding star" for us.

The foundations of state power are 3 branches: legislative, judicial and executive powers, which are independent and independent of each other. The goal of the state is achieved through the functions of the state, which constitute the backbone principles of public administration.

Thus, we can say that the theoretical foundations of public administration are not observed, that is, the level of organizational culture of civil servants is not high. Need feedback from leaders? located in the apparatus of public administration, which will approach responsibly to achieve the goals and objectives, both at the low level of public administration, and at the highest levels.

Bibliography:

1. URL: https://www.minfin.ru/ru/
2. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993) (subject to amendments introduced by the Laws of the Russian Federation on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2008 No. 6-FKZ, of December 30, 2008 No. 7-FKZ, of February 5, 2014 No. 2-FKZ , dated July 21, 2014 No. 11-FKZ) // http://www.pravo.gov.ru.
3. Glazunova N. I. System of public administration: Textbook for universities. – M.: UNITI-DANA, 2012. S. 45.
4. Goloshchapov R.V. Public administration: a textbook. - Khabarovsk: DVAGS, 2016. P. 171.

CL. Pashkovsky*

CURRENT PROBLEMS OF THE EFFICIENCY OF STATE ADMINISTRATION IN MODERN RUSSIA

The article deals with the main problems of the effectiveness of the central executive power of modern Russia. The prerequisites for the insufficient organization of the system, as well as the main problems that the administrative reform faced at this stage, are analyzed. In addition, possible prospects for reform and improving the efficiency of public administration in Russia are considered. It is concluded that public administration reform can achieve the greatest effect only as part of a large-scale reorganization of the entire political system.

Key words: public administration, administrative reform, "new public management", Russian political culture, information society.

At the beginning of 2008, actually summing up the results of his eight-year leadership of the country, V.V. Putin at the annual "big" press conference said: "As for the effectiveness of the Government, yes, I really think that the structure that was created in the previous four years did not work as planned by some of our colleagues."

Obviously, the problem of the effectiveness of public administration in general and the executive branch of government in particular in Russia at the present stage is extremely relevant. According to many researchers and practical politicians, to date, Russia has not been able to build a system of public administration that is adequate to modern world realities and similar to the one that was created in developed countries West. This circumstance determines the relevance of the theoretical consideration of the problems of reforming the above-mentioned system. The purpose of this article is to study the effectiveness of the functional activities of the public administration system in Russia at the present time and analyze the possible prospects for administrative reform in the context of improving management efficiency. For this, consideration will be given modern principles administrative reform, as well as factors influencing the effectiveness of power in Russia.

In the 1970s, the old, hierarchical system of state administration entered a pathological crisis. This happened for both economic and political reasons. On the one hand, the costly nature of the welfare state, the rapidly growing volume of the public sector, as well as the emergence of competition from the private sector, which, along with the public sector, began to provide services in the field of

* © Pashkovsky E.A., 2012

Pashkovsky Evgeny Alexandrovich ( [email protected]), Department of Political Science, Russian State Pedagogical University. A.I. Herzen, 194017, Russian Federation, St. Petersburg, Universitetskaya embankment, 7-9.

social security, education and others. On the other hand, rigidly centralized and clumsy bureaucratic institutions, oversaturated with officials, not only plunged into crisis on their own, but also ceased to cope with new tasks.

The solution to all problems was found in the systemic reform of public administration apparatuses and their transfer to functioning according to the principles of the market according to the model of "new public management". In particular, the system included the transfer of part of state functions to private sector, introduction of financial motivation for the activities of managers based on its results, reduction total strength bureaucracy and much more. Similar reforms in the 1970s-1990s were carried out with a fairly high degree of success in almost all developed countries of the West. Thus, there was a transition from public administration to public management, which is generally characterized by two main points: an increase in the independence of the lower floors of hierarchical state organizations and a shift in emphasis from the organization itself to its relationship with the environment.

In Russia, the need for such reforms was discussed, for obvious reasons, somewhat later. In 1993, the Constitution was adopted, and it took some time to adapt in practice its simplest fundamental principles, as well as to bring the political situation to a stable state. Already in 1997, the first concept of administrative reform appeared. It should be noted that, although the problems that exist in the Russian system of public administration are generally similar to those in Western countries in the 1970s, there are many nuances associated with the political culture of Russia. To understand them, you need to delve a little into history.

It is possible to talk about some kind of prototype of administrative reforms in Russia only from the time of Peter the Great, when an independent administrative function of management began to stand out in the state. Integral part these transformations were not only the establishment of the Russian Empire and the highest imperial post in the state, but also the creation of new European institutions and legal acts. In particular, a collegial system of ministries was introduced. The principle of collegiality, that is, the discussion "from the bottom up", was to form the basis of the work of the Senate, established in 1711 - the prototype of the modern representative body of power, which was recruited not on the principles of parochialism, but according to the real competencies of the candidate.

However, despite the transfer of Western European institutions, in Russia, due to the traditions of feudal political culture (weak horizontal ties, the paternalistic mentality of society, etc.), in the absence of local self-government and traditions of respect for the law, the management system remained uncontrolled. Lack of control intensified due to the traditional inseparability of administrative and judicial power, as well as power and property. If in the countries of Western Europe a desire to limit state power gradually appeared on the part of the emerging institutions of civil society, then in Russia the tendency to further strengthen the autocratic state and the absence of civil society continued. Many of the principles written on paper were in fact simply not respected, and then the old order of things was legitimized, counter-reforms took place. Suffice it to say that when in 1802 the collegiate system was replaced by a system of ministries,

drank order, according to which the principle of collegiality was replaced by the principle of unity of command.

Obviously, this type of relationship between the state and society also took place in the Soviet period, when all administrative changes were aimed exclusively at strengthening the role of the state. With the collapse of the USSR, a new system of state administration was established, built in haste and enshrined in the 1993 Constitution. It was an extremely intricate conglomeration of bodies and institutions that often competed with each other, not quite clearly understanding their functions. The executive power was forced to engage in targeted regulation of socio-economic processes rather than directly managing the state.

It can be concluded that in Russia, at the stage of formation of its new administrative apparatus, although there was no civilized competition with the private sector in the provision of public services, and “not from a good life”, there were other, much larger problems: extreme bureaucratization and hierarchization of the state apparatus in the absence of a general system, aggravated by the traditions of political culture and the increased role of the human factor; emphasis on specific individuals and their connections, and not on the functions that they must perform according to their position; as a result - huge scales of corruption. When appointing to public positions, it was often not so much the competence of the official that was taken into account, but his connections with certain groups of people. Obviously, in such a system, the quality of public services also left much to be desired.

Thus, Russia needed an administrative reform that basically contained a transfer to the principles of the “new state management”, but adjusted for the above-mentioned factors and traditions of political culture. Its beginning was laid in 2004, when V.V. Putin signed Decree No. 314 "On the system and structure of federal executive bodies." According to this decree, all central executive authorities were divided into three parts - federal ministries, services and agencies. The ministries were supposed to be responsible precisely for the formation of policy, to consist of an extremely small number of high-ranking officials, “creative minds”. Services and agencies were conceived as independent and more numerous bodies responsible: the first - for the implementation of policy, and the second - for control over its implementation. It was assumed that the services and agencies would be independent of the ministries and the latter would not influence them in any way: in particular, they would indicate how exactly to allocate the budget and how much it was necessary to check the work of any body. It was also planned to gradually transfer agencies to performance-based budgeting.

However, some problems have arisen in the implementation of this concept in practice. In particular, agencies and services similar in profile were subordinated to the ministries, which immediately threatened the independence of the latter. In addition, the agencies have not moved, as originally planned, to self-sufficiency. As Ya. Kuzminov, one of the developers of the reform, writes, "they remained small ministries" for the distribution of the budget. Senior ministries and junior ministries appeared, subordinate to them, and given that the junior ministries had all the money, the senior ministries wanted to delay all decisions for themselves. This resulted in protracted bureaucratic wars ... ". The fact that "the ministers began to pull the administrative blanket over themselves", V.V. Putin stated repeatedly, but the situation practically did not change until 2009.

Before the new president D.A. Medvedev immediately faced the task of once again restructuring the system and eliminating its shortcomings. However, this issue has even ceased to be mentioned in the official speeches of the head of state. It cannot be said that the reform was suspended. It was continued, but in completely different aspects - those that are traditionally considered side. Small reductions in the total number of officials were carried out, as well as actions aimed at forming information society in its political aspect: increasing transparency in the activities of executive authorities and the creation of "electronic government". This term in its broad sense means the use of information and communication technologies as a tool to achieve better governance. First of all, this refers to the provision of public services using modern technologies. The formation of "electronic government" is an important component of modern administrative reforms, but it can be effective only if the main part of the reform works - optimization of the structure and functions of the executive branch. However, since 2009 this area has become the only area of ​​administrative reform. First of all, we are talking about the opening at the end of 2009. single portal on access to public services http://gosuslugi.ru, similar to the British UK Online and the American Firstgov.gov.

However, there are still many problems in this direction. Due to the already mentioned traditions of political culture, as well as the weakness of the infrastructure, these innovations are still very poorly accepted by both society and bureaucrats. As President D.A. Medvedev in his Address to the Federal Assembly in November 2010, people have complaints about how this system works. We need to improve it further.

Thus, there have been clear differences in the content of the administrative reform at the Putin and Medvedev stages. If in the first case, attempts were made to systemic reforms, which ended rather unsuccessfully, then in the second, the systemic reform was suspended and emphasis was placed on the formation of an information society, the success of which is also very ambiguous so far. If we assume that these actions are temporary and are only part of the image of D.A. Medvedva as an independent political figure with the positioning of his difference from V.V. Putin on every fundamental issue, then after the election of V.V. Putin in 2012 as President of Russia, we can expect the return of the systemic nature of administrative reform.

However, even here certain doubts arise. First, the system showed its insufficient viability much faster than by 2008. At the same time, no global measures to correct it V.V. Putin did not. Secondly, it can be assumed that the current system as a whole suits the majority of representatives of the power vertical and the bureaucratic apparatus itself. For example, back in 2008, the head of the Presidential Administration and the head of the commission on administrative reform, S.E. Naryshkin stated that in the system administration only point adjustments will continue, and cardinal changes should not be expected. He also expressed the idea that “the link between the ministry and the agency does not always work well”, therefore “corrections are possible in the form of joining agencies to ministries” . That is, in fact, we are talking not just about the lack of further reform, but about the tendency to return to the old system.

Given the above, if we talk about the possible prospects for reform, it is appropriate to assume that any global changes here are possible only in the event of a thorough reform of the entire political system and the emergence of political competition, the need for which D.A. Medvedev. But the solution of this issue largely depends on the political situation.

If we talk mainly about the “technical” side of the issue, then we can conclude what specific changes are currently needed. Before implementing the model of “new state management” in Russia, taking into account the traditions of political culture described above, it is necessary to change the ideology of the organization of public service and management in general. In fact, we need to move from the idea of ​​serving society to the idea of ​​providing services for it, from the idea of ​​the dominance of the hierarchy to the idea of ​​public administration as a market in which you have to constantly prove the high consumer value and economy of what you do. For this, it is necessary to revise the concept of training civil servants in higher educational institutions, the introduction of permanent certification of employees and the gradual leaching of experienced officials from the apparatus who cannot adapt to the new system.

There is also a need for a global review of the entire system of public service provision in order to meet the needs of their recipients as efficiently as possible and transfer the ability to provide most services to the private sector. Then it will be possible to determine which services are not received by all citizens on a proper scale, and which, on the contrary, do not find their recipients. It will be possible to define economic efficiency services. And only at this stage it is possible to proceed with administrative reform in its narrow sense, that is, the distribution of powers between executive bodies of various specifics - policy-makers, executors and controllers. The result should be a clear picture that will allow every official, from the smallest functionary to top-level managers, to understand where his powers begin and end.

So, in order to improve the efficiency of public administration, Russia currently needs new round large-scale administrative reforms, including the reduction of the bureaucracy, improving the quality of public services, the transition to the "information" society and a new revision of the structure and functionality of the central executive authorities.

However, it is obvious that if the reform is not started with the preparatory measures outlined above, the reform will not solve the problem of corruption and the human factor, which actually happened in Russia over the past few years. Here, the evolution of the entire management model from the dominance of informal practices to more regulated activities is necessary. And only then can the administrative reform lead to a significant increase in the efficiency of public administration and the quality of public services, which, among other things, should help reduce corruption at all levels of government.

Bibliographic list

1. Annual big press conference of V.V. Putin. 2008 URL: http://www.polit.westsib.ru/text/read/2577.

2. Miletsky V.P. Russian Modernization: Prerequisites and Prospects for the Evolution of the Welfare State. SPb., 1997.

3. Volkova A.V. Political culture and administrative-political reforms in Russia: author. dis. ... cand. sociological Sciences. SPb., 2000.

4. Dead ends and prospects for administrative reform // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 04/07/2006. No. 70(3750).

5. Annual Address of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly. 2008 // Russian newspaper. A week. 11/06/2008. No. 4787.

6. Smorgunov L.V. Electronic government in the context of modern administrative reforms in the West // Technologies of the information society - the Internet and modern society: works of the VI All-Russian. united conf. St. Petersburg, November 3-6, 2003. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg State University, 2003. P. 133-135.

7. Annual Address of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly. 2010 // Russian newspaper. 2010. No. 47.

8. While I am non-partisan. Deputy Prime Minister S.E. Naryshkin - about the Russian presence in Svalbard, administrative reform and party government // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 10/17/2007. No. 4493.

9. Materials of the official blog of the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev. URL: http:// kremlin.ru/news/9599 11/23/2010.

10. Knyaginin V.A. From the "administrative" state to the "market" // Russian expert review. 2006. No. 5.

E.A. Pashkovskiy*

ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF EFFICIENCY OF STATE ADMINISTRATION IN MODERN RUSSIA

The article considers basic problems of efficiency of central executive power in modern Russia. Author examines a prerequisite of insufficient organization of the system, as well as the main problems arisen at this stage of administrative reform; the possible prospects of this reform and improving state administration in Russia are also analyzed. The author concludes that state administration reform can achieve the greatest effect only within a major reorganization of political system.

Key words: governance, administrative reform, "new public management", the political culture of Russia, the information society.

* Pashkovskiy Evgeniy Alexandrovich ( [email protected]), the Dept. of Political Science, Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, Saint Petersburg, 194017, Russian Federation.

The principles listed above should contribute to the formation in the public administration system of qualities that allow, on the one hand, to ensure the implementation of the will of the majority of citizens who expressed support during the elections to one or another political course, and on the other hand, to take into account the whole range of objective circumstances when choosing the optimal one for a particular situation. solutions. However, the achievement of such an ideal model of public administration is hindered by a number of circumstances that deform its basic principles.

There are several problem areas in the public administration system, in which processes are generated that reduce its efficiency and effectiveness. The first problem area arises where the interaction of the state, its officials with interest groups takes place. In ch. 10 it was noted that modern society a system of representation of interests is taking shape, allowing various social groups not only to articulate their interests, but also to participate in the discussion of issues that become the subject of state policy.

In general, the system of representation of interests in a democracy makes it possible to create reliable channels of communication between the state and civil society structures. However, there are a number of circumstances that deform the system of representation of interests, turning it from a system that transmits the preferences of the majority to state structures, into a system where state officials hear the opinion of only certain groups, and not so much numerous as active, organized, united and with significant resources, especially financial ones.

The most serious factor that distorts the real picture of interests represented in society is lobbying.

Lobbying is an activity carried out on the order of certain organizations or groups and consists in putting pressure on public officials in order to make decisions that are beneficial to customers.

Lobbying activities, even if we are not talking about outright bribery of officials, require significant financial resources used to convince government decision makers to conduct information campaigns, establish contacts, and form public opinion on the issue of interest to the lobbyist. Therefore, as a rule, interest groups with large funds, primarily financial and industrial groups, resort to lobbying technologies.

Corporations, resorting to lobbying to push through their own interests, can seriously influence the development of public policy. They can push through such decisions in the field of financial, tax, environmental policy that will not meet the preferences of the majority, the national interests of the country as a whole. For example, the vigorous activity of the military-industrial lobby can lead to a redistribution of funds in the state budget to the detriment of expenditure items for education and science policy.

Thus, the unequal opportunities of interest groups in their influence on government decision makers, and most importantly, the use of lobbying technologies, lead to the fact that public policy ceases to meet the expectations of the majority of citizens.

The second problem area is related to the functioning of the civil service institution, within which there is a special group of civil servants who are directly involved in the development and implementation of government decisions, but at the same time have their own recruitment channels, which are not public. In a democratic society, senior leaders in the public administration system receive their positions as a result of electoral victory and therefore are more dependent on the opinion of voters, which makes them more willing to respond to the needs and demands of the population. However, the majority of officials do not depend on the will of the voters and in their activities are guided by their own understanding of public interests, which may differ from the real expectations of citizens. As a result, politicians who come to power as a result of electoral victory inevitably face the viscosity of the bureaucratic apparatus, when the proposed initiatives are extinguished by bureaucratic inertia, decisions are made slowly and it is not possible to find a quick answer to the problem that has arisen. Being the main source of information for politicians, civil servants control the flow of information and thus influence political decisions.

The reasons for the inefficiency of the state bureaucracy, as shown by the American economist U. Niskanen, also lie in the specifics of the motivation of government officials who seek to maximize the budget of the organization, institution where they work. It does not matter whether they are guided by the best of intentions (for example, employees of the Ministry of Health may advocate increased spending on public health) or group interests. In any case, with an increase in the budgetary funds that they can manage, the bureaucracy has more work to do, career prospects improve, and opportunities for patronage increase, including through the redistribution of funds, which is used by officials to increase their own authority, and often personal enrichment. . In an effort to get the maximum amount of funds from the state budget, each department makes great efforts to convince the public of the significance of precisely that state policy that promises certain benefits to the administrative apparatus.

Thus, the objective conditions for the functioning of the state bureaucracy as a special social group are such that, participating in the process of developing, adopting and implementing state policy, it introduces its group ideas into this process, thereby distorting the principles of public administration. The distorting effect becomes stronger the more the bureaucracy becomes corrupt and shows a clear propensity to embezzle public funds. Corruption is the main reason for choosing suboptimal options for solving social problems.

The third problem area in the system of public administration is intrastate relations between ministries and departments. The state, having assumed responsibility for the development of state policy, is forced, as society and social demands become more complex, to create institutions and departments specializing in the management of various aspects of public life. However, this differentiation led to the emergence of a cumbersome state apparatus with the inevitable problems for such a large machine. We are talking, firstly, about the rivalry between departments for the funds of the state budget; secondly, about a kind of autarky, when one department does not know what the other is doing; thirdly, about the difficulties of coordinating actions in solving a common problem; fourthly, about attempts to shift responsibility onto each other.

The complex structure of the modern state leads to the emergence of many decision-making centers. Such disagreement cannot but give rise to clashes of departmental, administrative-territorial approaches, creating conflict grounds in the process of agreeing on preferences regarding development prospects. individual areas social development.

The appearance of the fourth problem zone in the mechanism of development and implementation of state policy is associated with the logic of state power, which allows persons occupying certain positions in the state hierarchy to receive additional benefits in addition to those incomes that are the equivalent of their labor. In fact, we are talking about the possibility of extracting rental income from political, public office that appears in the system of state power. These incomes include not only additional cash and material benefits that an official can receive by using his official position, but also intangible benefits - satisfaction of the need for prestige, respect, power over other people, etc.

If the pursuit of political rent, especially in its material terms, becomes the key motive for the activity of a politician or government official, then it is likely that, focusing on rental income, he will increasingly deviate from the principles of public administration. The creation of exceptional benefits (privileges) for public officials requires an appropriate redistribution of resources, and, consequently, a reduction in the funds needed to solve socially significant problems.

The listed flaws in public administration are caused by objective factors inherent in the very nature of state power. They manifest themselves with the greatest force in totalitarian regimes, where the people are deprived of the possibility of real influence on decision-making processes, and the bureaucracy, using its predominant position in the system of state power, manages society based on its own vision of the prospects for its development. However, even in representative democracies, the state cannot fully prevent the loss of efficiency and effectiveness of public administration.

The foregoing does not mean that efforts to optimize public administration are not being made - this is reflected, in particular, in the search for new models of public administration.

• When writing this paragraph, materials were used prepared by the author of the chapter “Economic Foundations of the Political Mechanism in the Public Sector” in the textbook “Economics of the Public Sector” (Edited by P. V. Savchenko, I. A. Pogosov, E. N. Zhiltsov. M .: IPFRA -M, 2009).
• Niskanen W. Bureaucracy and Public Economics. Aldershot (Hants, England); Brookfield (Vermont, USA): Edward Elgar, 1994.